Conspiracy theory on "Tanking"

[CHAMP 347]

I anticipate the Dees will trial a new away strip for this game. Predominantly the Deep blue with a small red trim to the neck and a new white MFC logo on the chest...ought to be rather fetching ...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

There was less hanging on the "Bryce Gibbs"match....both sides were going to get a top 2 draft pick, whatever the outcome. Also, there was a rumour at the time that Ess and Carl had come to an agreement before the match. Carl wanted Gibbs. Ess wanted Gumbleton.

With respect to our victory against Carlton this year, we only won because we kicked straight, and they were very inaccurate. Also, we got an armchair ride from the umps, for a change.

Rather than rumours Jack give me facts.

Both sides were not only vying for Bryce Gibbs but a priority pick in the second round.

Given Essendon were crippled in the midfield there is no reason that they would have baulked at Gibbs as the best young footballer in the country.

The same issues apply to that game as to R22 regardless of your opinion of the magnitude.

BTW, whenever someone blames the umpires for the outcome of a game, its usually because they cant work out the real reasons why the game went that way.

[beelzebub 23,364]

amazing....your psychic !! :D

[CHAMP 347]

I imagine it would do the trick nicely.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

Rather than rumours Jack give me facts.

Both sides were not only vying for Bryce Gibbs but a priority pick in the second round.

Given Essendon were crippled in the midfield there is no reason that they would have baulked at Gibbs as the best young footballer in the country.

The same issues apply to that game as to R22 regardless of your opinion of the magnitude.

BTW, whenever someone blames the umpires for the outcome of a game, its usually because they cant work out the real reasons why the game went that way.

Rhino, the Ess/Carl match was in round 16 last year,not round 22, so a lot of water had to flow under the bridge AFTER that match. Also, both sides ended up with 3 wins, so even in round 22 they had a win up their sleeve with respect to priority picks. So this year's potential farce in round 22 is DEFINITELY more of a problem for the AFL. (that's if you accept my contention that it's silly to play a game where the winner seriously damages its future.) Do you accept these facts Rhino?

Another way the AFL could circumvent this situation is to make some secret financial or other incentive to Melb or Carl to reach 20 prem. points before round 22.

[Lamberto Bava 6]

With respect to our victory against Carlton this year, we only won because we kicked straight, and they were very inaccurate. Also, we got an armchair ride from the umps, for a change.

Not necessarily true in my opinon. Carlton only "kicked" 14.10 (14.17) to Melbourne's 19.9 (19.10). We had one rushed behind and they had 7. That said I don't know how many of those 7 came from their shots on goal.

We did do well with the umps though, can't argue with that.

And to the main topic, while Carlton don't deserve the number 1 pick I think they certainly need it more than we do.

[beelzebub 23,364]

and the new Carlton clash jumper :-)

[Guest MFC4Life]

If the AFL want to remove the smear of tanking it should do the following:

2. Make the first 8 draft picks for the bottom 8 clubs subject to lucky dip or a random extraction of numbers like Tattslotto or barrier draws for the Melb Cup.

Rhino, you can have this lottery draft sytem but it should not be all 8 teams at the same time. What if Carlton finished wooden spoon 4 years in a row and drew 7th, 6th, 8th, 8th pick in consecutive drafts for example. There is no way this would help bring them up to a higher level.

They shoud split the lottery into two categories:

16-13th place has a draft lottery for picks number 1-4

12-9th place has a draft lottery for picks 5-8

If you look at this years ladder Fremantle is in 13th spot an elgible under this system for a possible 1st pick. However they are only one game out of the 8 so there is no chance they would try and tank just for a number one pick.

Teams may play weak teams to tank but I don't believe for a second that the teams fielded don't try. Alternatively, what happens if Melbourne finishes in 9th place two years running and for those two drafts recieves say a 1st and 3rd pick. It is such an unsavoury situation for so many reasons.

My system makes perfect system and if the afl is out there you should implement it!

[jacey 333]

Rhino, you can have this lottery draft sytem but it should not be all 8 teams at the same time. What if Carlton finished wooden spoon 4 years in a row and drew 7th, 6th, 8th, 8th pick in consecutive drafts for example. There is no way this would help bring them up to a higher level.

They shoud split the lottery into two categories:

16-13th place has a draft lottery for picks number 1-4

12-9th place has a draft lottery for picks 5-8

If you look at this years ladder Fremantle is in 13th spot an elgible under this system for a possible 1st pick. However they are only one game out of the 8 so there is no chance they would try and tank just for a number one pick.

Teams may play weak teams to tank but I don't believe for a second that the teams fielded don't try. Alternatively, what happens if Melbourne finishes in 9th place two years running and for those two drafts recieves say a 1st and 3rd pick. It is such an unsavoury situation for so many reasons.

My system makes perfect system and if the afl is out there you should implement it!

Not bad but the nba's nearly got it right.

The bottom 8 will all have balls in a barrel. The 16th team might have 8 balls while 15th has 7 etc etc.

The first 3 picks r picked from a barrel n then the draft will default back to the lowest team gets the next pick.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

Not bad but the nba's nearly got it right.

The bottom 8 will all have balls in a barrel. The 16th team might have 8 balls while 15th has 7 etc etc.

The first 3 picks r picked from a barrel n then the draft will default back to the lowest team gets the next pick.

This topic is about THIS year's problem , not future years. Somehow the AFL has to fix up the problem it's created for itself.

[Guest MFC4Life]

I got this of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery

Process

The lottery is normally held during the fourth week of May. The 2007 draft lottery was held on May 22. The Portland Trail Blazers, Seattle SuperSonics, and Atlanta Hawks won the first through third picks, respectively.

To determine the winner, fourteen ping pong balls numbered 1-14 are placed in a standard lottery machine and four balls are randomly selected from the lot. Just as in most traditional lotteries, the order in which the numbers are drawn is not important. That is, 1-2-3-4 is considered to be the same as 4-3-2-1. So although there is a total of 24 orders in which the balls numbered 1-2-3-4 can be picked, they are all treated as the same outcome. In doing this, the permutation of 4 balls from 14 becomes the combination of 4 balls from 14. That is, the total of 24,024 (14! / 10!, or 14x13x12x11) possible permutations is reduced by a factor of 24, to 1,001 combinations. Of these, 1 outcome is disregarded and 1,000 outcomes are distributed among the 14 non-playoff NBA teams. The combination 11-12-13-14 (in any order that those numbers are drawn) is not assigned and it is ignored if drawn; this has never occurred in practice.

In the event a lottery pick is traded to another team, the record of the original team (whose pick it was before the trade) still matters in determining eligibility for the lottery, and assignment of chances.

As of 2005, with 30 NBA teams, 16 qualify for the playoffs and the remaining 14 teams are entered in the draft lottery. These 14 teams are ranked in reverse order of their regular season record and are assigned the following number of chances:

250 combinations, 25% chance of receiving the #1 pick

199 combinations, 19.9% chance

156 combinations, 15.6% chance

119 combinations, 11.9% chance

88 combinations, 8.8% chance

63 combinations, 6.3% chance

43 combinations, 4.3% chance

28 combinations, 2.8% chance

17 combinations, 1.7% chance

11 combinations, 1.1% chance

8 combinations, 0.8% chance

7 combinations, 0.7% chance

6 combinations, 0.6% chance

5 combinations, 0.5% chance

In the event that teams finish with the same record, each tied team receives the average of the total number of combinations for the positions that they occupy. In 2007, the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Portland Trail Blazers tied for sixth worst record. The average of the 6th and 7th positions in the lottery was taken, resulting in each team getting 53 combinations (the average of 63 and 43). Should the average number not be an integer, a coin flip is then used to determine which team or teams receive the extra combination(s).

The lottery is conducted with witnesses verifying that all 14 balls are represented once as they are placed in the lottery machine. The balls are placed in the machine for 20 seconds to randomize prior to having the first ball drawn. The remaining three balls are drawn at 10-second intervals. NBA officials determine which team holds the winning combination and that franchise is awarded the #1 overall draft pick. The four balls are returned to the machine and the process is repeated to determine the second and third picks. In the event that a combination belongs to a team that has already won its pick (or if the one unassigned combination comes up), the round is repeated until a unique winner is determined. When the first three teams have been determined, the remaining picks are given out based on regular season record with the worst teams getting the highest picks. This assures each team that it can drop no more than three spots from its projected draft position.

In the case where a lottery team trades its pick to a playoff team, the playoff team assumes the lottery team's position in all draft lottery situations, unless provisioned by the conditions of the trade.

For the 2007 NBA Draft, the NBA determined tie breakers on April 20, 2007.

Here are the odds for each seed to get specific picks in the 2007 lottery (rounded to 3 decimal places):

Seed Chances

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th

1 250 .250 .215 .178 .357

2 199 .199 .188 .171 .319 .123

3 156 .156 .157 .156 .226 .265 .041

4 119 .119 .126 .133 .099 .350 .161 .013

5 88 .088 .097 .107 .261 .359 .084 .004

6 53 .053 .060 .070 .439 .331 .046 .001

7 53 .053 .060 .070 .572 .226 .018 .000

8 19 .019 .022 .027 .725 .196 .011 .000

9 19 .019 .022 .027 .784 .143 .005 .000

10 18 .018 .021 .025 .846 .087 .002 .000

11 8 .008 .009 .012 .907 .063 .001 .000

12 7 .007 .008 .010 .935 .039 .000

13 6 .006 .007 .009 .960 .018

14 5 .005 .006 .007 .982

A simple explanation: 1000 different outcomes of an experiment exist and are equally likely to occur. A certain amount of outcomes is assigned to each non-playoff NBA team. The largest number of outcomes is assigned to the team with the worst record. The team with the second worst record gets the second largest number of outcomes, and so on for each of the 14 teams in the lottery. The experiment is conducted, and the team to which the winning outcome was assigned receives the 1st pick in the NBA Draft. The experiment is conducted again. If the winner is the same team that already won, the experiment is performed over again until there is a different winner. The winner of the second experiment receives the 2nd pick. The winner of the third experiment receives the 3rd pick. After the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks are determined, the 4th-14th picks are assigned to teams based on weakness of record.

COuld this NB system be applicable to our bottom 8?

[Guest MFC4Life]

Sorry, I tried to clean up the seed chance table before I posted but is hasn't come out right.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Rhino, the Ess/Carl match was in round 16 last year,not round 22, so a lot of water had to flow under the bridge AFTER that match. Also, both sides ended up with 3 wins, so even in round 22 they had a win up their sleeve with respect to priority picks. So this year's potential farce in round 22 is DEFINITELY more of a problem for the AFL. (that's if you accept my contention that it's silly to play a game where the winner seriously damages its future.) Do you accept these facts Rhino?

Another way the AFL could circumvent this situation is to make some secret financial or other incentive to Melb or Carl to reach 20 prem. points before round 22.

It's still the same problem Jack.

Both bottom of the pile sides who if they did not win that game would not win won for the rest of the year.

In both situations this year and last there was significant opportunity to tank.

I see Fevola is out for 3 weeks with a mysterious thigh strain. Bet he does not play again this year. Do you think the AFL can force him to play?

It's a storm in a treacup Jack...relax.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Sorry, I tried to clean up the seed chance table before I posted but is hasn't come out right.

I think it should be the bottom 8 clubs as you could tank into the bottom 4 group.

When you are aiming for the top 8., its unrealistic to tank into the bottom 8.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

It's a storm in a treacup Jack...relax.

I think it's a serious problem. Surely no-one condones deliberately losing, but in the case of round 22,Melb/Carlton, winning the game would be a display of leadership incompetence and naivety.

How do you tell the players not to go flat out? Either Melb or Carlton will solve the problem better than the other.

[deanox 9,914]

it needs to be fixed but the rules cannot be changed at this stage of the season. although the afl will argue it can change the rules whenever it wants and no one can complain because the aim is to win.

i think the lottery where the bottom 8 get drawn for top 3 picks is a good idea. but could you imagine finishing last and getting 4th pick? i would be ropeable.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

it needs to be fixed but the rules cannot be changed at this stage of the season. although the afl will argue it can change the rules whenever it wants and no one can complain because the aim is to win.

i think the lottery where the bottom 8 get drawn for top 3 picks is a good idea. but could you imagine finishing last and getting 4th pick? i would be ropeable.

Not if the system is changed at the end of the previous season where all teams clearly know the rule changes.

[demonfanjezza 1]

I hate this idea of tanking!

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

I hate this idea of tanking!

Same here. But we MUST NOT win that last game!

[Whispering_Jack 30,054]

Same here. But we MUST NOT win that last game!

Here's an interesting conspiracy theory I've come up with straight out of left field and it concerns the sacking/dismissal or whatever of Kevin Sheedy.

The Bombers' next four games are as follows:-

Round 17 v Adelaide at TD

Round 18 v Hawthorn at MCG

Round 19 v Fremantle at Subiaco

Round 20 v Carlton at MCG

The next three games are all potential defeats so imagine the scenario before Round 20 if Essendon suddenly finds itself in 13th place on the ladder with its season shot to pieces and with Sheedy knowing that a loss to Carlton might secure for the Bombers the fourth pick overall in the National Draft as well as serving to prevent an old foe from securing picks 1 and 3?

Far fetched?

Probably, but if Grant Thomas is to be believed, the Bombers tanked last year to improve their draft position. Sheedy is a crafty old fox and he would have nothing to lose at that stage of the season. Why not tank again just for the fun of it?

They say Sheeds is a genius and something like this would prove it!

[demonsflag555657 3]

Does any one remember JUDD was taken at # 3.

Do you really need # 1 some years?

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

Does any one remember JUDD was taken at # 3.

Do you really need # 1 some years?

It's been pretty reliable in recent years, compared to the early years of the draft system.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Does any one remember JUDD was taken at # 3.

Do you really need # 1 some years?

In that year the draft had Luke Ball, Luke Hodge and Chris Judd. Judd has soared, the others have reached significant heights.

I would always want to have the right to choose my No 1 pick and not run the risk of having to choose from a pool of potentially lesser players.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Id agree....always safer having first choice...your choice than counting on things to fall your way.

Kep in mind the Judd year was full of good options..and like options. this year it looks likely teh first two cabs off the rank are the two likely rucks. A sought after commodity

[Jaded No More 68,913]

I now look forward to seeing a pumped up Carlton, win the remainder of their matches under the watchful eye of Ratten, who will then be appointed head coach, leaving us with Voss and an early pick