Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

can anyone prove that a sports franchise has ever purposely lost games to have a higher draft pick?


GOAT

Recommended Posts

Enough is enough, I posed this question in another thread but feel the need to challenge this to the entire forum.

Can anyone provide info pertaining to a sports franchise purposely losing games to improve their draft position?

I'm even expanding this to other sports, I cannot think of a single time when a team obviously lost games in order to improve their draft positioning.

I don't believe that this is a real strategy and if that is the case, this weird fan fueled theory needs to be put to rest once and for all.

(BONUS: if you can provide an example of a team doing this, please include how this improved their team in the long run ie Rhule mentioning the Sixers believing in this method and it getting them nowhere...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Isn’t that the reason the NBA has the draft lottery to prevent teams from intentionally tanking?

I found this article on wiki full of a few acquisitions over the last century. nothing concrete. obviously the NBA had this in mind, and is different with that amount of games played vs NFL. still sounds like a farce though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanking_(sports)#Examples

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Adb6368 said:

The Philadelphia 76ers even named their tanking ‘the process’ and their star player was not shy about admitting it either as he sat out due to injuries

get it philadelphia 76ers GIF by NBA

how's that plan working?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Any QB worth his weight in gold is going to get his guys the ball. Of course he has to have the protection, coaching and experience to do that. Moreover, it has yet to be determined what type of situation this is for a rookie wideout. The most important thing that will determine that is coaching.
    • I watched it this afternoon and I thought some of the best discussions was before it even got to the players. One thing that really jumped out to me was when Smitty was asked about how things have changed since he played and the thing he talked about was how when he played and going back to Jerry Rice says, the #1 targeted or looked to receiver was always the X and there's still a lot of people who's minds are still stuck in that idea. But what has happened is that the, what he calls, the F receiver...the flanker...is now the go to guy. You need the X to try and get safeties out of the box, but the QB is now looking for his flanker most of the time. Lots of good discussions all through it, but for some reason the ones involving Ladd, Corley, and Leggette was the most interesting. Ladd was how he may be best fit for just the slot, but he's the best slot guy in the draft and he's just a guy who gets open and doesn't drop the ball. Corley and Leggette are playmakers who are at a risk of being pigeonholed. Leggette is too stiff to be a slot guy but he can do things like Metcalf. Corley is likely to be used much as he was in college, as the big playmaker you just get the ball in his hands however you can, but he's got a lot of room for development as a receiver. It's just good football talk all the way through  
    • I'd resigned myself to 2000 and never.   Cautiously optimistic based on this off season that 2026 is a real possibility. 
×
×
  • Create New...