How would you change the draft

[gilder121]

With all of the issues about tanking and the competitive balance of the game, I think the thing that you have to consider is if the carrot of getting the incredibly valuable high picks is pushing the wrong type of behavior.

Let's say that you agree with that statement. How would you change the draft to reduce or remove the incentive to tank?

Some options I've seen:
1) The draft wheel - the order is determined 32 years out with each team getting each slot once during that time frame.

2) The lottery - the NBA lottery does not stop tanking. However, there are ways to reduce tanking such as having all teams that finish 6-11 or worse having equal odds for each slot.

3) Get rid of the draft altogether- this one is a bit more radical as teams would have the ability to sign any rookies. There are versions with and without rookie salary caps.

 

[D.J. Moore]

4) Nothing.

 

[bufordht]

Draft lottery for all non playoff teams. There would be no incentive to ever lose. The worst place to be is just missing the playoffs every year. This would give those teams a chance to get over the hump. Sucks to be the bottom dwellers though.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Never going to happen, then trading draft picks becomes even more problematic.

The only possible change I could see is maybe not allowing a team to pick #1 two years in a row.

 

[Phibbulous]

How about not allowing the same position to be drafted back to back or maybe even until all other positions have been drafted, or some combination of that concept. So if a QB is drafted first overall another QB cannot be selected until all other offensive positions have been selected (RB, WR, OL, TE). Once a defensive player it selected the same countdown could start.

All first round contracts would have to be standardized from picks 1-32 and maybe the second round too so players are not losing out by having to wait.

Teams won't tank because they can't be sure they will get the pick or player they want and draft day trades could get really interesting.

It will never happen as teams will want autonomy regarding their pick.

It's a weird, out of the box idea.

 

[nc0gnet0]

How about not allowing the same position to be drafted back to back or maybe even until all other positions have been drafted, or some combination of that concept. So if a QB is drafted first overall another QB cannot be selected until all other offensive positions have been selected (RB, WR, OL, TE). Once a defensive player it selected the same countdown could start.

All first round contracts would have to be standardized from picks 1-32 and maybe the second round too so players are not losing out by having to wait.

Teams won't tank because they can't be sure they will get the pick or player they want and draft day trades could get really interesting.

It will never happen as teams will want autonomy regarding their pick.

It's a weird, out of the box idea.

That has to be one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

why not just have all the teams draw names out of a hat?

 

[PickSix]

I’d like to see the draft moved up to occur prior to free agency.

 

[Leomaz]

Go back to 17 rounds.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

With all of the issues about tanking and the competitive balance of the game, I think the thing that you have to consider is if the carrot of getting the incredibly valuable high picks is pushing the wrong type of behavior.

Let's say that you agree with that statement. How would you change the draft to reduce or remove the incentive to tank?

Some options I've seen:
1) The draft wheel - the order is determined 32 years out with each team getting each slot once during that time frame.

2) The lottery - the NBA lottery does not stop tanking. However, there are ways to reduce tanking such as having all teams that finish 6-11 or worse having equal odds for each slot.

3) Get rid of the draft altogether- this one is a bit more radical as teams would have the ability to sign any rookies. There are versions with and without rookie salary caps.

4) Have an independent investigator or several to investigate if a team is tanking. If they are caught, they immediately lose their 1st round pick.

No team would risk their first round pick to try to get the #1 pick with the loss of the first round pick hanging over their heads.

 

[Ralpf]

Never going to happen, then trading draft picks becomes even more problematic.

The only possible change I could see is maybe not allowing a team to pick #1 two years in a row.

My answer is nothing. But that isn't unreasonable.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

How about not allowing the same position to be drafted back to back or maybe even until all other positions have been drafted, or some combination of that concept. So if a QB is drafted first overall another QB cannot be selected until all other offensive positions have been selected (RB, WR, OL, TE). Once a defensive player it selected the same countdown could start.

All first round contracts would have to be standardized from picks 1-32 and maybe the second round too so players are not losing out by having to wait.

Teams won't tank because they can't be sure they will get the pick or player they want and draft day trades could get really interesting.

It will never happen as teams will want autonomy regarding their pick.

It's a weird, out of the box idea.

What a horrible idea, out of the box, but horrible.

Imagine the Detroit Lions from the past. After having picked three WRs with their high 1st round picks three years in a row, they are forced to pick between another WR and a FB because all the other offensive positions have been taken and they really need a QB and a LT (two amazing one are available, but they are SOL).

You might as well make it a pick a name out of the hat or a bingo game type of choice.

I can see it now ...

The Chicago Bears have the 2nd pick in the draft. The team with the #1 pick is in desperation for a DT and there is an amazing one available. So they pick DT and out of the DT hat comes ... the very DT they were hoping for.

The Chicago Bears immediately chose QB and from the QB hat comes ... Tom Brady!

Everyone is laughing at the Bears because they got one of the worst QBs in the draft ... and because Brady went to the Bears, he turns out to be one of the worst QBs in the NFL, which is short and he starts selling homes with his good friend Matt Nagy.

 

[Canth]

I doubt the NFL will change until they lose a lawsuit.

Having said that, if they were to make a change, I would advocate for a weighted lottery. So, the team with the worst record has a high chance to get the #1 pick but it's not guaranteed - something like the NHL does.

 

[pseudonym]

With all of the issues about tanking and the competitive balance of the game, I think the thing that you have to consider is if the carrot of getting the incredibly valuable high picks is pushing the wrong type of behavior.

Let's say that you agree with that statement. How would you change the draft to reduce or remove the incentive to tank?

Some options I've seen:
1) The draft wheel - the order is determined 32 years out with each team getting each slot once during that time frame.

2) The lottery - the NBA lottery does not stop tanking. However, there are ways to reduce tanking such as having all teams that finish 6-11 or worse having equal odds for each slot.

3) Get rid of the draft altogether- this one is a bit more radical as teams would have the ability to sign any rookies. There are versions with and without rookie salary caps.

Good options. I've heard a few:

1. Winner gets the #1 pick. The rich get richer. People would hate that. But man, no tanking.
2. Lottery. I like this, actually. Whoever doesn't make playoffs, gets tossed into the lottery. Equal picks. OR, maybe you get MORE picks if you have a BETTER record, an incentive to TRY and make the playoffs.
3. I've heard about getting rid of it entirely. If there was a hard rookie cap, maybe. But wow would that make it intense. I actually like the draft overall.

IDK if we need to change it. Teams don't WANT to have the top pick. If you're picking first several years in a row that means you suck. People don't like losing teams. You want to get better, make the playoffs. Merchandising, playoffs, super bowl—all benefit a winning team.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

That has to be one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

why not just have all the teams draw names out of a hat?

Make it fun.

Have levels of badness. Like the 4 worst teams, then 5-8 and so on.

Play the poker game done at fairs where there is a bull introduced to the area. The last person who leaves the table gets the best pick. Have the participants be the CEOs, like George McCaskey.

"Bear down, George!"

 

[gallagher]

Make it fun.

Have levels of badness. Like the 4 worst teams, then 5-8 and so on.

Play the poker game done at fairs where there is a bull introduced to the area. The last person who leaves the table gets the best pick. Have the participants be the CEOs, like George McCaskey.

"Bear down, George!"

Ok Ok Ok

how about owners bid for pick position and it isnt base don record at all. Only difference is that the money comes directly from ownership's pocket. virginia has to fork over the money for bears picks, packers fans have to equally chip in based on how many shares of their team they have.

And then we can all find out how fast Jerry Jones can spend his way into the poor house.

 

[vinson555]

I would say how they have comp picks for every team that loses High level Free Agents, how about some for teams that have the best records in football, but still miss the playoffs. So a team like the Chargers who just missed could get maybe two 3rds or a 3rd and a 4th. Not exactly this but some kind of something for the top 3-5 teams that miss.

 

[RumourBoy]

I agree with more rounds, there are a lot of diamond in rough type players who just need a shot and would make it. Also, something like the NBA lottery where worst team has best odds for #1 pick but could still hypothetically get the #6 pick to dis-incentivize blatant tanking.

 

[Starion]

Where's the data saying the NBA weighted lotto doesn't work to de-incentivize tanking? Shit, the Bulls probably should've tanked a few times but were stuck in mediocrity (although, GarPax factor). They also won it from the 8 or 9 for Rose right? That was exciting. NFL would LOVE another extra day/event to hype the shit out of...lotto pick release night. The talking heads would spend a week talking about lotto balls...hopefully instead of the next scandal or cancel culture "hot quote" of the week.

Weighted # of lotto balls based on record sounds pretty reasonable. Maybe/maybe not based on exact post-season rank (Strength of Sched) as it currently is?

+ on idea of 3rd party oversight to prevent tanking. IF it's done right and truly independent.

 

[NCChiFan]

Aside from giving the Bears picks 1,2,3,&4 this year. I wouldn't change anything.

 

[modo]

Draft lottery would not stop tanking....you would still be incentivized to lose

The worse record still has more balls to get a high pick. You would then introduce accusations of draft cheating by the league.....

no one can tell me the NBA wasn't cheated with either Patrick Ewing nor with the Orlando picks