How to avoid tanking!

[whitito 187]

I must declare that I did not come up with this, it was taken from the "The Sports Guy" a US based columnist on ESPN but I have changed it to suit the AFL.

As we all know come round 18, any team without a chance to make the finals sends their injured stars off for early surgery in order to enable them to be ready for the preseason, and in the process they drop the talent level of the group and in turn lose games in the disguised hope of "earning" the number one pick.

At present the wooden spoon and number one pick are highly sought after, as the cream is on offer.

I would like to suggest a draft lottery where each team simply gets one ball in a total of eight chances to secure the number 1 pick.

So picks 1, 2 and 3 are all up to the lottery, after that, if the bottom placed team has not received a pick yet it should revert to the order they finished.

Therefore the team who finished 9th may just get that extra player to push them to the elite level. Think about it....would it have been the worst thing in the world if say Richmond over the past couple of seasons had been lucky enough to get No 1 twice, it could have secured Gibbs and Franklin. Would it have seen the fabric of the AFL crumble? What it would have done would be to push Richmond up and up and I think that the AFL needs constant change of super sides.

Also there would be no benefit to tank at all, giving members and supporters there monies worth as memberships are over 22 games not 18.

I think this would be a great innovation to the AFL as the season is already compromised, without stars being put out to pasture before time.

I would be really excited as a supporter of a team who just needed that extra player to push them over the top. As we all know the worst position to finish is 9th. Thiis way there is no benefit to tank.

[Rivers Run Red 182]

Therefore the team who finished 9th may just get that extra player to push them to the elite level. Think about it....would it have been the worst thing in the world if say Richmond over the past couple of seasons had been lucky enough to get No 1 twice, it could have secured Gibbs and Franklin. Would it have seen the fabric of the AFL crumble? What it would have done would be to push Richmond up and up and I think that the AFL needs constant change of super sides.

Richmond could have had Franklin, they took Deledio and tambling before Franklin was picked.

[whitito 187]

Richmond could have had Franklin, they took Deledio and tambling before Franklin was picked.

Sorry I remember now, but what do you think of the idea?

Forget Richmond, what about sliding Deledio and Franklin into the teams who finished 9 or 10 last year.

My draft knowledge is poor, the idea is a cracker.

[grazman 6,451]

I think it's something the AFL should seriously look at. The unfortunate reality of modern footy is that if you aren't going to make the finals then cold hard logic dictates that you will receive more benefits by winning less games (apart from maybe the negative impact of supporters and sponsors). Do teams tank games? I don't think we will ever get a definitive answer, but purely from a pragmatic point of view (as opposed to the footy purist) they'd be stupid not to - particularly if it means they can get a greater slice of pie at the end of the season with a concessionary pick.

[BAMF 3,787]

yeah but that could mean that west coast finishes on top of the ladder and then get the first round pick. imagine what supporters would be saying then.

[whitito 187]

Teams who finish 1-8 are excluded from the lottery, so they would get the pick that they are entitled to due to where they finish. only 9-16 are in the lottery.

[Dreamin' Demon 10]

I like it & the AFL should seriously consider it. But they wont, because this idea has been around forever & they know about it.

The AFL being the AFL will always think they know better.

[Gorgoroth 12,320]

how to pretend your not tanking?

play ward

[Rivers Run Red 182]

This sounds like the NBA draft lottery system before they introduced the weighted lottery draft.

The way the NBA draft currently works is...

14 ping-pong balls numbered 1 through 14 are placed in a drum. There are 1,001 possible combinations when four balls are drawn out of 14, without regard to their order of selection. Prior to the Lottery, 1,000 combinations are assigned to the Lottery teams based on their order of finish during the regular season, eg. the worst record in the Lottery has a 25% chance (250 combinations) of winning the first pick, teams two (20%; 200 combinations) through six (6.4%; 64 combinations) have slightly fewer chances, etc.

Four balls are drawn to the top to determine a combination. The team that has been assigned that combination will receive the number one pick. The four balls are placed back in the drum and the process is repeated to determine the number two and three picks. (Note: If the one unassigned combination is drawn, the balls are drawn to the top again.)

Could work, but then it is based on chance, and teams will still tank to get more of a chance.

Giving teams 9 - 16 the same chance at the number one pick could create a superteam, although it would be unlikely that the same team would get the number 1 pick in running years, but then again when you leave it to chance anything can happen.

[sylvinator 96]

the team last on the ladder should get the number 1 draft pick, because they were the worst team in the competition and in order for them to become competative again they need the talent into the team...simple as that.

give richmond for example...let's say they come last for the next 5 years, and are unlucky enough to get pick 8 every single time. pick 8 is no certainty to be a 200 game player, while number 1-3 is a certain massive talent addition to ur squad. This would mean richmond would never be able to recover and become competative again.

for this reason it is a poor proposal...

The only possibility i would consider is if the bottom 2,or 3 teams had a lottery for picks 1,2,and maximum 3 in the draft.

that theory seems more reasonable than the bottom 8 teams having a chance to get the number 1

[deanox 8,621]

" while number 1-3 is a certain massive talent addition to ur squad. "

i was going to point out that top 3 draft pick doesnt mean everything. then i read your member name...

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

The lottery I'd heard of, and I have NO idea where this comes from (probably the NFL), went something like this.

9th gets 1 ball.

10th gets 2

11th 4

12th 8

13th 16

14th 32

15th 64

16th 128

Sounds silly at first, but it gives the team who comes last just under a 50% chance of getting the first pick. It makes it easier for them to get at it, but makes it POSSIBLE for them to lose it to one of the other 7 clubs. Once a team's ball is drawn, their balls (in the lottery...) are removed and it continues to the next step. Let's say, by merest chance, the team who came 15th get lucky and land the first pick. In the next draw the 16th team will have a 66% chance of getting the second selection.

This is a very rough memory, I think they may have mumbled something about it on talking footy years ago. Seems like it's along the right lines to me...

[PriorOpportunity 0]

NFL doesnt have a lottery.

But I like that variety of it, almost makes it likely that 16th will get the first pick but not totally.

The thing is, even if you bring in a lottery, teams will be accused of tanking games for more balls in the barrell.

I think the only real way to stop tanking is for prize money to be awarded for each home and away game. Enough to make it worth teams winning over gaining a higher draft picks. Not going to happen though.

All up, its probably ok as it is. You only have to look at past drafts to see that alot of drafting is luck. Plenty of top picks havent worked out.

But then, a lottery would be entertaining to watch. Maybe. Im sure some network could dress it up for footy starved fools like me in the summer.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

The change of the priotiy pick system was a good move. My understanding is that it went from...

Win less than 6 games, you get a priority pick before round 1.

to

Win less than 5 games, you get a priority pick before round 2. Repeat the same failure in the year immediately following this, and you qualify for a priority in round 1.

I'm sure there are specific things wrong with that, but it's more or less right. I love the idea that teams like Carlton and Essendon could conceivably still get a priority pick before round 1, but the likelihood is they've won enough matches already for them to be in the box seat to be denied the right to this bonus.

So going by that, let's say Richmond and MFC both end on 4 wins or less, we'll get pick 1 or 2, then picks 17 and 19 or 18 and 20... IMO I think we'll win enough matches to be denied the pick, but Richmond won't. Things aren't as boring as they look at the arse-end of the ladder!

[whitito 187]

give richmond for example...let's say they come last for the next 5 years, and are unlucky enough to get pick 8 every single time. pick 8 is no certainty to be a 200 game player, while number 1-3 is a certain massive talent addition to ur squad. This would mean richmond would never be able to recover and become competative again.

If you finish last, at worst you would get the 4th pick.

[Adzman 2,085]

There isn't any value in tanking in the afl. Sure, you end up with one of the top picks, but without a prority pick you only get one shot at the cream on the draft table. Most often than not, the best kids in the land are early picks. this isnt always the case. Gems can be taken 2nd and 3rd round. The value of an early pick in the draft is handy for trading, but is a ONE top pick now worth the sponsors and membership you lose to gain it? In the MFCs case- HELL NO!

If we are sitting 3-14, i would be happy if the dees tanked the last few rounds. Until all mathematical hope is lost, we should be playing to win. The best player can be taken with pick 50ish in the draft, it has happened before (Hird). No point tanking, ONE early pick means sweetFA these days.

[deanox 8,621]

while i agree that a champ can be taken with a lateer pick, the way the science of drafting is moving now it is becoming more and more likely that the top picks are stars. this isnt to say that the later picks are duds but the chances arent as great...