First, a quick refresher on my 7.5 reasons why NFL teams don't tank:
- Financial Cost of 1st Round Picks
- Potential Failure of Drafted Players
- Lower Value of Individual Players to Teams
- Coaches Protecting Their Job
- Players Seeking to Remain in the League
- Pride/Rivalries
- Competitive Balance
I think the entry does a good job of catching all the reasons why NFL teams generally do not tank. I believe the main reasons why NFL teams don't tank are #4 and #5, while #6 and #7 are still true, just to a lesser extent. (But?...)
I think the entry also lists things that actually AREN'T reasons why NFL teams choose not to tank, namely #s 1 and 2. #3 I have mixed feelings about. (The hell you say! Let's see if this pans out...)
Way-too-in-depth analysis follows! :) (This is true. So far so good.)
#4 (Coaches protecting their job) - Definitely keeps teams from tanking. The coach can choose to have the team tank, to help it build for the future. But he would probably only be willing to do this if the ownership guaranteed him job security first. You don't want to tank, let everyone see that the team "quit on you" and then get fired. That'll make it tough to find a new coaching gig. Since tanking is "taboo" the franchise/front office can't just come right out and tell the fans "we're tanking for draft position." So the coach has to believe that the ownership will keep him on-board despite any pressure from fans who are calling for his head. But since the coaches have salaries that are so large they demand results (as mentioned in an earlier blog post) that pressure may be pretty intense. The fans are used to throwing the coach under the bus whenever the team doesn't win.
(The only reason that tanking is "taboo" is because it actually can have a great impact on the competitive balance of the league. This is what the league's front office is concerned with, and this is the reason that teams are not "allowed" to tank. As you mentioned, coaches would be killed by the fan base if they tanked without coming out and saying it, and they would be killed by the league if they did acknowledge tanking. The other important consideration here, especially with the NFL, is the gambling ramifications of a tanking team. How can oddsmakers ever properly handicap a game in which one team is outright trying to lose? What if both teams are tanking? What about your fantasy implications?!? The horror!)
#5 (Players protecting their place in the league) - Also definitely keeps teams from tanking. If the player helps his team tank to build for the future, he too needs a guarantee that he'll still be around to reap the rewards. If the tanking team lets him go, and he has not been showcasing his talent because he was helping the team lose, it's going to be bad for his career. But as the owner or general manager, you can't possibly guarantee all your players that they will be back. After all, if all your players were the right guys to have on the team, you probably wouldn't need to tank and build for the future, right? So you can't promise them all a job, and anyone you don't promise a job to is going to be playing their heart out no matter what the coach says, so they can find a spot with another team next year. That's bound to mess up the tanking.
(While I agree this is important (I included it, so it must be!), I don't think this is as important as Hunter thinks. The fact is, a team can outwardly tank even if it's players all play hard, as long as those players are bad. Thus, the team can play backups/young players instead of their "stars", and they could even assure those stars that they will be back the next year (if they want to be after being benched...). So yes the players will play hard, but the team can easily still lose. It's simply up to the coach and front office to convince the better players that they will be rewarded in the future for their patience. Plus, those star players that the team ensures will return then could play intentionally poorly if they knew their jobs were safe. They can all just follow Braylon Edwards's example.)
#6 (Pride/rivalries) - Yep. Inevitably there will be a few guys who simply cannot lose on purpose because it is against their nature. 6a definitely contributes because again, tanking is "taboo" so you can't just tell the fans that's what you're doing and expect them to understand. Some fans WILL think that beating your rivals will salvage an otherwise disappointing season, but every game you win against a hated rival is still hurting your tanking strategy.
(My point exactly. The fan base expects the players to play all-out, and players that have pride in their play, or those seeking records, Pro Bowls, etc., will all try hard if they're put on the field. Plus, fans hate losing to rivals, and I think many fans would even irrationally be upset by losing to a rival, even if losing meant getting a great draft pick. Fan is short for fanatic, they say.)
#7 (Competitive balance) - This one is still true, but a bit more abstract. The coaches and players won't necessarily feel a strong obligation to "competitive balance." They might not care too much about whether the "right teams" were in the playoffs, if it helps THEIR team improve. So the pressure to maintain the "competitive balance" has to come from the owners and (most of all) the league itself. And it does. The owners and the league office have a large hand in making sure that tanking continues to be "taboo." If the fans know their team is tanking, they may think it's a bad thing (against the competitive spirit of the game) or they may think it's a GREAT thing (gives my team its best chance of having success later) but either way, they aren't going to want to SHOW UP to the games WHILE the team is intentionally tanking. That hits the owners in the pocketbook, and worse yet, looks very bad for the league. So the pressure stays on: This is still a business, and we've still got to sell tickets, so make sure you give your fans a reason to keep thinking the team might give them something to cheer about if they come to a game.
(I think I'm flattered that he called my writing "abstract." That seems like a compliment. Maybe. Anyways, this is what I mentioned above. The concept of competitive balance is meaningless to the individual teams if they know that losing is their best course of action. But for the owners, it's even worse that Hunter made it sound. Not only does poor attendance hurt them because of lower ticket revenue, but if they fail to sell out, their home games will be blacked out in the local market, and as we all should know by now, NFL teams make more money off of television revenue than anything else. Additionally, a team tanking this season tells the fan base that they are capable of tanking any time, and this could severely deter fans from purchasing season tickets if they know their team may give up halfway through the season. And finally, as he said and I mentioned above, the league front office has many reasons why it wants tanking to be taboo. From television revenue lost (networks won't pay as much for t.v. rights if they think some late-season games will be thrown, in essence) to gambling concerns (why do you think the NFL is #1 in the U.S. right now, really?) to fantasy football concerns (a vast industry that is growing rapidly), the NFL simply can't afford to let people think certain games aren't being played to win (cue the Herm Edwards quote).)
#3 (Lower value of individual players) - Okay, the value of each player to the team is less in the NFL, compared to the NHL, the NBA, or in MLB. But that's not because of some mystical quality that makes football "the Ultimate Team Sport." It's just because football requires more people in order to play. That's it. But while having the best player in the league on your squad doesn't mean *as* much in the NFL as in the other major sports, it still clearly beats not having the best player in the league. Sure, maybe one rookie isn't going to turn a loser into a contender. But if you want to turn a loser into a contender, you have to start somewhere, and there's no better way to start than having the opportunity to draft the college player who will best fill your team needs. Bringing in one free agent might not turn a loser into a contender. Getting a better Offensive Coordinator may not turn a loser into a contender. But every bit helps, each of those things can be a step in the direction you need to go. If you know you need an impact HB, why get yourself the 2nd best one in the draft when you could have the best one in the draft? Yes, an NFL team has many components. But every time you settle for a sub-optimal component, you lessen the chances of having the desired finished product.
(I completely agree with what Hunter is saying here. First, however, TMQ is not implying that football is "the Ultimate Team Sport" because of said mystical quality, but because of the exact reason Hunter gave: many more players are involved. In baseball, basketball and hockey, most players are involved in the game at all times (baseball is a bit different because of pitchers, but we all can agree that a great pitcher cannot alone make his team great). In football, especially at the professional level, players are only involved in the game roughly half of the time, and their are 10 other guys on the field with them, more than any other sport, making an individual that much less important. Plus, we all know that the NFL draft is a very inexact science, and that no matter how much scouting teams do and how many background checks they run or high school coaches they talk to, it seems to be little better than a 50/50 proposition whether an NFL player ever lives up to his draft position. Maybe it's better to have the #1 HB instead of #2, and maybe it's not. Plenty of teams have gotten the player they wanted much later than they expected him to be available, and others have taken the player they desperately desired and been completely unsatisfied. And still, teams that have missed on high draft picks have gone on to become successful despite those failures. So why intentionally throw away a season, even a non-playoff season, when you can build for the future?)
#1 (Financial cost of high picks) - I don't really believe that high draft picks are "so expensive they almost become a detriment to the team." If they were, we wouldn't be having a discussion about why teams don't tank for draft position, because high draft position wouldn't be desirable to begin with! But we know that it is, because high draft picks command more trade value than lower ones, and teams do make sacrifices to trade up in draft position. I don't really think it is THAT hard to stay under the salary cap. The cap isn't really that restrictive. Each year, there are very few guys in the free agent market that are simply "too good" to be free agents. The guys who are supposed to be retained, the teams find the money to retain them. Exceptions are almost ALWAYS due to conflict between the player and the team, or earlier mismanagement of resources by the team. If a team finds itself in truly dire cap trouble, it's probably their own fault, and not the cap's fault.
(Agreed, but the financial cost I speak of here doesn't actually have much to do with the salary cap. This is more to the idea of possibly missing on a super-high draft pick and being saddled with a huge paycheck for a player that doesn't perform. The higher the draft pick is, the more money the team must commit to an unproven player, potentially costing them the money needed to keep key veterans or add important free agents. This also goes back to the owners' perspectives, as they would surely rather pay a #5 overall pick instead of a #1 overall pick, even if it meant getting a slightly worse player, because both have about the same chance of succeeding in the league. Higher picks not only demand higher salaries, but also demand far more guaranteed money, which is money owners can never get back if the player fails.)
#2 (Potential failure of drafted players) - There is always the potential for a drafted player to fail. This is not less true for later picks than for early picks. In fact, it is MORE true for later picks than early picks, for reasons that should be obvious. The team cannot be afraid to trust its decision about which players are better than which other players. You did all that scouting for a reason. Take the guy you think is the best for your team. Don't trade down and take someone YOU believe is less talented just because it will be a lesser blow if he turns out to be a bust. Man up and take your shot. If you don't want the best high-priced rookies on your team, because you're afraid they might turn out to be a bust, then you shouldn't want the best high-priced veterans on your team either, because you should be afraid they might get hurt. Just use low-priced mediocre talent across the board and see where that takes you. No? Okay, then quit worrying and take the best player. The only reason a miss can hurt more than a hit can help, is because if you hit, the player may hold-out for a restructured contract with mo' $$$, but if you miss, it is very difficult to restructure the contract to less $$$. I think hold-outs are incredibly lame, but that's a whole other rant. :)
(Very fair point, and certainly the lower the pick, the more likely the player is to be a bust (I'm not so sure it's as great a difference as you think, though, especially since all the players we're talking about here are in the top 20 overall picks). However, as you said, there is no way to recoup money from a player that underperforms. Also, if you truly trust your scouting department, then you should either be able to find a player that fits your team no matter where you pick, or else you should know exactly who you need so you can trade, be that up or down, to get him where you get the best value.)
In summary:
I do think #s 4-7 explain why NFL teams don't tank, and I don't expect that to change. They will continue to not tank, even when it is in the best interests of the franchise to do so. It also occurred to me that when someone is controlling a team in Madden, #s 4 and 5 (which I pegged as the biggest reasons why teams don't tank) do not really apply, because you know exactly who you intend to keep, and the coaches and players are largely unaffected by things like pride, or uncertainty about the future of their career (coaches are ENTIRELY unaffected by these things.) Since our first-hand experience with owning and running a team comes from Madden, in which the two largest reasons not to tank are non-factors, it makes sense that the decision to tank should look so "obvious" to us on the surface. Considering these other factors, which Madden players don't have to deal with, was a fun and interesting exercise for me, and put me "in the shoes" of a real-life NFL owner/GM more than I had been when thinking about this topic previously. So thanks for writing the post that was the catalyst for that exercise! :)
(No, thank you for reading.)
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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment