tanking? ever acceptable?

[Ken Gargett]

the only other forum i ever spend much time on is a redskins fans forum. yes, it is not a magical kingdom.

currently disagreeing with one of the blokes on it (usually the only thing anyone argues about is whether we should pay kirk or not). he believes that it is now time for the team to tank in the last three games. the unspoken reason being we'll get a better draft pick.

my view is that if they, or indeed any team i supported, ever tanked then i would want nothing more to do with them ever, and would even find myself supporting whoever played them. it is completely unacceptable.

one possible exception - if your side has, for example, wrapped up top spot and is playing another contender. you know that you can beat these guys but if you do, a side that has much more ability or gives you more trouble, will take the last playoff spot. so you play all the rookies or whatever. that, to me, is a strategic decision to best ensure you win the competition although i am still not comfortable. but it is, to me, a completely different thing from dudding fans, supporters, teammates, the competition. possibly this is semantics and i am conflicted.

thoughts?

[dicko]

I think tanking does irreparable damage to a team/club culture i.e. can contribute to instilling a "losing" culture. The best teams always try and win whatever the circumstances. 

[PatrickEwing]

Short answer, yes, it’s acceptable in my view  

North American sports have largely constructed systems that entrap middling teams in purgatory. See Knicks and Jets (though their misery is good fun for most everyone). Most have a salary cap. Most promote equality and parity (unlike Euro soccer, which has settled on big city oligarchies and relegation fights to maintain interest and revenue). Ultimately, what’s the use of giving it a try year in and year out with little open of succeeding toward a championship or sucking enough to warrant a high draft pick. Horrendous management often coincides with these regimes, but the system also provides little recourse if you can’t buy your way out. Luck can only get you so far. The 76ers have been the most obvious example of this. They slashed payroll and talent, stockpiled draft picks and then slashed and stocked more. They drafted redundancies at virtually every position. They were and are rather ruthless about jettisoning a young player if he didn’t fit the “Process.” And now? They’re one of the most exciting teams in the league with a number of marketable and talented young players. I’d be thrilled as a fan. As a Knicks fan on the other hand, I get year after year of Dolan’s idiocy trying to slap a bandaid on a bullet wound. It continues on and on. It hurts. So please, make it really hurt for a few years and then move forward. And as punishment for being incompetent they’d deserve to have their fans stay away for a bit. 

[PatrickEwing]

To add to the euro system, Champions league and Europa also of course add interest and revenue. There’s something for everyone at each strata of the table. It’s beautifully engineered I think. Keep the rich clubs flush and the minnows afloat and everyone ends up ok. I’d love to hear opinions from folks in Europe on the matter actually. But I don’t see such a system ever working in the states. 

[Mattb82]

While I don’t agree with it the Astros are a prime example of how it can turn a franchise around with the proper vision 

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, PatrickEwing said:

To add to the euro system, Champions league and Europa also of course add interest and revenue. There’s something for everyone at each strata of the table. It’s beautifully engineered I think. Keep the rich clubs flush and the minnows afloat and everyone ends up ok. I’d love to hear opinions from folks in Europe on the matter actually. But I don’t see such a system ever working in the states. 

no need to tank here as the salary cap is effectively pointless and there is no draft system. our rugby league system has a salary cap but no draft so ditto. the aussie rules has both but any hint of tanking brings huge penalties, i think (i'm sure aussie rules fans could elaborate).

i agree with dicko - brings in a losing culture. never a good thing.

also, many players are playing for a contract or avoiding the chop. tanking for them means the loss of a job/income. let alone self respect.

i disagree that teams are condemned to that middling hell forever. look at the rams and eagles in the NFL. good draft picks, especially wentz (the browns could have had him), have elevated the eagles. bringing in a top young coach and draft picks have assisted the rams. and they have been supported. when i lived in the states, a while back, the pats were the joke of the comp. the easybeats. things can change.

i'm curious - does anyone know if there are any penalties in the NFL for a team which deliberately tanks?

 

[Ken Gargett]

3 minutes ago, Mattb82 said:

While I don’t agree with it the Astros are a prime example of how it can turn a franchise around with the proper vision 

i don't know the history of the astros (don't even know what sport, to be honest). are you suggesting that proper vision was good management/drafting/coaching or that proper vision came about by tanking?

[Danimalia]

I believe it's acceptable under the following conditions:

A.) That the tanking team competes as hard as it can in every game.

B.) That the tanking is accomplished by giving a majority of the playing time to young and/or unestablished players in an attempt to develop or figure out what a team has in those players. Sitting injured veterans who may be able to play through an injury if the games were more important is acceptable here as well.

C.) It's a relatively short process, such as one or two seasons at most, and is intended as a true part of a re-building attempt, and not as an excuse for a team to go cheap.

There is a line, though, and both individual teams and the leagues themselves would be wise to police it.

[PatrickEwing]

23 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

no need to tank here as the salary cap is effectively pointless and there is no draft system. our rugby league system has a salary cap but no draft so ditto. the aussie rules has both but any hint of tanking brings huge penalties, i think (i'm sure aussie rules fans could elaborate).

i agree with dicko - brings in a losing culture. never a good thing.

also, many players are playing for a contract or avoiding the chop. tanking for them means the loss of a job/income. let alone self respect.

i disagree that teams are condemned to that middling hell forever. look at the rams and eagles in the NFL. good draft picks, especially wentz (the browns could have had him), have elevated the eagles. bringing in a top young coach and draft picks have assisted the rams. and they have been supported. when i lived in the states, a while back, the pats were the joke of the comp. the easybeats. things can change.

i'm curious - does anyone know if there are any penalties in the NFL for a team which deliberately tanks?

 

True on the personal player level, but this is where management conspires to put a terrible product on the field/court. An individual can still compete for future earnings on a personal level  

I suppose we should define tanking. Players competing below their ability on purpose or a logical and determined plan by management to suck with lesser or less experienced players? Detest the former, ok with the latter

The Astros of baseball, current champions, stripped their team of any quality and ended up with a number of high picks. They parlayed that with good management, timely trades, well spent money, a keen eye for talent and some luck to turn around their fortunes relatively quickly. My Knicks have done none of that. The guillotine is their only option. 

[JohnInCleveland]

"We've been talking since 1999."

 

-Cleveland Browns

[PatrickEwing]

26 minutes ago, Danimalia said:

I believe it's acceptable under the following conditions:

A.) That the tanking team competes as hard as it can in every game.

B.) That the tanking is accomplished by giving a majority of the playing time to young and/or unestablished players in an attempt to develop or figure out what a team has in those players. Sitting injured veterans who may be able to play through an injury if the games were more important is acceptable here as well.

C.) It's a relatively short process, such as one or two seasons at most, and is intended as a true part of a re-building attempt, and not as an excuse for a team to go cheap.

There is a line, though, and both individual teams and the leagues themselves would be wise to police it.

I agree here. 

The marlins of MLB are a horrendous example. They have two championships to their name, acquiring high priced talent and culminating the season with an unlikely streak through the playoffs. The team was then gutted and cast aside. Followed by years of zero investment. The owners name was Jeffrey Loria. Truly a criminal. He fleeced MLB, Montreal and Miami. 

[havanaclub]

Well I don't think the Cleveland Browns tank it, it's just what they do is lose. But as you can see, getting top pick after top pick does nothing for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SignalJoe]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

i don't know the history of the astros (don't even know what sport, to be honest). are you suggesting that proper vision was good management/drafting/coaching or that proper vision came about by tanking?

The Astros are Houston's MLB team.  They won the World Series this year.  There were years were it appeared they were tanking but were actually busy stocking the farm.  They stockpiled draft picks and traded away marketable veterans for more picks (J.D. Martinez, Hunter Pence, Micheal Bourn, Bud Norris, Etc. Etc.).  Through a sabermetric approach they went about cashing in their picks from trades and high draft picks from poor records and turned the farm system around and added cast offs at bargain prices.  As the talent developed they brought them up.   Then they surprised everyone including themselves by contending a few years earlier than they predicted.  When they realized they were legitimate contenders they traded farm talent for the final pieces and won it all.  This same formula was followed somewhat successfully by the Rangers and Rays before them.  It hurts watching talent traded away and finishing in the cellar, but building the farm system through well scouted high picks is everything, unless you are the Yankees and can afford to rent an All Star team year in and year out.   

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, Danimalia said:

I believe it's acceptable under the following conditions:

A.) That the tanking team competes as hard as it can in every game.

B.) That the tanking is accomplished by giving a majority of the playing time to young and/or unestablished players in an attempt to develop or figure out what a team has in those players. Sitting injured veterans who may be able to play through an injury if the games were more important is acceptable here as well.

C.) It's a relatively short process, such as one or two seasons at most, and is intended as a true part of a re-building attempt, and not as an excuse for a team to go cheap.

There is a line, though, and both individual teams and the leagues themselves would be wise to police it.

this brings up the 'define tanking' concept.

your point A - the exact opposite of tanking, for me. so there are obviously differences in what we see as tanking. i see tanking as deliberately performing below your best. i have no issue with a side resting players who are carrying injuries that they might try and play with if the season was still in play. i think teams are mad not to do that. also, if you have a young and hopefully up and coming player, giving him a chance for experience - also no problem.

 

[99call]

I know absolutely zilch about American football, but the prospect of losing for a potential benefit in any sport, means something is broken. It may not be that team, rather the structure, but something is broken. 

Unfortunately sport often gets close to structures that make most sense, but pressures of public taste often means those structures that make most sense often come and go. 

Currently the laws within the scrum and tackle areas within rugby union are a bit like a drunk pilot, in a plane with one engine out. It keeps of over-correcting, and in doing so creates some other tenuous issue within the game, that then requires another law change. 

Tanking can never be dissected to uncover some underlying wholesome truth, it doesn't exist. If a team is consigned to some sort of mid-table stagnancy (regardless of whether they do well or not) the best thing they can do (surely) is to put in the performances, and lobby the league to make the necessary changes. 

It's sad but sport these days does seem to be reflecting the worst of the modern world, whether is be cheating, red-tape bureaucracy, prema donnas, over-payment, over-sensitivity etc etc. I can completely see why many these days are preferring to support their local non-professional teams. 

[Mattb82]

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i don't know the history of the astros (don't even know what sport, to be honest). are you suggesting that proper vision was good management/drafting/coaching or that proper vision came about by tanking?

MLB. The Houston Astros ran a strategy of tanking for a number of years to accumulate high draft picks. They actually made very good picks, continued their strategy and then put it all together winning a World Series this year. Now they have a young core that can carry them for a few years. 

[Mattb82]

1 hour ago, havanaclub said:

Well I don't think the Cleveland Browns tank it, it's just what they do is lose. But as you can see, getting top pick after top pick does nothing for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are actually going into a great place for a good gm. Tons of cap space and picks coming up. I think they could be good 2 years from now 

[Ken Gargett]

6 minutes ago, Mattb82 said:

MLB. The Houston Astros ran a strategy of tanking for a number of years to accumulate high draft picks. They actually made very good picks, continued their strategy and then put it all together winning a World Series this year. Now they have a young core that can carry them for a few years. 

if by 'tanking', you mean the definition i have, then i'd have kicked them out of the comp. devalues the entire sport.

if you mean playing young promising guys, resting injured players etc, no issue.

[westg]

3 hours ago, dicko said:

I think tanking does irreparable damage to a team/club culture i.e. can contribute to instilling a "losing" culture. The best teams always try and win whatever the circumstances. 

And believe they can....tanking is just a weak avenue...i agree with Ben what horrible mindset to bring young people or tradse in...Lets lose ...so hopefully in a yesr or two...the worm might turn...pity the fool...

[SignalJoe]

7 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

if by 'tanking', you mean the definition i have, then i'd have kicked them out of the comp. devalues the entire sport.

if you mean playing young promising guys, resting injured players etc, no issue.

They showcased you promising and systematically traded them away for draft picks leaving marginal talent at the Major league level.  They did so knowing that the few good players they had couldn't form a contender so they stocked the farm until they could raise a solid nucleus to build on.  If that meets your definition of tanking then the Pittsburgh Pirates, KC Royals and a few others should be thrown out of the league as well.  Hell a few years back the Pirates payroll was less than what they were getting in revenue sharing from the big market clubs let alone what they were making on the gate, concessions and TV revenue.   

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, SignalJoe said:

They showcased you promising and systematically traded them away for draft picks leaving marginal talent at the Major league level.  They did so knowing that the few good players they had couldn't form a contender so they stocked the farm until they could raise a solid nucleus to build on.  If that meets your definition of tanking then the Pittsburgh Pirates, KC Royals and a few others should be thrown out of the league as well.  Hell a few years back the Pirates payroll was less than what they were getting in revenue sharing from the big market clubs let alone what they were making on the gate, concessions and TV revenue.   

i don't think that there is an easier answer but it is very clear to me, from this thread and the other one in the skins forum, there are both different definitions to tanking and different views on it, when one compares aussie and american responses.

much more taboo for us, much more acceptable in certain circumstances for americans.

must say that this has really surprised me. really is very interesting.

[David88]

To me tanking means going out without the intention of winning. For the ‘skins, tanking to try and gain a favourable draft pick would devalue the draft system and the competition as a whole in my opinion. I hate even seeing guys playing a sport when they’re not up for it that day, so to see a team picked in order to put up a minimal fight would not go down well with me as a fan. 

I have no issue with some youngsters being thrown in when the season is essentially over to gain some experience, but that is totally different. There are times when a side seems to just go into freefall too (South African rugby right now for example) and they couldn’t buy a win despite possessing the talent. While this can be hard to watch I think it’s a different form of tanking and, while hard to watch, has different causes. 

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, David88 said:

To me tanking means going out without the intention of winning. For the ‘skins, tanking to try and gain a favourable draft pick would devalue the draft system and the competition as a whole in my opinion. I hate even seeing guys playing a sport when they’re not up for it that day, so to see a team picked in order to put up a minimal fight would not go down well with me as a fan. 

I have no issue with some youngsters being thrown in when the season is essentially over to gain some experience, but that is totally different. There are times when a side seems to just go into freefall too (South African rugby right now for example) and they couldn’t buy a win despite possessing the talent. While this can be hard to watch I think it’s a different form of tanking and, while hard to watch, has different causes. 

agreed.

[SignalJoe]

16 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i don't think that there is an easier answer but it is very clear to me, from this thread and the other one in the skins forum, there are both different definitions to tanking and different views on it, when one compares aussie and american responses.

much more taboo for us, much more acceptable in certain circumstances for americans.

must say that this has really surprised me. really is very interesting.

It could well be a cultural thing.  I think Americans generally speaking have a tolerance for it if the ends justify the means.  There are several well known cases of tanking which are often thought to be turning points for clubs.  

The San Antonio Spurs held David Robinson back from returning after an injury so they could draft Tim Duncan.  Drafting Duncan and pairing him with Robinson launched their dynasty in the NBA.   

When Andrew Luck was coming out of Stanford multiple teams tanked in an effort to get the 1st overall pick and the opportunity to draft him.  The media dubbed their efforts the "Suck for Luck" sweepstakes and I suspect most Indianapolis fans accepted it without reservation when he put on a Colts jersey.     

I guess in the grand scheme of things most see it as an investment of sorts in the future.  

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/us/suck-for-luck-could-be-best-hope-for-nfls-worst/index.html

[Diabolicalpherpher]

One way the NBA alleviated the problem is by having a lottery for the draft picks.  But last year, the Cavs sat out LeBron, Irving, Smith, and Love (all starters) at the end of the season game so that they would play against the pacers (7th seed) instead of the bulls (8th seed) during the playoffs.  The Bulls had beaten the cavs all four times they played each other during that season. 

I agree you can sit your star players and let the non starters play, it’s essentially tanking but those non starters are still competing to win. It’s never a good thing for management or coaches to tell the players to lose, sets a bad tone for next season.