Did I Just Solve The "Tanking" Problem?

[polak]

I know this topic has been thrown around a lot but I had a pretty crazy idea that might just work and won't stop bad teams from being able to draft good players.

I don't think there is anyway the owners would agree to it, but where is the fun in not dreaming of a "Oiler-Level-O'-Suckage" free league...

The general idea:
As soon as you are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, your Hockey-Related revenue from every game after that point goes into a fund that is re-distributed after the season.

Variables:
- The one thing that might make it more feasible is that you can alter exactly how that money is re-distributed. Maybe there is a vote amongst the owners as to whether or not the team deserves the money returned in full? Maybe it is redistributed by a certain % going back to each team that missed the playoffs based on final standings? Many ways you can slice and dice the re-distribution to make it fair.

- You could also set a certain game number that teams are no longer punished for tanking. For example, maybe you only forfeit the Hockey-Related revenue for games you play in which you are mathematically eliminated from the play offs before Game 70? That stops teams who genuinely tried and lost from being punished and keeps teams who start falling out of contention early playing as hard as they can to avoid being eliminated before Game X

- You can change the amount they forfeit as well. Doesn't have to be 100% of HRR.

Result:
Pretty self-explanatory. If the owners see that their team is falling out of contention they will have to decide if they want their team to dive for a better pick or if they want to keep as much of their money as possible. Is losing millions directly out of their pocket worth it to get a better shot at McDavid? I doubt it.

Thoughts?

[Hockeyguy15]

0 owners will agree to that.

[Coach]

I'm game for almost anything to deter tanking. But putting hockey decisions in the hands of owners is just bad news.

Also, some tanks are happening far before being mathematically eliminated. The Oilers started looking towards the 2015 Draft in ****ing November.

I personally think the best solution is to not allow any team to draft top 3 two years in a row. If your team is in that position, you're bumped to 4th and Bob's your uncle.

[polak]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm game for almost anything to deter tanking. But putting hockey decisions in the hands of owners is just bad news.

It's not really a hockey decision any more than the owners mandating a rebuild or a win-now strategy. Or deciding to spend to the cap or to aim for the floor.

The owners have to have some influence in the general attitude and direction of the team.

[Chell_King]

So phoenix and florida will even get less revenue from their fanbase than they do normally?

[troutman]

I'd like to see the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs, play some sort of tournament or mini-playoffs for draft position (could be done in 2-3 weeks).

More revenue. More playoff hockey. No tanking. Every team has something to play for in April.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Chell_King

So phoenix and florida will even get less revenue from their fanbase than they do normally?

If they decide that losing is more important then playing hard, yes.

Originally Posted by troutman

I'd like to see the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs, play some sort of tournament or mini-playoffs for draft position.

More revenue. More playoff hockey. No tanking. Every team has something to play for in April.

That makes things a whole lot messier and complicated. You're basically extending the season for everybody. Plus bad teams who are just bad overall will be punished and unable to draft better players...

[Enoch Root]

In many markets, being at the bottom of the league means less revenue anyways. Punishing the team financially is not a good plan.

And the owners would absolutely never agree to it because it doesn't make sense - you are suggesting that a minor, fan issue should trump financial concerns. Yeah, the owners are going to be all over that!

[Chell_King]

So toronto will risk 10 million to get mcdavid while phoenix only risks 1 million because HRR is different? Seem's like a greater incentive for phoenix to tank for cheap than toronto.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by polak

If they decide that losing is more important then playing hard, yes.



That makes things a whole lot messier and complicated. You're basically extending the season for everybody. Plus bad teams who are just bad overall will be punished and unable to draft better players...

The problem is that it defeats the whole purpose of the CBA and redistribution of funds. If the lowest teams are also the lowest earning teams you are now punishing them again. What would be the point in the redistribution of funds if none of those funds go to the lowest earning teams who now get none of their money if they suck?

Just, no. It wouldn't work.

[terminator]

hahahahaha no that is not how a business functions.

That's like saying the lowest revenue earning McDonalds pool their money and potentially reduce their net earnings.

[GKDarts]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'd like to see the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs, play some sort of tournament or mini-playoffs for draft position.

More revenue. More playoff hockey. No tanking. Every team has something to play for in April.

The NHL's NIT...Now, would you tank your way to 9th in the conference for a shot at a generational talent over being first round easy pickings for a powerhouse #1 seed as a crappy 8th seed?

[Vulcan]

I heard a good one today, "In Europe if you finish last you get demoted to a lower division. In North America, you get rewarded with the first pick."

In other words it will never get fixed because it's an old boys club that they've paid big money to get into.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In many markets, being at the bottom of the league means less revenue anyways. Punishing the team financially is not a good plan.

And the owners would absolutely never agree to it because it doesn't make sense - you are suggesting that a minor, fan issue should trump financial concerns. Yeah, the owners are going to be all over that!

Biggest gripe of fans of losing teams is lack of effort or passion from the players and lack of corrective action by management. This fixes that.

Is it just a fan issue? Do you think the league is thrilled with the Oilers and Sabres of the league? It's not that outlandish and teams could easily work it into their budgets.

Again, I said I don't think the owners would go for it straight up, but I think some sort deviation of this might just work.

[codynw]

Relegate the Oilers. Problem solved.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GKDarts

The NHL's NIT...Now, would you tank your way to 9th in the conference for a shot at a generational talent over being first round easy pickings for a powerhouse #1 seed as a crappy 8th seed?

If teams could control their mobility up and down the standings to the degree that some fans suggest, why don't they just decide to win the cup instead?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'd like to see the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs, play some sort of tournament or mini-playoffs for draft position.

More revenue. More playoff hockey. No tanking. Every team has something to play for in April.

Um, that just keeps the bottom feeders at the bottom. Last year, the Capitals barely missed the playoffs. Do you really want them adding Sam Reinhart or Sam Bennett or Aaron Ekblad or Leon Draisatl while the Panthers end up with a #14 pick? All you end up with is the situation from the 90s with the Red Wings and the Avs being superstacked.

The point of getting high draft picks for the worst teams is to maintain parity. It's only a problem when teams have

1) Awful management + scouting
2) Terrible geological location for free agent signing / retention
3) Awful development/farm systems
4) Their good picks in less-good draft years

that the same teams keep popping up in low the draft over and over and over.

[polak]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The problem is that it defeats the whole purpose of the CBA and redistribution of funds. If the lowest teams are also the lowest earning teams you are now punishing them again. What would be the point in the redistribution of funds if none of those funds go to the lowest earning teams who now get none of their money if they suck?

Just, no. It wouldn't work.

The teams that suck will still get a portion of their money back. It's just figuring out how much is enough to be a punishment but not too much to make it not feasable.

It has a built in safety that the lowest grossing teams will also be forefitting the least as their HRR will be lower per game. You could even make it progressive. Maybe the lowest revenue teams risk losing a smaller % of money then the higher grossing teams.

Originally Posted by terminator

hahahahaha no that is not how a business functions.

That's like saying the lowest revenue earning McDonalds pool their money and potentially reduce their net earnings.

No. It would be like McDonalds putting out product quality surveys and then punishing each of the lowest scoring locations for selling a garbage product that cheapens their brand. Which does happen. hahahahaha.

[DJones]

Take money from teams that aren't doing well. That'll make them better haha

Lottery draft for top 10 picks. Easily solved and for the most part next year will have that. Not worth tanking for a 20% chance to win.

[FlamesAddiction]

Just make the draft lottery a true lottery for all non-playoff teams. Eliminate or greatly reduce the odds of the bottom 3 winning it. There is zero evidence that the weighted lottery promotes parity.

Problem solved.