Why Don't NFL Teams Tank?

With the NFL season winding to a close, most teams have their eyes ahead to this April's draft. Many NFL scouts are busy visiting college all-star games that act as pre-draft workouts for top prospects. The Combine will be upon us next month and then the speculation and debate will heat up as to whom each team will draft. In recent years, the value of the draft has increased as the price of quality free agents has continued to grow, so it becomes more and more important that teams make the right pick in the draft, and the higher picks gain greater value. Knowing this, the question becomes: why don't NFL teams that are out of postseason contention lose intentionally to improve their draft position?

At first glance, it would seem that this is an obvious choice; the higher you pick, the better chance you have of getting an impact player in the draft that will make your team significantly better the next season. Not only that, but the worse your record, the higher you pick in each of the seven rounds of the draft, not just the first round, so the incentive is even greater to tank. So why don't teams do it? I believe there are seven reasons for this:

1. Financial Cost of First Round Picks - Since the most recent collective bargaining agreement was reached in 2006, the NFL's salary cap has been increasing at an ever greater rate; the salary floor (or minimum amount each team must commit to players) also increases yearly. With this increase in cap room comes the demand by players (and their agents) for more money each year and up front in the form of signing bonuses. This demand has translated to rookies as these players, knowing that the average lifespan of an NFL career is less than three years, try to grab as much money at the start of their careers as possible. And each year players expect to get paid more than the player taken in the same slot the previous year, making the money given high draft picks grow at an increasing rate. This makes high draft picks so expensive they almost become a detriment to the team. It also leads to the next reason...

2. Potential Failure of Drafted Players - With the growing amount of money being given to rookies, it has become more costly to teams if their drafted players fail to deliver. A miss can hurt more than a great hit can help, and the higher that player is drafted, the more costly the mistake. Not only does a failed high pick cost the team money and cap room, but that player also costs the team on the field as highly drafted players usually get playing time regardless of their play. Teams feel obligated (as they should) to put these highly paid players on the field and give them a chance to prove themselves, and if the player fails, especially at certain positions (quarterback, middle linebacker, safety and even some line positions), it can seriously hurt the team. On top of all that, because of said highly paid prospect, the team may be forced to release a veteran or multiple veterans that would have turned out more useful to them.

3. Lower Value of Individual Players to Teams - ESPN.com's "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" by Gregg Easterbrook constantly asserts the idea that football is the "ultimate team sport." In other words, no individual (with the possible exception of a great quarterback) has the ability to completely change a game. This is because 22 players (at least) must all perform their duties for a team to succeed. Even great QBs can't ensure that their passes are caught, or that they don't get sacked constantly because of poor pass protection, or that their defense doesn't allow 50 points per game, etc. So if one player (particularly a rookie) isn't likely (read: possibly) going to change the team from a loser to a winner, an also-ran to a contender, then what value is there in tanking? All you are likely to do is drive up the financial cost of your draft pick. Not only that, but because of the number of players needed for a competitive NFL team, the "best player" in college football is often fluid from week-to-week and even from team-to-team. There is almost never a consensus number one (there are no LeBron James's in football) and even those thought to be (Reggie Bush, anyone?) often don't turn out that way.

4. Coaches Seeking to Keep Their Job - Of all the reasons, this one may be the most accurate and yet the most ridiculous. First, all coaches' primary motivation is to keep their job, especially if they know the team isn't very good. Usually coaches and people around an organization know pretty early on whether or not their team has the talent to compete for a playoff berth; most teams do not (20 teams miss the playoffs every year). So presumably once a team discovers that it is not a playoff-caliber squad (which can be as late as week 11, 12, maybe even 13, or as early as the preseason), it stands to reason that they should stop trying to win in order to improve their draft position and presumably be better the next year. The problem is that the worst mark a coach can receive is the belief that his team "quit on him." If the players are just terrible and the team loses but at least plays hard, then the coach can be saved, and may even be praised as a great motivator. But if it looks like the team gave up on the season, that is the ultimate sign of coaching failure and the coach will likely be fired. Thus, coaches don't tank because tanking is seen as giving up, even if it means making the team better in the future.

5. Players Seeking to Remain in the League - Even if coaches encouraged their players to tank, most players wouldn't do it because they, too, are playing for their jobs. If a player is labeled a quitter, he better be an All-Pro type athlete or else no team will want any part of him. Even if it is clear that the players on a bad team are a bad fit and will be gone after the season, they still must play hard because they are then auditioning for a position on the other 31 teams in the league. This leads to another topic (one I'll address in a later column): teams must be wary of the guys that put up huge stats on a bad team. There are many examples of this that I'll get into another time.

6. Pride? - One would hope that this would be an issue for both professional athletes and their coaches. If these people actually care about the game they are playing and the fans that shell out huge amounts of money to watch them do it, then they absolutely should be trying their hardest in every game. Football is not a sport that lends itself to half-hearted play (which is why the Pro Bowl has never gained the notoriety of the other major all-star games) and players that don't go all-out are believed to be more susceptible to injury. Players, then, are motivated to play their hardest because of their competitive nature and, frankly, desire for self-preservation. Pride is less of a factor for coaches (although they certainly must have that same competitive fire to have devoted their lives to a sport) because the game is looked at from a much more business-like perspective. If the coaches know the team is very bad, they can inadvertently tank by playing backups and younger players under the guise of "evaluating the talent."

6a. Rivalries - A sub-point of the Pride reason is that teams that lose intentionally would likely be losing games to division rivals (as most teams play each of their divisional foes once late in the year). This would be absolutely unacceptable to fans and thus would be a major concern for coaches and owners. As poorly as a team may be playing, they are always expected to "get up" for games against division rivals, and a tanking team would be required to instead "lay down" in such a game. This is definitely something coaches and owners would want to avoid, because for many teams, fans will consider a season a success if their team simply defeats its rivals, especially if it hurts those rivals' playoff chances.

7. Competitive Balance - Clearly tanking is bad for the sport. If teams intentionally try not to win, this means that their opponents are given free victories which clearly upset the competitive balance of the league. For example, if two teams are locked in a tight playoff race and one team has a tanker on its schedule while its competitor does not (say they played the tanker early in the year before tanking became the best option), the team with the tanker has a huge advantage. This goes back to the previous point (6a) in that a division could be decided simply by the timing of certain games on the schedule. And there's also the disaster that would happen if two tanking teams were to meet in a pivotal late-season game. (This has actually happened before, in the 2005 season, although neither team involved was truly tanking (or so they claim) at the time. The game pitted the Houston Texans and the San Francisco 49ers, the two worst records in football, with the loser presumably winning the right to draft USC running back Reggie Bush. The Texans lost the game 20-17 and went on to finish 2-14, only to stun the world by drafting defensive end Mario Williams with the top pick instead of Bush, who fell to New Orleans at #3.)

These are the most reasonable explanations for why NFL teams don't (seem to) tank. Do I think NFL teams should tank? Given these different factors, I'd say no. For now. But rumors are that the owners (who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement effective after next season) will be seeking a stricter rookie salary cap (one already exists but is easily circumvented through bonuses) or even a rookie salary scale like the one used by the NBA. If this happens, then you can toss reasons 1 and 2 out the window and it opens the door for tanking in a big way because many of the financial concerns are allayed.

So what do you think? Are there any reasons I've missed, or do you think there are teams that actually do tank? Please comment below.

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.