I only just discovered this week that there is a draft system in the NFL. I sort of knew I suppose, in an academic way prior. Anyway, the point is that the last placed team gets the first draft pick. (I understand?).
There is a similar system in Aussie Rules, and from time to time there is ‘conjecture’ and rumours that a team in the running for the wooden spoon by late in the season deliberately loses their last games to make sure they finish last so as to secure the first draft pick.
Just wondering if this has ever come up in the NFL? If there are any teams claimed to have lost on purpose for a better draft selection?
There has been speculation on this subject, but nothing can be proven. This year, however, the worst team actually won 2 of its last 3 games, and almost played themselves out of the first pick. I didn’t see their last game today, so i do not now how hard they played in losing today. From the box score, they did score last, and it was a close game (They lost 19-13).
Any team that actually intentionally lost to improve their draft position could never admit it. It would trigger an absolute shitstorm in the media, investigations/sanctions from the league, and maybe even criminal charges.
Something you will see…in fact, happened today…is that a team that has locked in their playoff spot, to the extent that either they already have home field advantage all the way through, or at least are in the playoffs and cannot possibly improve their seed, will not play their starters, or pull them early. Green Bay did this today–not wanting to risk injury to their QB in a meaningless game. The difference is that the guys on the field were playing to win…and actually won, in this instance. Indianapolis did this a couple years ago, and blew a shot at a perfect season in the process. They either did not play several starters, or pulled them early in the game, and ended up losing—Peyton Manning wasn’t happy about it.
Yeah I saw a fair bit of the Green Bay game today, and the commentators were making a big deal out of the fact the back up QB had thrown for 400+yards. Quite an entertaining match.
Similar situation in Aussie Rules with throwing games. Nothing official of course but rumours do get started about the results.
It takes years of hard work to build a respectable franchise, no first round draft picks short of Barry Sanders can do it alone.
I suspect any locker room talk of ‘sucking for luck’ destroys any and all motivation to bring it to practice much less a real game. Losing is just flat out embarrassing so until I see a corporate team building exercise utilize humiliation I’m going to have to remain skeptical.
Players and coaches have zero incentive to lose on purpose - they’re playing for their next contract, not for some kid they haven’t drafted and isn’t on the team.
The organization can try and lose but the players are being filmed and scouted for their next pay cheque and thus will give it their all. It’s also dangerous not to give it your all on the field as a player not going 100% is said to be more prone to injury.
That being said, teams can employ strategies to increase their chances of losing. For example, they can play young, unproven talent who are less likely to help in the short term. This helps the organization in two ways: by improving their draft pick and developing young talent. Teams can also trade away older, talented players for draft picks or younger less proven players, which again will help in the long term but hurt their chances that season.
The owners care about the next draft pick. The players care about not being cut. After all that draft pick might be their replacement. On top of that many, especially offensive players, have incentives in their contracts. There is absolutely no motivation for any player to lose for the future of a franchise in which they may no longer be a part of.
While I agree that players are pretty much always going to go all out, if the owner has influence over the coach it would be no great trick to have a game plan designed to lose - let’s focus on running between the tackles against the league’s #2 run defense, say. How many coaches would go along with that sort of thing I can’t really say, but there’s not a lot the players can do in such a situation.
Heh, the backup QB for Green Bay not only got the win, but set new team records for TDs and passing yards, which is something when the team is the Packers. I heard that he’s a free agent next season; he probably just earned himself a couple extra million.
If ever there was a game where a team should have tanked on purpose, it was the Rams in yesterday’s game against the 49ers. You had a 2-13 team playing a 12-3 team, a chance at the overall #1 draft pick, an empty stadium, and a third-string quarterback who joined the team three weeks ago. Instead the idiots insisted on scoring 17 points in the 4th quarter and making a game out of it.
Didn’t matter either way, as the coach and general manager were both fired this morning.
Not so much the trading players part. A team would have to do that by week 6 so it wouldn’t be about losing to get a higher draft pick and more about what they could get in the trade which is a legitimate strategy. Outside of draft day though, NFL trades are pretty uncommon so they are generally looking for this help before the season even starts rather than realizing they are not going to be good mid season and playing for next season.
The NFL probably would go with a lottery type system if one player meant as much as they did in the NBA; The equivalent to the number one pick in the NBA draft is probably something like the entire top 5 or 6 picks in the NFL draft.
I remember the always wonderfully cynical Larry merchant had a book in the early 1970s called “…and every day you take another bite”. He talked about how the Philadelphia Eagles in the 1960s had a bad coach named Joe Kuharich whom the owner gave a 15 year contract to. After some disastrous trades (Sonny Jurgensen for Norm Snead) in 1968 the Eagles were leading the Buffalo bills, on their fifht string QB, in the “draft O.J. Simpson number one” sweepstakes. But to show you just how inept Kuharich was, his team won two of their last three games, Buffalo stayed at one win and O.J. had to go to Buffalo, bitching all the way (especially since the merger a couple years earlier vastly reduced his paycheck). Eagles finished with the third pick and drafted the unspectacular Leroy Keyes and Pittsburgh rubbed it in by drafting Joe Greene next.
How much it helped Buffalo is debatable. With Simpson, who started slowly with bad coaches and injuries but became great, they only went to one playoffs game. But after they traded Simpson to San Francisco, they did get a good running back in Joe Cribbs and had some success in the early 1980s. One of the other draft picks they got was Tom Cousineau who refused to play for them and they got a draft pick for him that turned into hall of Fame QB Jim Kelly (who initially refused to play for them but relented).
I imagine that if anyone did dump games, the NFL would change the system and fine/take away draft picks from the offending team.
None. Same reason as the players. If your team is really that bad, the coach (and usually the GM, too) is usually the first to go. The day after the regular season ends has taken on the moniker “Black Monday” because of all the coaching changes that tend to happen after the last game.
Bill Polian and his son have already taken the hit for Indy and Jim Caldwell is standing on shaky ground. St Louis tossed Devaney and Spagnuolo. Miami already fired its coach but the GM can’t be feeling comfortable for next season. Ditto Tampa.
Also, coaches aren’t guaranteed their jobs. With few exceptions, a coach can pretty much be fired after a single bad season (even Jeff Fisher managed to get fired last season). So, they’re also constantly auditioning for their next jobs, which means getting wins, even in bad situations.
I suppose an owner could make the coach some kind of guarantee that they’d be retained for a year, but how much good would that do? The difference between the 1st and 2nd draft picks is not all that huge. There are 46 players on a team. A single player can make a huge difference but usually doesn’t. And even in the cases a single player does (like Peyton Manning), it takes at least a year or two before the results start showing. And can you really say that the #3 is that much worse than the #2?
And that doesn’t even take into account draft busts. Ryan Leaf? JaMarcus Russell? What if you lose on purpose and get a dud? There’s no point to it. It’s not like basketball where skills will translate more directly from college to the pros.