Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Better idea for the draft?

Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.
Debate.org Moderator
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 12:38:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Why do you believe that?
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 5:50:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Assuming what you say is correct about the NBA being a sham, I think it's a bit short-sighted to declare that this is our only alternative for action. At the very least, it should be snake.

The reason the NFL keeps this sh1tty system in place is because it wants to create maximum parity. Parity is viewed as correlated with quality, and it ensures that the worst teams will not become eyesores if they cannot improve. Perhaps we'd have several winless teams this year if we weren't constantly positively handicapping them, and teams like the Patriots and Packers (who are perrenially good even with constant negative handicaps) would probably be in the Superbowl every single year. Could you imagine the Pats or Pack having high picks? We'd have to shut the regular season down because it wouldn't matter anymore lol
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 6:34:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 5:50:18 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Assuming what you say is correct about the NBA being a sham, I think it's a bit short-sighted to declare that this is our only alternative for action. At the very least, it should be snake.


I'm not saying there is anything sham-like about the NBA draft lottery. As far as I know it's entirely legit. I just think it's stupid. It should operate exactly like the NFL draft.

The reason the NFL keeps this sh1tty system in place is because it wants to create maximum parity. Parity is viewed as correlated with quality, and it ensures that the worst teams will not become eyesores if they cannot improve. Perhaps we'd have several winless teams this year if we weren't constantly positively handicapping them, and teams like the Patriots and Packers (who are perrenially good even with constant negative handicaps) would probably be in the Superbowl every single year. Could you imagine the Pats or Pack having high picks? We'd have to shut the regular season down because it wouldn't matter anymore lol

The NFL draft is the ideal system and I don't have any problem with it. Parity exists became of it, and the NFL is a far better sport because of it.

If a team tanks to get a better pick then there really is nothing the league can do about it.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 6:35:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 12:38:24 PM, stubs wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Why do you believe that?

I think it's just dumb. The worst team (and that should be based on record) should get the top pick to have the best chance of improving. I don't see any point in the NBA draft lottery and I think it's just ridiculous that it exists.
Debate.org Moderator
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 8:56:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

Most likely. I don't think there are all that many examples of teams tanking on purpose. The Jags were considered so bad this year that Vegas thought they were worse than the 0-16 Lions. They had every excuse to go 0 - 16, but they came out and beat a .500 team (that team is currently raping Andrew Luck as I type). If they wanted to tank, vegas had given them a pass. However, they still came out and won.

The Bucs, likewise, one of the worst teams in the league made a very strong showing against Seattle, in Seattle, and then came and won last week to get their first win. Clearly, these teams are actually trying.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 9:01:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 5:50:18 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Assuming what you say is correct about the NBA being a sham, I think it's a bit short-sighted to declare that this is our only alternative for action. At the very least, it should be snake.

The reason the NFL keeps this sh1tty system in place is because it wants to create maximum parity. Parity is viewed as correlated with quality, and it ensures that the worst teams will not become eyesores if they cannot improve. Perhaps we'd have several winless teams this year if we weren't constantly positively handicapping them, and teams like the Patriots and Packers (who are perrenially good even with constant negative handicaps) would probably be in the Superbowl every single year. Could you imagine the Pats or Pack having high picks? We'd have to shut the regular season down because it wouldn't matter anymore lol

You're right, the regular season wouldn't matter anymore. And that would kinda suck for NFL fans.

Lets compare NFL to College Football (where they go out and recruit, rather than draft). True, their are some limitations and penalties for violations, but it is much more of a "free" market. Such a system creates a plethora of various classes within the structure. It can only survive because of the shear number of teams. By having something like 120 teams, you end up with 3 - 5 top class teams that you look forward to their clash at the end of the season. With only 32 teams, you'd get 1, maybe 2, which would get boring after about 3 years and revenue would plummet.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 9:10:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I simply think that conflicts of interest represent failures in rules, and that goes for sports as well as politics and anything else where rules exist. Parity is great, but Parity should not come at expense of fairness. If teams are tanking out even with rules like this in place, then let them fail out - bailing them out only lets people that suck stay in power. We should have a snake-style draft. Lottery sucks as well - another failure in any system of rules is resorting to random chance to decide things. Good games are based on skill. Chess is considered a game of the highest caliber because random chance is minimized to an enormous extent. I don't even like the coin flip in the beginning of the game, to be honest. I'd rather see a tip-off style at the beginning of each half to determine who gets the ball first. That would also eliminate much of the problem with overtime rules, in which the team that wins the coin toss has a much greater chance of getting down the field and getting a field goal to win it than the team that lost it.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 9:23:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
but a short 26 minutes after Ore_Ele makes a comment saying the Colts are effectively getting their asses kicked, the Colts are up. Well well, methinks he spoke too soon :P
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 9:24:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 9:10:28 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
I simply think that conflicts of interest represent failures in rules, and that goes for sports as well as politics and anything else where rules exist. Parity is great, but Parity should not come at expense of fairness. If teams are tanking out even with rules like this in place, then let them fail out - bailing them out only lets people that suck stay in power. We should have a snake-style draft. Lottery sucks as well - another failure in any system of rules is resorting to random chance to decide things. Good games are based on skill. Chess is considered a game of the highest caliber because random chance is minimized to an enormous extent. I don't even like the coin flip in the beginning of the game, to be honest. I'd rather see a tip-off style at the beginning of each half to determine who gets the ball first. That would also eliminate much of the problem with overtime rules, in which the team that wins the coin toss has a much greater chance of getting down the field and getting a field goal to win it than the team that lost it.

Snake style draft would be interesting, but we'd still have to determine the order. It would also remove some of the parity of the NFL since it equalizes the draft. I really don't see a problem with the current system. Some teams may tank, but they are already terrible, and even if a team tanks there's no assurances that the top pick will even be a success. Having the top pick in the draft often sets a team back another few years by paying for a huge contract for a total bust.

I do like the idea of a "tip off" to start OT though. The XFL had the game begin with each team fielding a player to run to the ball at the center of the field. The first guy to the ball won the right to choose to kick or receive. It's pretty much the only thing I think I'll be praising about the XFL and it certainly would make things more exciting and fair at the start of OT.

However I don't believe this is something significant enough to require a change. The new OT rules prevent a team from winning if they just go down the field and kick a field goal. Ultimately I believe whoever wins, really is the better team regardless of the randomness of the initial coin toss. It's not perfect, but no part of the game is.

Holding penalties for example are called so randomly sometimes it can be infuriating. Foul calls in the NBA are the same way.
Debate.org Moderator
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:11:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 6:35:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 12:38:24 PM, stubs wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Why do you believe that?

I think it's just dumb. The worst team (and that should be based on record) should get the top pick to have the best chance of improving. I don't see any point in the NBA draft lottery and I think it's just ridiculous that it exists.

I do see your point. I think the lottery was added to minimize tanking. So while I do see your point I also see the point of having it.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:23:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 10:11:23 PM, stubs wrote:
At 11/14/2013 6:35:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 12:38:24 PM, stubs wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Why do you believe that?

I think it's just dumb. The worst team (and that should be based on record) should get the top pick to have the best chance of improving. I don't see any point in the NBA draft lottery and I think it's just ridiculous that it exists.

I do see your point. I think the lottery was added to minimize tanking. So while I do see your point I also see the point of having it.

The point does seem to be to minimize tanking and it might be well intentioned but it seems pointless to me anyways. A team can just tank to have the highest odds in the draft lottery and increase their chances of having the top pick.
Debate.org Moderator
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 12:07:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 10:23:43 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:11:23 PM, stubs wrote:
At 11/14/2013 6:35:34 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 12:38:24 PM, stubs wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Why do you believe that?

I think it's just dumb. The worst team (and that should be based on record) should get the top pick to have the best chance of improving. I don't see any point in the NBA draft lottery and I think it's just ridiculous that it exists.

I do see your point. I think the lottery was added to minimize tanking. So while I do see your point I also see the point of having it.

The point does seem to be to minimize tanking and it might be well intentioned but it seems pointless to me anyways. A team can just tank to have the highest odds in the draft lottery and increase their chances of having the top pick.

That is true but there is less incentive.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 12:14:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 9:01:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/14/2013 5:50:18 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Assuming what you say is correct about the NBA being a sham, I think it's a bit short-sighted to declare that this is our only alternative for action. At the very least, it should be snake.

The reason the NFL keeps this sh1tty system in place is because it wants to create maximum parity. Parity is viewed as correlated with quality, and it ensures that the worst teams will not become eyesores if they cannot improve. Perhaps we'd have several winless teams this year if we weren't constantly positively handicapping them, and teams like the Patriots and Packers (who are perrenially good even with constant negative handicaps) would probably be in the Superbowl every single year. Could you imagine the Pats or Pack having high picks? We'd have to shut the regular season down because it wouldn't matter anymore lol

You're right, the regular season wouldn't matter anymore. And that would kinda suck for NFL fans.

Lets compare NFL to College Football (where they go out and recruit, rather than draft). True, their are some limitations and penalties for violations, but it is much more of a "free" market. Such a system creates a plethora of various classes within the structure. It can only survive because of the shear number of teams. By having something like 120 teams, you end up with 3 - 5 top class teams that you look forward to their clash at the end of the season. With only 32 teams, you'd get 1, maybe 2, which would get boring after about 3 years and revenue would plummet.

Revenue would plummet, or Jerry Jones would have to sell his team and give it to somebody that does know how to win ;)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:54:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 9:23:10 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
but a short 26 minutes after Ore_Ele makes a comment saying the Colts are effectively getting their asses kicked, the Colts are up. Well well, methinks he spoke too soon :P

They saw the post I made and turned it around.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 3:00:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 12:14:14 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/14/2013 9:01:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/14/2013 5:50:18 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:04:54 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:01:34 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Do you find any problem with the conflict of interests in which a team takes a dive at the end of the season and gets better players? If Luck weren't in the draft last year, would the Colts have went 2-14?

The only alternative I can think of is the NBA draft lottery and that's an even bigger sham.

Assuming what you say is correct about the NBA being a sham, I think it's a bit short-sighted to declare that this is our only alternative for action. At the very least, it should be snake.

The reason the NFL keeps this sh1tty system in place is because it wants to create maximum parity. Parity is viewed as correlated with quality, and it ensures that the worst teams will not become eyesores if they cannot improve. Perhaps we'd have several winless teams this year if we weren't constantly positively handicapping them, and teams like the Patriots and Packers (who are perrenially good even with constant negative handicaps) would probably be in the Superbowl every single year. Could you imagine the Pats or Pack having high picks? We'd have to shut the regular season down because it wouldn't matter anymore lol

You're right, the regular season wouldn't matter anymore. And that would kinda suck for NFL fans.

Lets compare NFL to College Football (where they go out and recruit, rather than draft). True, their are some limitations and penalties for violations, but it is much more of a "free" market. Such a system creates a plethora of various classes within the structure. It can only survive because of the shear number of teams. By having something like 120 teams, you end up with 3 - 5 top class teams that you look forward to their clash at the end of the season. With only 32 teams, you'd get 1, maybe 2, which would get boring after about 3 years and revenue would plummet.

Revenue would plummet, or Jerry Jones would have to sell his team and give it to somebody that does know how to win ;)

Winning depends on coaching skills plus player skills. You take the draft away (the loopsided draft), then losing teams can't get good players and can't win, regardless of the owners, just like we see in College. Portland State, no matter how good their coach is, will never beat Alabama. PSU will never get recruits or revenue at the Alabama level. And changing the heads will not change that.

Plus, the best owners are those that are more hands off, so the notion of "selling to someone that knows how to win" is illogical.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"