I like the idea of teams start to collect points once they are officially eliminated from the playoffs ("Draft Points"). The team with the most Draft Points picks first, down to the team with the least.
In theory, once a team is eliminated they are still playing for something.
The earliest team eliminated has the longest time to accumulate Draft Points.
In actuality, it will likely be a middling team that wins. I.e. Someone decent, that's eliminated in mid to late March, as opposed to someone terrible that's eliminated in early March.
Not my idea, but I think it would be neat.
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.
No it doesn't. Someone has to finish 30th. Someone has to finish 29th. Your plan fixes nothing, but instead taxes failure. Missing the playoffs is already the tax for failure so your proposal to basically double dip serves merely as a mechanism to ensure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
I think we need to see a couple seasons of the 2016 setup, but I think it will be effective. Having only a 20% chance at the first overall on the first draw, with that percentage proportionally changing based on who won the draw the previous draw, I can easily see the worst team picking 4th.
No it doesn't. Someone has to finish 30th. Someone has to finish 29th. Your plan fixes nothing, but instead taxes failure. Missing the playoffs is already the tax for failure so your proposal to basically double dip serves merely as a mechanism to ensure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Only if they finish 29th or 30th by being so bad that it is unconcievable that they lost this way naturally.
I think the system they'll implement for 2016, where the top 3 are up for grabs to any team outside the playoffs is fine. Why try to overcomplicate the process? You still want the bottom teams to draft high in hopes of them getting better, but at the same time, don't guarantee perennial bottom feeders drafting top 3 all the time. I think this solves both.
Id like to wager if the oilers hadn't been terrible for years this wouldn't be a topic on CP.
It is an issue on just about any hockey forum you care to note (check out any given reddit thread about either the Oilers or this year's top two prospects, for instance.) But yes, the Oilers are a significant root cause of it. When you have a team whose plan basically amounted to failing upward get three #1 overalls in a row and are STILL drafting top five every year with a chance of getting another #1 pick, that is going to rankle anyone's feathers.
Does everyone just read the first line and jump to conclusions?
You stop penalizing teams at a point where they are no longer suspected of tanking.
Guilty until proven innocent is a ridiculous basis to work from. I'll give you credit for the idea and for creating discussion, but man, time to stop digging!
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?
The Gangs Solves the Tanking Crisis
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
As soon as you are eliminated from the playoffs you start getting draft points. Worst teams get eliminated sooner and have more chance to accumulate more points, that way the games at the end of the season mean something for every single game for every team.
The best/easiest way to eliminate tanking is to make all non-playoff teams lottery teams competing for draft picks with exactly the same odds going to all non-playoff teams. Perhaps teams will still compete to be out of the playoffs but there would be no incentive to be the worst as your odds of getting a McEichel would be no better than if you barely missed the playoffs.
The best/easiest way to eliminate tanking is to make all non-playoff teams lottery teams competing for draft picks with exactly the same odds going to all non-playoff teams. Perhaps teams will still compete to be out of the playoffs but there would be no incentive to be the worst as your odds of getting a McEichel would be no better than if you barely missed the playoffs.
By definition this is correct. However, it does nothing to address the problem that bad teams only have 1 way to get better - Draft and develop players.
Bad luck could keep a team at the bottom of the standing indefinently.
What if the Flames had been unlucky and got the 16th pick the last 2 years instead of Monahan and Bennet? Does this seen fair?
Someone always needs to be the worst.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jason14h For This Useful Post:
The easiest way to 'stop tanking' is actually to just remove the draft all together. Make every rookie a FA. There is a salary cap, so the bad teams in theory will have lower payrolls due to worst players with lower salaries.
If a good team sheds salary to sign a McDavid, in theory they have let their own players become FA's, who the bad teams can now sign.
The only issue is teams who can't spend to the cap potentially being screwed from ever getting the super duper stars and still being able to field a proper roster.
