Dogewow
Such Profile
- Feb 1, 2015
- 2,883
- 291
Rewarding failure fundamentally goes against every aspect of sports and competition.
People need to stop looking at the situation like this.
Rewarding failure fundamentally goes against every aspect of sports and competition.
What if the team that wins the draft lottery didnt get the 1st pick for this draft, but for next year's draft. So, the Leafs (who won in 2016) would be drafting first overall this season.
I think this would work because teams would have no incentive to tank because draft rankings fluctuate so much.
For example, if the Leafs wanted to draft first overall in 2016, they would have to win the lottery in 2015 and would therefore have to begin the tanking process in 2014. But it would be absurd to tank in 2014 to get the 2016 pick because there is no way to tell from that pint who will go first or even if it will be worth tanking in the case of a weak draft.
In the above example, the Leafs may begin tanking in 2014 to get the exceptional Sean Day. But he became a late round pick which goes to show how badly draft rankings can fluctuate
Yep, and then all of the best prospects go to big markets and rich teams and we see a good chunk of the NHL teams eventually fold.
The salary cap still exists. If big market teams pay up for every new top prospect, they're not likely to be able to ice a roster any more than a team that tries to put Crosby, Ovechkin, Benn, Karlsson, Doughty, Kane, Toews, etc on their roster.
Teams are punished by the failure itself. You think it's fun for a team and it's fans to have their skulls kicked in by other teams for 82 games? Wasting a year of your life following along with this crap?Rewarding failure fundamentally goes against every aspect of sports and competition.
Want to eliminate tanking? There's one simple solution but everyone hates the idea for some reason.
You miss the playoffs. You get one lottery ball.
That's it.
I would be all for this. You have to build your team by more then high draft picks and some teams build right but they just need that franchise player to put them over the top which is near impossible.
Slightly off topic here, but John Scott came right out and said in an interview I heard yesterday on NHL radio that when he was in Buffalo they said in camp that they were aiming for either Mc David or Eichel. He said they pretty much came out and said they didn't want to win.
He didn't say who said it, but he said that's what was said in training camp. My assumption was that either management or the coaching staff said something or implied it. He said something like "We're in for either McDavid or Eichel this season, we're not looking to win."
There is and never was a tanking problem... the lottery is stupid and they should get rid of it.
See the Lemieux, McDavid and Matthews draft years. Tanking was legit (especially for Mario).
I love the lottery.
Colorado still gets the 4th pick. Even if a team is terrible for years, picking in that 4-7 range should eventually get you out of the hole.
Being bad is legit. Colorado didn't tank, they just purely sucked.
Tanking may happen when management sees the current path leads to no where and thus make the decision that they need to realign their assets dramatically... rebuilding is required eventually in all sports. The players on the ice and the coach behind the bench still try to win because their future in the league still depends on that more than anything.
Bad teams are bad and need THE MOST help, period.
The NFL has no lottery and there has never been a call for one from the fans, because the fans there get that the worst teams need the most help. Lotteries go against that most basic fundamental fact.
They are not needed.
I never said Colorado tanked. If you actually read my comment, I pointed out 3 situations where it was a known fact that teams tanked for a specific player. I, and most hockey fans, don't like this idea.
The teams are going to be bad either way... the only reason you call it tanking was because of who was available at that pick.
eliminating "Tanking" has always been a solution in search of a problem. The oilers weren't terrible for years by design
Relegation to AHL would be great.
Prior to that the Leafs were on a 10-1-1 stretch and all of the sudden things went down hill. So I don't think it's as easy to say they just gave up on the season.Sure-every team has to decide when to fish or cut bait. Leafs did a lll they could to finish last to get Matthews and they were wildly successful. The year before that they gave up at Christmas and managed to get Marner. The same methods--tanking.
The teams are going to be bad either way... the only reason you call it tanking was because of who was available at that pick.
Bingo.
It is also well documented that Buffalo tanked for Connor with Eichel as the consolation prize and Toronto's goal was 30th and hoped for Matthews.
Keep reading hockey history. Its fun!
Best way to eliminate tanking is by counting after elimination points as the order for the draft lottery. Means that a team needs to put their best foot forward either way.
So if a team has been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs at game 60, they have 22 games to get as many points as possible, the team that gets eliminated at game 70 has 12 games, and the team that gets eliminated at game 82 gets no games.
Whoever gets the most points of the 14 (now 15) eliminated teams after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs gets the highest % chance in the lottery.
1st Tie-breaker: Less points overall
2nd Tie-Breaker: More GP
3rd Tie-Breaker: More Wins
4th Tie-Breaker: More Regulation wins
etc.