Years ago, the NBA adopted the lottery system for the draft, because it had become mighty obvious that bad teams were deliberately going in the tank, and losing as many games as possible, in order to get the top draft pick.
The NFL has never gone to such a system. More interestingly, no one has ever suggested that it’s necessary. Just in recent memory, I can think of MANY instances in which bad teams that had no shot at the playoffs (but DID have a shot at a high draft pick) went out and played hard against teams that NEEDED a win to make the playoffs, and actually beat them.
I can’t explain why the Houston Rockets (who I presume were, like most people in pro sports, highly competitive guys) were willing to endure humiliation and defeat to get Hakeem Olajuwon in the draft, while the woeful Houston Texans and San Francisco 49ers have won games down the stretch, hurting their own chances of getting Reggie Bush.
What do you think? Do football teams just have more pride than basketball teams? If not, why don’t they tank the way basketball teams routinely did before the lottery?
It’s against the rules. If the Commissioner felt a team was deliberately losing, it could penalized. Probably by losing the draft picks.
Pride. The players want to win. They really hate to lose. Very few players on a bad team go out each game with the idea, “Man, I think we can draft a rookie in here to help us.” That’s a good way to find yourself unemployed.
Turnover in rosters. With the salary cap, NFL players change teams a lot. Why should they care how good the team will be next year? They want to have a good year this year. Then they can go sign a richer contract with someone else iif possible.
That said, some people have suggested that their be some sort of lottery among the worst teams, but no one seems to care much.
A #1 draft pick in football isn’t nearly as valuable as the #1 pick in basketball. The Houston Texans could add Reggie Bush next year and they probably won’t get a lot better. Look at how much the 49ers improved with #1 pick Alex Smith.
I’m not sure about other sports, but it is very difficult and very dangerous to play football and not try 100%. You stand a greater risk of being injured not giving 100% and paying complete attention on every play.
Also, the players want their jobs. Today, the Cardinals almost beat the Colts. True, the Colts were resting starters, but every player on out there appeared to be giving 100%. Josh McCown had a crucial fumble as he was attempting to cross the goal line. If he scored (play was initially called a touchdown) the Cards win, and McCown might be looked at differently by his team. However, it was ruled a fumble and I highly doubt McCown will be back next year.
The short season may be a factor. The fact that there’s no draft lottery might be, too. If your team starts off the season playing fairly well, you don’t have a chance at a really high pick.
Drafting in the two sports is really very different. The NBA draft goes more on raw talent, and because NFL teams have so many more positions, they don’t always need the guy who’s going to go #1. You rarely plug in a rookie at a major position anyway. The worst teams also tend to have a lot of needs.
Several factors contribute, many of which have already been stated.
For NBA teams, the dropoff in talent between the top few picks and the rest of the draft is often quite large. Certainly much moreso than in the NFL.
A single player in basketball is vastly more important to the team than even a quarterback in football. He’s on the court every play, and he’s one fifth of the team. Combined with the first reason, this provides a powerful incentive to get that top pick.
NFL contracts are not guaranteed, so job security is a huge issue. In the NBA, you’re guaranteed to earn your contract, so throwing games has little or no potential downside to your wallet.
Basketball players are, uh, “more unique” than football players. There is only one Shaq, for instance. How many “one of a kind” football players have there ever been? TO has Randy moss. Who does Shaq have? (This really only applies to Shaq, as even King James has Carmello Anthony, Magic had Larry, etc…)
Well, I’m not sure how many people in the stands realized it, but with the Saints losing in the early afternoon game and locking themselves in at 3-13, San Francisco was out of the Bush running with the strength of schedule tiebreaker to the Saints, so there was little to gain by losing anyhow. As it stands now (8:50pm PST), SF will draft 6th or 7th, behind 3 other 4-12 teams (Titans, Jets, Packers). I believe the positioning of the Oakland & SF depends on the result of the Cowboys-Rams game. Seems like a lot more 2/3/4 win teams than usual this year.
It was a pretty brutal year in Candlestick, but at least Alex Smith got the 0 TD passes monkey off his back before the season ended.
Seemed that way to me as well, and also a lot more 10 and 11 win teams.
I noticed this a few weeks ago. The stratification in the NFL belies the current doctrine of parity. Mathematically, one would expect a league with parity to end up with a plurality of teams hovering near .500, which is exactly what happened last year.
But this year?
13 teams won 10 or more games. (10 of these 13 had 11+ wins.)
5 teams won between 7 and 9 games.
14 teams won 6 or fewer games. (10 of these 14 had 5 or fewer wins.)
The reason NFL teams don’t “tank” like they did in the NBA is ticket sales are a bigger factor in the NFL. with an average attendance of 16,000 fans at an NBA game you might be able to get away with this in the last couple of games in a season. Since there is an average of 65,000 per NFL game who will not be attending your next home game if they think you’re “tanking”, you’d better believe it isn’t an option.
Meh, I doubt it. I think most of the fans would understand if there was an A-1 prospect like Bush available for the top pick. And football is pretty bulletproof when it comes to attendance and TV. Even in the highly unlikely scenario where, say, 20,000 of the fans in attendance decide to not renew their season tickets, there would likely be 30,000 waiting to snap up the newly available slots.
I can’t remember which writer it was, but when he came out of the Jets game a week or two ago after they won, he overheard a bunch of fans griping because the Jets couldn’t even lose correctly in order to get Bush.
I read the Houston newspapers semiregularly. When the Texans managed to eke out their 2nd win, all you saw were complaints and gripes about how the Texans had blown their chance at Reggie Bush.
While Houstonians may have been rooting for the 49ers, rest assured the Texans players were not. There is a much different perspective on how a game should be played between the fans and the players on the field. Guys in pro sports are extraordinarily competitive. They don’t like to lose ever.
If Reggie Bush plays on Houston next year, they may improve from 2-14 all the way to 6-10!
They may well improve to 6-10 as a result of yearly ebb and flow, but given the ridiculous amount of issues that team has, I don’t think the difference between Domanick Davis (an above average running back) and even the most ridiculously optimistic best-case scenario of Bush will do that much for the Texans. I wonder if public pressure to get Bush will let them seriously explore a trade; either way, the draft this year will be fun to watch.
As for the topic of this thread, Ellis’s first post has it exactly right.
I don’t remmember just how the Rockets threw those games, but I expect it was orchestrated more by who played for how long, and who was available to play due to “injury”, rather than actually asking players to miss baskets or turn the ball over. Still, I have to think such tactics would be highly destructive, especially to the already delicate relationship between coach and professional athelete, so perhaps the not so illustrious history of top picks in either the NBA or NFL prevents such desperate and devious measures. Also, perhaps some have reflected on the fact that had the Rockets gone all out and dropped a couple of spots in the draft, they would have had to console themselves with a mere off-guard called Jordan.
If teams draft based on need, then Reggie Bush could fall to #3 (Tennessee Titans) or #4 (the Jets). The Texans need – among other things – offensive line help. Poor David Carr took a beating this year. He was sacked 68 times, and who knows how many times he was knocked down, but got the ball away. Will it really do much good to have two #1 overall picks in the backfield (Carr and possibly Bush) if there isn’t any blocking? The best pick here for the Texans is to try to improve its o-line. Which is why they should pick (or trade down and pick) D’Brickashaw Ferguson from Virginia.
New Orleans doesn’t need a running back, as it just signed Deuce McAllister to a pricey, long-term deal. Aaron Brooks hasn’t seemed to be able to get anything done for the Saints, so they should probably take Leinart.
Tennessee at #3 has Chris Brown and Travis Henry at running back already. It doesn’t make much sense to add Bush to the mix. I don’t really care for the Titans, so I have no idea what they need, but it doesn’t seem to be a running back.
The Jets at #4 have Curtis Martin, but he’s getting older. Cedric Houston seemed to do OK, but I can see them taking Bush, to bring in a big name.
Green Bay doesn’t really need Bush, since it has Ahman Green, who is usually an All-Pro, but was hurt this year.
A trade makes sense for most of the teams in the top 5, or if not trading the pick, to go in a direction other than Bush.
As for teams tanking at the end of a season. In the early 90’s, I remember a bit of a controversy over whether or not the Ottawa Senators might not have been trying too hard to win in the last game of the season against another team with a bad record. The Sens lost, and secured the first pick. They used the pick on Alexandre Daigle, since he was that draft’s designated Next One.
