Draft Lottery
 

Should the NFL have a draft lottery, NBA style?

Why or why not?

Chiefs should just be given the number 1 pick every year to atone for the refs constantly being biased against us.

No

Absolutely not. Don’t open that door

I wouldn't hate it. The NFL sells "parity" but.....there's 6 teams that can win a SB. We know them now, in May.

no. The NBA is different. 1 player can define a franchise on a team fielding 5 players.

No..lotteries are stupid, a team being terrible and picking 5th is honestly bullshit. If you want to use tanking as a strategy more power to you, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Also you'll never escape the questions of if it's rigged. People say tanking hurts fandom, tell me what hurts more tanking to get the #1 pick or being the worst team ever and picking 6th.

MLB and NHL have lotteries now as well, the entire thing is stupid.

If it's better to lose games, your sport has an issue.

I mean, it would benefit us in the Mahomes era to have the chance of picking higher than 31-32.

You can use tanking as a strategy in any sport honestly...it's just ridiculous to have leagues decide "we don't like this strategy get rid of it"

In these leagues only the teams that miss the playoffs go into the lottery the rest pick in their normal spot.

If doing so causes less fan interaction, yeah the leagues should step in on it. Why wouldn't they?

Wouldn't it be worse to have your team be god awful and pick 5th? Wouldn't that make fan interest even worse? Like I don't think many teams legit tank on purpose, a few teams were vocal about it like the 76ers and the Astros and we ended up with this...

How do you feel if your just a bad rebuilding team and you get jobbed?

I think there was a short experiment in the 1950s where the regular draft started with the second pick, and the first pick was a pure lottery among all the teams. Let me see if I can find out what happened. I only read it about once a long time ago, and have never heard anything more about it.

I'm not really sure what a lottery solves on first glance. Without a lottery, you might tank to get a higher pick. With a lottery, you might tank for a chance at a higher pick. The strategy is the same, except the lottery adds a little more risk. But I'm not sure that would really change the minds of teams who would be inclined to tank.

Maybe a better approach would be to move your draft spot up by one if you win on the final week of the season. That would prevent weak teams from tanking and strong teams from sitting starters. You'd have a little bit of math to adjust for the fact that half the teams will win, but that's easy to solve.

too easy to rig

10 years ago the Eagles, Chiefs, Bills and Lions fans had never seen their teams win a Super Bowl. Now 2 of those teams have, the 2 others are Super Bowl contenders and teams like the Bengals played in a Super Bowl recently.

Long suffering teams like the Commanders finally got a QB and were a game from the Super Bowl.

How can you say that isn’t parity? If anything, we’ve learned that bad ownership is the primary cause of futility

A team or two jumping up and having a run isn't parity.

Again, there's 3, maybe 4 teams in the AFC that will be in the SB this year. No?

That’s because in any given era there are only 5-6 true franchise QBs who can elevate their team.

Oddly, because of its nature and randomness, MLB has the most parity of any pro sport.

Okay, here we go. From 1947 to 1958, the first pick in the draft was awarded on a lottery basis as a bonus pick, with all teams equally weighted in the draw. The order of the draft was not changed other than adding a "bonus" #1 pick, so the winning team that year essentialy got two first-round choices. If a team won the lottery, they were then excluded from future lotteries until every team had won. They basically got through one cycle of the existing teams by 1958 and then abandoned the system.

Is this a good system or a bad system?



https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profoo...have-one-again

For the sake of history the twelve bonus picks were:

1947 - RB Bob Fenimore (Bears)
1948 - RB Harry Gilmer (Redskins, not the Commanders)
1949 - C/LB Chuck Bednarik (Eagles)
1950 - WR Leon Hart (Lions)
1951 - RB Kyle Rote (Giants)
1952 - QB Bill Wade (Rams)
1953 - WR Harry Babcock (49ers)
1954 - QB Bobby Garrett (Browns)
1955 - QB George Shaw (Colts)
1956 - QB Gary Glick (Steelers)
1957 - RB Paul Hornung (Packers)
1958 - QB/P King Hill (Cardinals)

It looks like maybe some teams should have invested more money in scouting.

Also you'll never escape the calls that it's rigged the fact that Dallas has the #1 pick alone makes everyone think it's rigged.

MLB isn't the best a parity far from it.

In the NFL... they've dumbed down playbooks and concepts so much for the athletic running QB that I am not sure that the QB pool is that limited anymore. It's more about the organization and the QB is still the most important position on the field.

I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL turns that direction at some point. Follow the $. They could turn that into a huge money maker. Equivalent to the first night of the draft. Put a ping pong ball for all the franchises who failed to make the playoffs the year prior and have it. Tens of millions of eye balls would be on that. Would also eliminate tanking late in the year.

Bottom two teams battle it out the last week of the season for the right to draft first. Or make it a 4 team playoff, for the first four picks. That way teams would have to try and win a least once. I've seen two many teams shut down their high priced players to avoid injury and guaranteed contracts. There is a big difference between drafting 1st and 4th.

This.

Yes, give it to the best professional team in sports, the Kansas City chiefs

No, I hate the god damn draft lottery and hate that baseball implemented it. It's ****ed the Royals multiple times and they've missed out on way better prospects a couple of times. The worst teams need to get the best young talent.

I had an idea to give out draft slots in order of the team with the worst record over 2 years. All playoff teams pick in the last 12 (now 14) draft slots according to current rules.

It gave a lift to teams who can’t seem to avoid the top 10 every year. In my opinion they are truly worse teams than a playoff team who just had a bunch of injuries and all of a sudden winds up picking a generational QB they don’t deserve.

Andrew Luck should’ve been a Cleveland Brown. Don’t tell me the truly worst team in football only needs an outstanding draft to get back to the playoffs. And yes, that includes the Chiefs in 2013.

Also, my method discourages teams from tanking because now you can’t just be bad for a year to get what you want. If you’re going to tank, you need to wait an additional year to see your tank job truly pay off

The NHL just had its 10th worst team win their lottery for the 1st pick.. they had a 2% chance. It's kind of dumb.

Absolutely ****ing not.

The two of us agree on a late-season winning contest to keep teams from tanking, and on average we have over 70,000 posts. So we must be correct.

No

I dunno, you mentioned a 10 year span and said two surprise teams won the Super Bowl... and those two teams have combined for 5 of the past 10, and Tom Brady accounted for 3 more.

The Lions have beat one team with 10+ wins in the playoffs (and they were 10-7) the past two postseasons, same with the Commanders.... the NFC is pretty shitty, so I'd agree there's parity in the sense that some shit team has to play in the NFCCG and meet up with the one SB contender.

No.

In the NFL, if your team sucks ALWAYS, it's poor management. There is every opportunity to improve, and it's rigged in such a way as to be extremely difficult to stay on top.

Even though it would be to OUR benefit in these Mahomes years, I am against it.

I like that it's hard.

Simply, no.

This applies to every sport doesn’t it?

It's not, really.

Is there a recent example where tanking on purpose was beneficial in the NFL? Because I can't think of one.

I think there was a lot of discussion of "Suck For Luck" back in the day. I thought Luck was overrated, but he was still a starting quarterback for several years.

I wouldn't be opposed if it only included the top 5 teams or so. In that case, it wouldn't be something profound like in the NBA or NHL, where a team that's in the middle of the pack gets the #1 pick. The top 5 teams would at least stop pure tanking because there wouldn't be any guarantee that you get the #1 pick.

Just do something like 10 balls, choose 3. That gives you 120 possibilities. Give each of the top 5 a set of 24 combinations.

Anything beyond that I'd be absolutely opposed to.

You might see it next year with a good QB class.

I don't think an NFL team has ever employed it as a season or multi-season strategy. Teams have tanked a final game of a season though..

MLB and NBA have examples of teams using it as a team building strategy.

For example in MLB Tampa, KC, Cubs and Astros all did it..Chicago and Houston it was a legit strategy for Tampa and KC incompetence turned into looking like a strategy.

I'm not asking if anyone's ever done it. I'm asking if it's ever truly worked.

I can't think of a time a team intentionally tanked and got rewarded with a generational player that changed all their fortunes.

And then that organization completed wasted him by forcing him to play hurt and doing next to nothing to help him.

Incompetent organizations are the ones that tank because they're bad enough to do so. The problem is, once they get their golden boy, they're still incompetent and will waste it away immediately.

Depends on if you believe the 1997 Colts that went 3-13 were that much worse than the 1996 Colts that went 9-7 with mostly the same players and the 1995 Colts that had even less talent and went 9-7. Same QB, better Marshall Faulk, better Marvin Harrison, etc.

If they didn't flop for Peyton Manning, then I'm not sure if anything else would ever be believable. They certainly threw games at the end of the 2011 season to get Luck, who would have likely been generational if he played a full career.

Outside of the Colts, I'm not sure of any clear-cut cases. Most teams suck at least for a year or two before they get the #1. I'm sure we could look back and find some teams tanking a few games to get a top 3 pick or something and give themselves a shot.