And the winner of the tanking debate is .......... | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

And the winner of the tanking debate is ..........

I believe we need a pure contest in the competition, a simple, uncompromised system of reward and as little as possible left to chance. Lotteries may be entertaining but they can also be counterproductive, with bottom teams "unlucky in the draw" in consecutive years.
 
achillesjones said:
I believe we need a pure contest in the competition, a simple, uncompromised system of reward and as little as possible left to chance. Lotteries may be entertaining but they can also be counterproductive, with bottom teams "unlucky in the draw" in consecutive years.
Click to expand...

That's the argument regularly thrown up against a lottery. People are uncomfortable with e.g. the 9th team getting lucky and snaring pick #1 with, say, a 2% chance. I can live with it, it'll even out over time and it dramatically reduces the incentive to tank in a given year.
 
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
That's the argument regularly thrown up against a lottery. People are uncomfortable with e.g. the 9th team getting lucky and snaring pick #1 with, say, a 2% chance. I can live with it, it'll even out over time and it dramatically reduces the incentive to tank in a given year.
Click to expand...

Still not sure this stops the desire to lose. Being last still gives you a higher chance to attain the top pick. So if you're in the last 4 places, there's still theoretically more incentive to finish last than 4th last. I just don't believe there is a huge incentive to tank under normal circumstances. Where the huge incentive comes in is from the priority pick. Remove the priority pick and I think the concept of tanking is much less desirable.
 
GoodOne said:
Still not sure this stops the desire to lose.  Being last still gives you a higher chance to attain the top pick.  So if you're in the last 4 places, there's still theoretically more incentive to finish last than 4th last.  I just don't believe there is a huge incentive to tank under normal circumstances.  Where the huge incentive comes in is from the priority pick.  Remove the priority pick and I think the concept of tanking is much less desirable.
Click to expand...

Agree on the PP, it's a huge incentive. Needs to be removed or at least have the qualifications tightened.

Would still prefer to see a lottery though. If e.g. West Coast v Richmond in R22 was 16th v 15th with the loser getting the wooden spoon and a 25% chance at pick #1 intead of 20%, I'd like to think we'd smash them.  :)
 
The trouble with this debate, is that despite clear evidence (e.g Carlton v Melbourne rd 22 Tank Cup) the AFL administration (you know who I mean) will NOT ADMIT to ANY PROBLEMS

Tanking for Draft Picks
The uneven fixture
Umpiring standards
Stadium Deals

are all complete non issues to the current AFL administration. I read many constructive and realistic options here for addressing the first item on that list. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything to change.

Also. It's not tanking. It's "Win-Loss Ratio Management"
 
achillesjones said:
Not my idea, but this is definitely the best i have heard. So simple, so fair and so easy.....

At the end of round 15 when all teams have played each other once, the draft picks are decided according to the current formula.
This will leave the last 7 rounds as a pure contest where we go to the footy and barrack for our team without the ridiculous notion of a reward for failure.

Round 15 is early enough in the season to eliminate the debate. Also it is fair because the draw does not influence ladder position.
Click to expand...

That still has its inequities - e.g.

During the first 15 rounds Collingwood plays the West Coast at Subiaco - Richmond plays the West Coast at the MCG. or vice cersa
Richmond plays Port at AAMI. Carlton plays Port at the MCG. or vice versa
Hawthorn plays Brisbane at the Gabba or Brisbane play Hawthorn in Tasmania.

These instances would make your solution unfair.

Scrap the NAB cup and play each team twice.......that is a 30 game season under the current 16 team competition and 34 games under the upcoming 18 team competition.......player lists would have to go 50 players.......TV contracts would have to be increased.....BUT AT THE VERY LEAST IT WOULD BE FAIR!
 
Just have 15 rounds, with each club playing every other club once home and once away every two years. That way the AFL can add as many TV clubs as they want until we get 22 rounds again.
 
Why is the AFL the only sport in the world with a draft that uses prioirty picks? It's a silly system that gives far too much benefit to tanking teams.

It's also the only sport with such a limited free agency system that makes club overvalue 18 year olds because they can keep them forever
 
If we ever had any moral high ground on this issue it has gone via the back page of the Herald Sun. Terry Wallace was his doublespeaking evasive self on SEN tonight.
 
I heard this one on SEN recently and it made a lot of sense to me. The whole point of the draft is to give clubs picks on the basis of need. The present needs criteria is how many wins in a given season (or as Melbourne and Carlton have illustrated over two etc). The aim however ultimately is about giving clubs sufficient picks to rebuild for a shot at the finals and prehaps a premiership.

So if that's the case, let's change the criteria and more closely link it to finals football - Number 1 pick should go to the club that has spent the greatest number of years outside the finals (if it's a draw then I guess number of wins or percentage etc during that period) and so on for the teams that finish in the bottom eight. As for the teams in the top eight as per usual, the club that finishes eigth gets pick nine and so on etc.

No team will tank a spot in the finals if they have a chance of winning one in the later part of the season, and as for the also-runs they can play competitive football to their hearts content and not have their pick affected. No system is perfect but I can't help but think this one is superior to the mess that we have at present.
 
willo said:
The only flaw with that is teams don't play each other once by round 15
Click to expand...

The other flaw in this idea is that tanking will simply start 6 weeks earlier than it does now.
 
Tigermad2005 said:
How about the bottom 8 playing off for the pick?
Click to expand...

By doing that, aren't we just giving the pick to the team that least deserves it...i.e. the best of the bottom 8 teams. The whole idea of the priority pick is to help the dud teams get better not help the 9th best team take the next step into the 8.
 
Mr Magic said:
The other flaw in this idea is that tanking will simply start 6 weeks earlier than it does now.
Click to expand...
Not really, every team in the competition can still make the finals by the end of Round 9
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Cocktail Party tonight @ Crown | Kingy, Hislop and mcmahon over Bowden is disgusting! >
Top Bottom