Incentive to cheer for a loss

[GOilers88]

Some fans realize you can't win in this league without high elite talent. The most efficient and consistent way of getting high elite talent in this league, is through the draft. Not through trades or free agency.

Tanking doesn't guarantee you success.

Not getting high picks does guarantee you'll struggle to get elite talent on your roster - Detriot and NY Rangers come to mind.

Using the Oilers as an example of why rebuilding doesn't work, is note a fair example - Edmonton have been so sensationally bad at building anything, that they are the extreme exception to the norm.

You don't need to tank and get a top 5 pick to draft successfully and build a solid team. Does it expidite the process? Of course it does but it's not necessary if you have competent people running your organization. Detroit spent 25 years in the playoffs. The Rangers were perennial contenders as well.

How many years has Nashville finished with a top 3 pick after tanking? San Jose? LA?

 

[TheOtherOne]

We root for a loss because, in the end, its a net positive for the organization. It's not like we're rooting for the organization to crumble.

Glendening and Helm leading us to a late season victory is a bad outcome for the organization. It's really, really hard to get excited about that.

I don't think you can get too caught up in trying to fix these tank issues because there is no fix. You will just keep creating problems you're not happy with. The simpler the better.

If you want to celebrate a meaningless victory, all the power to you. That doesn't mean we all have to fall under the same category that conveniently fits your wants.

See, this plays exactly into the point I'm trying to make. With the current system, you're absolutely right. It makes perfect sense to cheer for a loss. It makes perfect sense to hope Glendening and Helm DON'T lead us to victory. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't "cheer" that way, with the current state of the league.

I see that as a problem. It's a joke for the spirit of competition. The team you're a fan of is trying to win a game. You should be happy when they succeed. That happiness should not be tainted by incentives like draft priority.

So I want to change the rules so it ONLY makes sense to cheer for a win, each individual game. With my proposal, the idea is, for game 1, you hope your team wins because you need wins to make the playoffs. For game 82, you hope your team wins to improve your draft position. But even if your team fails horribly all season, you will still get a very good draft pick to help your future, and at the same time, each individual game you hope your team wins to help your future even further.

As I said, it is very hard to accomplish this perfectly, but I'm trying to get as close as possible. As often as possible, for as many games as possible, I want it to MAKE SENSE to cheer for a win, no matter what kind of fan you are, whether you have short term or long term goals in mind.

 

[Tak7]

You don't need to tank and get a top 5 pick to draft successfully and build a solid team. Does it expidite the process? Of course it does but it's not necessary if you have competent people running your organization. Detroit spent 25 years in the playoffs. The Rangers were perennial contenders as well.

How many years has Nashville finished with a top 3 pick after tanking? San Jose? LA?

....how else do you acquire a top 5 pick?

 

[KingsFan7824]

Agree I dont think "tanking" happens as much as people think. Usually teams who are in these positions have lots of turnover the next year anyways. Guys who are not clear cut roster players will have to bust their ass to stay. That and these guys are professionals, they want to win. Many have never accepted losing on any level.

It all depends on the perspective. Players will not tank. They may not go at a playoff level if they're on the 28th overall team in late March, but they're not quitting. Coaches, in all likelihood, won't actively tank. They would have to be very secure in their job to do that. GM's have a longer scope of things, especially if they're secure in their job. They have a bigger picture in mind, so if they set a team up from the start of a season to probably not be good, that's a franchise building strategy, which you hope pays off. It's like taking out a big student loan. As long as the draft exists, outside of a league wide lottery where every team has the same odds at every 1st round pick, a couple GM's are going to take that route every year.

The tanking most people talk about, no, that doesn't happen in any meaningful percentage. Has it happened? Probably. Trading a soon to be UFA if you're out of the race isn't tanking though. Having a guy get surgery that ends his season with 20 games left if you're well out of the race isn't tanking. There is going to be a next season, no matter how much fans hate hearing that, and GM's have to take that into account.

I wish there was an incentive for fans of spoiling teams to actually cheer for their teams to win. Having ALL teams in February and March going all out to win games is what's best for the league. If teams want to tank in October through January, then so be it. However, in February and March every team should be going all in to win games.

Why would Oct-Jan be good?

You can't force the 27th overall team to play all out in March. Give every player on bad teams an extra $500k for every win they get in Feb/Mar, and then maybe they would do what you want. But the ideas like a team's winning % after they get eliminated determines their draft position isn't going to make the players play any harder late in the season. If players were locked into one franchise for their entire career, then maybe. Why would players go harder if there's nothing in it for them personally though? They don't care about the next great 18 year old. They could easily be traded from the team a few months later, and never benefit from the next great teenager. GM's might care. Fans certainly do, because fans are stuck with their favorite team, year after year, decade after decade, and none of us get paid for that.

Fans can want their team to win or lose any particular game at any particular time of the season, neither one makes you a better or worse fan, but fans have to accept what the players ultimately do on the ice. Can't blame players if they win when they should lose for the greater good of the organization.

 

[GOilers88]

....how else do you acquire a top 5 pick?

I said you don't need to get top 5 picks to draft good players.

To actually answer your question though, I'd say have a gander at Dallas and Philly last year. They weren't trying to lose at all and still wound up picking 2 and 3.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Why would Oct-Jan be good?

Because you want all games down the stretch to be as competitive as possible. That's what's best for the league. Granted, you'd want that for the entire season, but if we had to choose the most important time of the year for every team to win every game it'd be for the latter part of the season.

You can't force the 27th overall team to play all out in March. Give every player on bad teams an extra $500k for every win they get in Feb/Mar, and then maybe they would do what you want. But the ideas like a team's winning % after they get eliminated determines their draft position isn't going to make the players play any harder late in the season. If players were locked into one franchise for their entire career, then maybe. Why would players go harder if there's nothing in it for them personally though? They don't care about the next great 18 year old. They could easily be traded from the team a few months later, and never benefit from the next great teenager. GM's might care. Fans certainly do, because fans are stuck with their favorite team, year after year, decade after decade, and none of us get paid for that.

Players are always gonna play hard. I understand that.

It's the front offices and managements that are the problem. Giving GM's more of reason to keep their star players instead of selling them off would be a good thing for the league.

Fans can want their team to win or lose any particular game at any particular time of the season, neither one makes you a better or worse fan, but fans have to accept what the players ultimately do on the ice. Can't blame players if they win when they should lose for the greater good of the organization.

Fans rooting for their teams to lose does ruin the integrity of the game. That's my point. There should NEVER be a reason for fans to root for their teams to lose.

 

[Tak7]

I said you don't need to get top 5 picks to draft good players.

To actually answer your question though, I'd say have a gander at Dallas and Philly last year. They weren't trying to lose at all and still wound up picking 2 and 3.

As I said in my initial response, having a high pick is the most efficient way to get elite talent for your organization.

 

[Tak7]

You don't need to tank and get a top 5 pick to draft successfully and build a solid team. Does it expidite the process? Of course it does but it's not necessary if you have competent people running your organization. Detroit spent 25 years in the playoffs. The Rangers were perennial contenders as well.

How many years has Nashville finished with a top 3 pick after tanking? San Jose? LA?

Which is why fans want it.

End of discussion, really.

 

[NobleSix]

People who cheer for losses in a lost season have the bigger picture in mind. Just because they hope for losses in the short term does not mean they don't support the team. Discussing and hoping for what is best for the team in the short, medium, and long term is what being a fan is all about. It's
not always sunshine and roses. It sounds to me like you are looking to revel in joy with a group of cheerleaders. Cheerleaders and intelligent fans are not the same thing. Winning games in a lost season is a whole lot less beneficial for the red wings than losing those games. Its a pretty simple ideology.

Some people aren't content with winning regular season games. They want the cup. That's the ultimate goal. If losing in the short term helps increase the odds of bringing in a cup in the future, then that is much better option than toiling away in mediocrity and never really getting any better.

 

[Munber1]

goal differential would be pretty accurate. if a team is clearly at the low end, it won't really matter if they win some games by a goal or two near the end of the season, and if they do win some games, it's unlikely a bottom team will win several games by several goals no matter hard they try, and a team on or near the bottom won't win all their remaining games anyway, so the goal differential will not likely change by much even if they do win some of their remaining games...also I doubt any fans would want to see their team in a race to the bottom of the goal differential

 

[Jerzey Devil]

Give everyone that misses the playoffs the same odds to win the top 5 picks.

 

[TheMule93]

Give everyone that misses the playoffs the same odds to win the top 5 picks.

then the bad teams will stay bad for longer, on average. Why do that?

 

[MikeyMike01]

Or, just get rid of the lottery. The reason the Oilers got all those first overalls is because of the damn thing.

The draft should be reverse order of seeding. Simple.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

then the bad teams will stay bad for longer, on average. Why do that?

Why do you assume that? At worst the last place team would be picking 6th.

 

[MartyOwns]

It's adorable that missing the playoffs is still so new to Red Wings fans.

Anyways, my suggestions:
A) For every goal your team scores, Little Caesars replaces an existing ingredient with a real one.
B) Every game your non-playoff-bound team wins removes a law. Maybe some obscure blue law goes first, then maybe you're allowed to have horses in restaurants again, now you can go through a drive-thru without being in a vehicle, eventually if your team gets on a roll you can **** a man's face off just because you didn't like the way he shaved.
C) As long as your team is in the lead, drinks are half price. If that's not your bag for some ridiculous reason, then fine, nickel off expired baby food.
D) Every win after whatever cutoff gets your team a Pooch Point. Pooch Points can be redeemed after the regular season ends: 5 Pooch Points lets you award a 2-minute penalty to any team during the playoffs. 10 Pooch Points allows you to drop a random team 5 spots in the draft. 15 Pooch Points allows you to swap two other teams' draft picks. 20 Pooch Points allows you to relocate a team. Pooch Points may not be valid in some states. Consult a physician immediately if Pooch Points are ingested. Pooch Point cash value is 1/100th of a Schrute Buck.

this guy gets it

 

[pineapplestastegood]

I actively cheered for Bruins losses in 14-15, and 15-16 because I didn't want them to be deluded into thinking they were "playoff contenders", so I wanted them to be out of it at the deadline and wouldn't be stupid enough to not only not sell, but be buyers.

I was called every name in the book, said I was trolling, was a bad fan, etc.

Well lo and behold, not all negative opinions are wrong, because I was completely vindicated in doing so. The Bruins were buyers both years, missed the playoffs both years, wasted a bunch of assets (including ones they could've gotten for Eriksson at the deadline) and STILL missed the playoffs both years.

They're fine now and have a great prospect pool, but could've been in an even better position now if they'd done the right thing at the time, instead of grasping at straws hoping for a minimum possible first round playoff exit.

 

[snag]

Personally, I also wish they could get NMCs and NTCs out of the CBA...different can of worms but related in terms of rebuilding a team.

 

[JT Kreider]

I don't want to be like the Sabres. Yeah they got Eichel but they dug themselves in a 20 foot hole to get him. And they're not any closer to digging themselves out of it.

The Rangers winning some games down the stretch kills their hope for Dahlin, but we've also seen some very encouraging signs in those wins. Pionk, Georgie, beast mode Kreider, etc.

Once you allow yourself to be as bad as the Sabres did, it's damn nearimpossible to not continue to be that bad.

They even tried to get out of the proverbial hole with the Kane, Lehner and ROR trades but instead found themselves even deeper then when they started.

Once you pop the fun don't stop.

 

[EakinsMVP]

Before the season starts, everyone registers for whichever team they want to cheer for. Whenever their team wins, they get a coupon for KFC or something. Problem solved

 

[EichHart]

I don't want to be like the Sabres. Yeah they got Eichel but they dug themselves in a 20 foot hole to get him. And they're not any closer to digging themselves out of it.

The Rangers winning some games down the stretch kills their hope for Dahlin, but we've also seen some very encouraging signs in those wins. Pionk, Georgie, beast mode Kreider, etc.

Once you allow yourself to be as bad as the Sabres did, it's damn nearimpossible to not continue to be that bad.

They even tried to get out of the proverbial hole with the Kane, Lehner and ROR trades but instead found themselves even deeper then when they started.

Once you pop the fun don't stop.

What about the Oilers/Leafs last year, Avs this year, and Columbus/Tampa a few years back. One year can make a big difference.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Because you want all games down the stretch to be as competitive as possible. That's what's best for the league. Granted, you'd want that for the entire season, but if we had to choose the most important time of the year for every team to win every game it'd be for the latter part of the season.

I just don't know how you can force that. Other than giving players on bad teams extra money for winning down the stretch.

Players are always gonna play hard. I understand that.

It's the front offices and managements that are the problem. Giving GM's more of reason to keep their star players instead of selling them off would be a good thing for the league.

That's part of the reason for the cap.

Are you talking about the UFA at the deadline deals? GM's should keep those guys to make their own teams better late in the season? I don't imagine the PA would agree to something like that. The UFA, staying on a bad team, playing for the next great teenager, instead of possibly one last chance at the Cup? Players don't, and probably shouldn't, have that kind of loyalty to any single franchise.

Fans rooting for their teams to lose does ruin the integrity of the game. That's my point. There should NEVER be a reason for fans to root for their teams to lose.

The emotional status of fans doesn't have anything to do with the integrity of the game. Maybe the integrity of fandom, but not the game itself.

It's made more sense to lose when you're out of the race ever since the draft was implemented. Players won't play any harder than they do no matter what the system is for determining draft position. Can coaches motivate a team out of the race late in the season by saying we're playing for a better chance to draft McDavid if we win? How many players on the 14-15 Oilers are still on the team today? Some were traded after they made the playoffs with McDavid. Some aren't even in the league anymore. The same head coach isn't even there.

 

[GOilers88]

The fact that so many of you think players won't give it their all even if they aren't making the playoffs speaks volumes. That means there's hundreds of players making millions who willingly mail in the last third of the season. You don't think these guys have any pride or integrity? I bet most of them do. Maybe in the extreme cases of Edmonton,Arizona and Buffalo they mailit in. But I'd be willing g to bet plenty of these guys play just as hard at spoiler, and if they don't then there's absolutely no integrity left in professional sports and it's all one giant farce.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I just don't know how you can force that. Other than giving players on bad teams extra money for winning down the stretch.

Again, the's not the players I'm concerned about. Incentivizng them is not what's needed.

That's part of the reason for the cap.

Are you talking about the UFA at the deadline deals? GM's should keep those guys to make their own teams better late in the season? I don't imagine the PA would agree to something like that. The UFA, staying on a bad team, playing for the next great teenager, instead of possibly one last chance at the Cup? Players don't, and probably shouldn't, have that kind of loyalty to any single franchise.

They can still be traded. All I'm saying is, give GM's a reason to hold on to their players, and make the decision more difficult for the GM's.

The emotional status of fans doesn't have anything to do with the integrity of the game. Maybe the integrity of fandom, but not the game itself.

It's made more sense to lose when you're out of the race ever since the draft was implemented.

And that's the problem.

Players won't play any harder than they do no matter what the system is for determining draft position. Can coaches motivate a team out of the race late in the season by saying we're playing for a better chance to draft McDavid if we win? How many players on the 14-15 Oilers are still on the team today? Some were traded after they made the playoffs with McDavid. Some aren't even in the league anymore. The same head coach isn't even there.

I'm not sure why any of this is relevant when I've already stated that the players aren't the problem.

 

[TheOtherOne]

To be clear, i don't really have a problem with longer term, strategic "tanking" moves like trading vets for picks or overplaying young players. My idea is not intended to remove or punish that. If you want your gm to make your team temporarily worse for potential future improvement, i think that's totally fine.

The only thing i want to remove is the incentive for a fan to cheer for an individual game loss. That is the only part of "tanking" or rebuilding that really bothers me.

 

[tucson83]

I actively cheered for Bruins losses in 14-15, and 15-16 because I didn't want them to be deluded into thinking they were "playoff contenders", so I wanted them to be out of it at the deadline and wouldn't be stupid enough to not only not sell, but be buyers.

I was called every name in the book, said I was trolling, was a bad fan, etc.

Well lo and behold, not all negative opinions are wrong, because I was completely vindicated in doing so. The Bruins were buyers both years, missed the playoffs both years, wasted a bunch of assets (including ones they could've gotten for Eriksson at the deadline) and STILL missed the playoffs both years.

They're fine now and have a great prospect pool, but could've been in an even better position now if they'd done the right thing at the time, instead of grasping at straws hoping for a minimum possible first round playoff exit.

i think that's why the bruins are good now because they didnt want to tank and wanted to compete no matter what, what made the players want to compete more every year even though they fell short and why are good right now, that's why tanking is dangerous because it can set a bad mindset on the players.