Why is it that in professional sports, the team with the worst record gets first pick

[HardcoreRobot]

im all for balancing the league, but yeah gotta do lottery and not straight up.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Parity.

 

[GoPackGo]

Each round should be random...these number 1 picks don't seem to pan out too often

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Or the Detroit Lions, after years of being kinda crappy and getting good early draft picks, which they blew, finally got wise and shitcanned Matt Millen. Now, they've managed to put together one dangerous team (having their QB not be hurt helps too I'm sure).

FTFY.

 

[thraashman]

Slow your roll bud. Fairley has 1 tackle in 3 games played. Please don't refer to him as a superstar. That kid has "bust" written all over him.

Fair enough. He did spend some time hurt though and he was very dominant in college. He may en up a bust or he may end up stepping up his game and a mirror to Suh making Detroit the scariest defense in the NFL.

Wow, some mod totally missed the intent of this thread.

Oh, this was posted in P&N originally wasn't it? So I guess it was supposed to mirror arguments people have regarding non sports related situations? Guess the problem is that guys like myself are way more happy to talk football than politics. Even if I do enjoy a good political argument.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

plus, Indy getting Luck this year would be a fucking godsend.

FTFY.

 

[lothar]

So what the Indiana Colts are doing is all a charade to get 1st draft pick?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So what the Indiana Colts are doing is all a charade to get 1st draft pick?

I don't know what the Indiana Colts are doing, but I do know the Indianapolis Colts seriously suck and I don't think it is an act. Manning covered their flaws all these years.

 

[soulcougher73]

It does sort of suck that the best players get to go to the worst teams though. That would be like being #1 in class and going to the shittiest job available to you.

 

[AMDZen]

Is the OP seriously this dense where so many actually answer this daft question?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

FTFY.

And that day, it was a glorious day! After three years of Packers fans giving me shit for being a Lions fan, it's nice to hear them "concerned" about the Lions, haha.

 

[gorcorps]

The worst teams need the most help. Granted having first pick doesn't mean it'll be used wisely, but they're at least given the best chance.

 

[AMDZen]

There is no way in hell that any Packers fan should be concerned about the Lions. They have zero running game and a mediocre secondary that played above their head in a few games.

Lions are a great team but they're still far from being a serious contender, at least for this year. They would get demolished by any of the NFC powerhouses come playoff time.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

It does sort of suck that the best players get to go to the worst teams though. That would be like being #1 in class and going to the shittiest job available to you.

I think the millions of dollars thrown at them can ease the pain a bit.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

There is a lottery system in basketball. Usually if you're the best you let the other team pick first even though you'll probably end up with that fat kid on your team.

 

[mvbighead]

It does sort of suck that the best players get to go to the worst teams though. That would be like being #1 in class and going to the shittiest job available to you.

Not really. Rookies are going to get paid regardless. So whether a guy goes to Intel or SoyoTech makes little difference because his wage is going to be based on what EVERYONE in the field is making, and not just the players from his shitty team.

Essentially, you want the the best players to end up with crappy teams because you then have kids that are worth giving a shot to start over the current collection of guys.

Take a look at what could happen with Indy/Luck. Most people wouldn't want to see Luck end up in Indy, and he most likely never would have had Manning been healthy for even 3 of the games this year. But instead, you have one team that has long been in the playoffs every year, that will be in contention this year for the top overall pick, and could possibly end up being successful because of that pick for another decade.

Personally, I have no problem with the system as it is. Teams don't necessarily want that top pick because of the money that goes with it. Often times, if a team ends up with the top pick, their head coach is looking for a new job or has found one as an offensive coordinator or defensive coordinator. Teams with the top overall pick often start something of a rebuilding process, because they have serious issues to finish with only 1,2, or 3 wins over the course of 16 games.

And, to get the top pick, you're essentially guaranteeing an unknown commodity 4 years of pay at 22 million. Not exactly desirable knowing the rate at which players can and will become busts.

For me, the system works. If a team is in a major rut, the higher draft picks give them a better chance at improving the next season. If failure continues, teams generally clean house or bring in new coaching staff (Millen/et all).

As for making it completely random... total BS. You could then have Sam Bradford projected as the #1 overall pick, with the Patriots holding onto that pick. They pick the kid, and trade him away for a plethora of other picks from the highest bidder and build their team bigger and better than they were.

Leveling the playing field makes the most sense from a $$$ standpoint.

 

[IAteYourMother]

It does sort of suck that the best players get to go to the worst teams though. That would be like being #1 in class and going to the shittiest job available to you.

Nah, I bet the #1 pick has rarely gone to the same team more than once in a decade.

 

[Red Storm]

If you like a system where the best teams get the best prospects, check out college sports.

 

[ichy]

The NFL doesn't want to end up like European soccer where you have two or three teams perpetually dominating the leagues in every country. Just look at who's won the championships in Spain, Italy or England over the past decade. Same damn teams over and over again.

 

[zinfamous]

Except nobody really wanna work for the losers in the "real world." Can you imagine if all the brilliant minds at Google went to work for groupon? Or the brains of Intel switched to AMD?

Even LeBron had to get the hell outta Ohio, his hometown, to play w/ studs in Miami.

You know, he could have remained in CLeveland, where he had the exact same type of success (losing in the playoffs after considerable expectations).

 

[zinfamous]

There is no way in hell that any Packers fan should be concerned about the Lions. They have zero running game and a mediocre secondary that played above their head in a few games.

Lions are a great team but they're still far from being a serious contender, at least for this year. They would get demolished by any of the NFC powerhouses come playoff time.

yeah, the Lions have shown considerable weaknesses this year after their impressive start, but I do enjoy their success. That isn't to say that GB shouldn't be concerned over their own questionable defense. Though, with Jesus at the helm (Aaron Rodgers), they really shouldn't worry too much.

 

[Illusio]

If you like a system where the best teams get the best prospects, check out college sports.

And that's exactly why I don't watch college sports.

 

[mvbighead]

And that's exactly why I don't watch college sports.

Ditto.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

in the first round of a draft and the best team gets last pick? Wouldn't a fairer system be the team with the best record gets first pick? Or at the very least a lottery system be implemented.

Why would the league/association do this?

It's OK. It's not evil socialism or some sort of hatred of the good for being the good. Professional sports leagues are businesses and all of the teams in the league are really on the same team in that sense. They have an interest in selling as many tickets and t-shirts as possible.

If the draft policies favor the winning teams, then the winning teams will be further strengthened, which means that the weaker teams won't have as much of a chance to get better. The weaker teams won't get the newest big name stars that they need. The end result is that the fanbases in the cities that host losing teams will lose interest. Also, evening out the strength of the teams and having a policy that improves some teams makes the games more competitive and exciting, which is important for retaining a fanbase.

Don't you think it would get boring if the same small group of teams won over and over again? Consequently, the same policy underlies the logic of having a salary cap to an extent. One of the problems in baseball is that one team, the NY Yankees, outspends all of the other teams reducing interest for non-NY fanbases to an extent.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes, but they bottom teams have a much better shot at turning things around with a higher draft pick. Not ever team drafts as bad as the millen era lions. Once he was gone, they turned it around pretty quick with those series of high draft picks.

Lions fans refer to Matt Millen as the "Moron of the Millenium".