Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

can anyone prove that a sports franchise has ever purposely lost games to have a higher draft pick?

GOAT

By GOAT,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

NYPantherFan Community Regular

NYPantherFan

Posted
Posted

Players and coaches on the field don't lose on purpose. I believe they play to win the game at all costs.

The front offices on the other hand, they definitely can try to put themselves into a better position to "lose", whether it's via trades or limiting spending. Baseball is notorious for this when teams want to go through a "rebuild". The Atlanta Braves did it a few years back. The Houston Astros were bad for a stretch of 5-6 years and reaped the benefits of it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stbugs Grand Master

stbugs

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, GOAT said:

I feel like I'm never going to get you to understand how losing on purpose is not a real thing in the NFL.

It’s because we all know that NFL players and coaches aren’t intentionally letting opponents score or throwing bad passes on purpose. You seem to be hanging on those goal posts when people have already told you that it’s the FO that “tanks.” They do it by trading away talent for picks or not signing FAs to rollover more cap for the future and get compensatory picks. That’s happened a ton in all sports. You see those draft pick/minor league prospect trades at mid season in basketball and baseball every year.

Your argument holds no water because none of us hoping to lose games to get better picks think that the players and coaches on the field are actively playing poor to lose. There’s no point to that argument. Do you think if we were in the playoff race that CMC might have played the last couple weeks? I do. Did you see this article about the Eagles? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/eagles-likely-to-rest-key-starters-vs-washington-in-crucial-week-17-nfc-east-matchup-per-reports/amp/ 

This is what most people mean by tanking. Philly doesn’t want to lose the at best 3rd to at worst 6th pick for a meaningless win. If Philly wins they could knock Washington out of the playoffs but they could also go from a possibly #3 to possibly #11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Captain Obvious said:

1958 Green Bay Packers. won one game so they could fire their coach and get#1 pick. 

1959 brought Lombardi and began to build their dynasty.

proving that tanking is what it takes to build a winner.

 

 

 

 

LOL. its a joke.

 

Only won one game so they can fire their coach? Wouldn’t the coach be the one in charge of winning? Sounds more like the team and coach were bad and hired a future HOF coach to turn them around the following year.,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onmyown Grand Master

onmyown

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, GOAT said:

Enough is enough, I posed this question in another thread but feel the need to challenge this to the entire forum.

Can anyone provide info pertaining to a sports franchise purposely losing games to improve their draft position?

I'm even expanding this to other sports, I cannot think of a single time when a team obviously lost games in order to improve their draft positioning.

I don't believe that this is a real strategy and if that is the case, this weird fan fueled theory needs to be put to rest once and for all.

(BONUS: if you can provide an example of a team doing this, please include how this improved their team in the long run ie Rhule mentioning the Sixers believing in this method and it getting them nowhere...)

It most certainly has happened. If you need ‘proof’ you’re extremely dense and must live a rough life.

Because it’s in between the lines, the proof is in observation and just a tad of logic. Guys are playing for contracts and ‘proof’ would be a legal issue for owners, teams, franchises and players. No one is going to come out and give you solid proof on paper and recordings lol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dilla Collaborator

Dilla

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Varking said:

Weird. I blocked somebody and I don’t see their posts but I can see their reactions to everything. Wonder if that’s something the mods can fix. 

Yeah, I've commented on that before. What's the use of the function if I see their posts anyway when they get quoted? It's annoying af.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmittysLawnGuy Veteran

SmittysLawnGuy

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, stbugs said:

It’s because we all know that NFL players and coaches aren’t intentionally letting opponents score or throwing bad passes on purpose. You seem to be hanging on those goal posts when people have already told you that it’s the FO that “tanks.” They do it by trading away talent for picks or not signing FAs to rollover more cap for the future and get compensatory picks. That’s happened a ton in all sports. You see those draft pick/minor league prospect trades at mid season in basketball and baseball every year.

Your argument holds no water because none of us hoping to lose games to get better picks think that the players and coaches on the field are actively playing poor to lose. There’s no point to that argument. Do you think if we were in the playoff race that CMC might have played the last couple weeks? I do. Did you see this article about the Eagles? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/eagles-likely-to-rest-key-starters-vs-washington-in-crucial-week-17-nfc-east-matchup-per-reports/amp/ 

This is what most people mean by tanking. Philly doesn’t want to lose the at best 3rd to at worst 6th pick for a meaningless win. If Philly wins they could knock Washington out of the playoffs but they could also go from a possibly #3 to possibly #11.

 

5 hours ago, onmyown said:

It most certainly has happened. If you need ‘proof’ you’re extremely dense and must live a rough life.

Because it’s in between the lines, the proof is in observation and just a tad of logic. Guys are playing for contracts and ‘proof’ would be a legal issue for owners, teams, franchises and players. No one is going to come out and give you solid proof on paper and recordings lol.

 

good idea yes GIF by Robert E Blackmon

If you can't understand these two points just go ahead and give up on the argument. It's just over your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of10Charnatives Mentor

1of10Charnatives

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, GOAT said:

 Seeing a lot of acquisitions on here with no real proof. 

The only "real proof" there could ever be is the actual decision makers for a tanking franchise publicly admitting they did so, and there is zero reason for them to do that, so it's almost akin to proving a negative false, as in Russell's teapot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

At the end of the day it's something that circumstantial evidence strongly suggests happens without absolute proof one way or the other. Most people familiar with the NBA of the early 80's accept as a given that the Rockets tanked for Olajuwan, but it cannot be empirically proven without one of those decision makers saying so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...