FanGM

Just thinking out loud here. Since these leagues began, we have seen a number of teams that have purposely tanked the season in order to improve their draft position. I think having a lottery type system for the top 5, or top 10 picks would take some of that away.

Considering we can't fire GMs here, this would be one way to combat those that potentially sabotage their own season intentionally.

Thoughts?

I dislike the lot system in the NBA and would vote for no loto system in here for the draft to unless the real NFL does it also....

Onyxgem wrote:I dislike the lot system in the NBA and would vote for no loto system in here for the draft to unless the real NFL does it also....

The biggest problem I see here is GMs can run their teams into the ground or purposely tank seasons without any repercussions.

All this would do is say if you tank the season, you might get the #1 pick, but you might not, although you'd be locked into a pick within a certain range, like top 5 for example.

I don't think it's a bad idea. I also wondered whether teams should have to spend a minimum amount of amount of money each season or start the season with at least a 5.0 average grade position, barring injuries. 5.0 grade position is not hard to achieve even for teams rebuilding.

Or fire em.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately actually, and I think one solution may be to create a performance based system that would oust bad GMs and allow someone to take over from the wait list. We just need to make sure we take out any arbitrariness in order to keep it fair.

My idea is to require teams to win at least 10 games in any 3 year period (raise that to 12 if we go to 18 game seasons). If a GM can't do that, then they surely would not be retained in the NFL. This would allow teams to take a risk by throwing a season in order to gain the #1 pick like Jared A has done with Green Bay in the AFFL this year, but the team would then need to be sure to perform the next 2 years.

Example A - Fired GM
Year 1 - Team goes 3-13.
Year 2 - Team goes 4-12 (would then be put on the "hot seat" for Year 3 and would need to win at least 3 games).
Year 3 - Team goes 2-14. "GM is fired."

Example B - Mediocre but retained GM
Year 1 - Team goes 6-10.
Year 2 - Team goes 0-16 (hot seat = needs 4 wins)
Year 3 - Team goes 7-9 ( hot seat = needs 3 wins)
Year 4 - Team goes 8-8.

Example C - High Risk GM who succeeds.
Year 1 - Team goes 0-16.
Year 2 - Team goes 2-14 (hot seat = needs 8 wins).
Year 3 - Team goes 9-7 (off hot seat).
Year 4 - Team goes 13-3.

Example D - GM who takes a good team and makes it bad.
Year 1 - Team goes 13-3
Year 2 - Team goes 7-9
Year 3 - Team goes 1-15 (hot seat = needs 2 wins)
Year 4 - Team goes 2-14 (hot seat = needs 7 wins)
Year 5 - Team goes 6-10. GM is "fired."

I'm all for a lottery draft, especially if the NFL does it.


That said, I think you need to be careful on accusing people of purposely tanking. Purposely tanking, in my opinion, would be not starting the best player on your roster.


As I feel that this might be directed towards my season, let me point out. The Packers haven't made more than a couple draft picks in the past few years. I was always trading them away, knowing that one day, my all veteran team would need to be dumped. I did that last spring, simply because I couldn't compete. So, no young tallent, and trading all the veterans that had any value... ends up 0-16. I also, am not going to take the time to sign a bunch of guys to make my ratings a 3.7 instead of a 2.1 I just can't see that as worth the effort.

I do like Ben's idea, but it'd be tough to implement.

I think this is a great topic for us to discuss.
Last year when I obtained the Rams they were brutal and I went 0-16 but it certainly was not because I purposely tanked my team. I traded/cut veterans to free up space, obtain picks and as a result of a lot of hardwork I turned the team from an 0-16 team to a divisional champ in a somewhat weak division the following year.
I really like Ben's proposal, it is fair and gives a team plenty of time to turn it around. If a team cannot win on average 3 games a season over three years then they are obviously tanking the team or not putting in the time to be competitive.There is no place for poor GM's or purposely tanking a team when we have a waiting list full of guys who want to take part and since we are trying to make this as realistic as possible...GM's get fired all the time for poor team management..I don't think anyone wants Mike Milen's type personalities in the league.
I realize this may be a touchy subject, but going be Ben's proposal it would not be hard to implement at all.

tanking doesn't always help either.

Indy is 0-16 in affl. i dont think he has any of his own draft picks anyway. So the loses don't effect him