In light of the many discussions about tanking that we've had over the years, especially the past few seasons, I've come up with a proposal to fix those concerns. I propose that we eliminate the draft entirely and having all rookies instantly enter UFA.
This completely eliminates almost any accusations of tanking, as there would be no more "incentive" to do so. As we've seen many times, having the cap room to offer to or retain a UFA does not mean that you'll sign them at the end of the day. Clearing cap space to make a run at signing a top rookie would then be no different than clearing cap to make a run at any other top FA...a valid strategy that may or may not pay off. Rebuilding teams also won't be able to hoard talent for long, as the initial financial commitment will be much higher. Attempting to continually keep cap space open to sign, for example, Payton/Steve Smith/Shaq/Webber in consecutive years will be extremely expensive, forcing one to commit to paying heavy amounts of tax in order to keep their superteam together. Even then, they'll lack the quality depth that other GMs were able to put together.
Doing this would also put all the focus for building a competitive team on the things we love most about this game: team-building, cap management, and trades. As the amount of talent in the league increases, GMs would have to prioritize offering smart contracts even more. Overpays for role players and low-level stars would be less frequent, and commiting long-term money to a y/b or y/g project in RFA becomes a much harder decision. With more talent in the UFA pool, it becomes much more likely that Round 2, and even Round 3, will still have useful players available. This increases GM activity and focus during the offseason. An inactive/uninvolved GM can sleepwalk through the season, pick up a good draft pick, sleepwalk through RFA & UFA, and repeat, effectively holding the rookies they pick up hostage until RFA at the earliest. With this change, being active is the only way to go from rebuilding to competing. As we're all working with the same amount of cap, and contending teams often don't have much cap to work with, there's little chance of the "best always getting better" like it would be in real life...unless "the best" are also very smart with their cap.
I'm advocating for this option over alterations to the draft classes or the draft process because judging by what's been discussed, the concept of the draft itself is the problem. Tanking will always be a concern as far as a draft is concerned. No amount of randomizing will change the fact that top 5 draft odds are almost always going to result in picking up a quality player and holding his rights for at least 4 seasons, meaning that there will always be a worthwhile incentive to tank. Instituting set draft odds that rotate every year has to also be paired with random draft classes to work, otherwise you'll have GMs building their franchises around when they'll have high picks, plus the added salt generated from feeling that GMs were "gifted" certain players. Also...most of us are in this for the historical aspects, so deviating from that with randomized drafts is most assuredly going to turn people off. That's also not getting into the added difficulty of revising set draft odds whenever an expansion team enters the league.
I do believe that this is the best solution for trying to eliminate tanking from the league, but I really just posted this in order to get the ball rolling on serious talks so that we can come to some sort of consensus on this moving forward.
Suggestion: Removing the Draft
-
Xist2Inspire
- Posts: 3736
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:12 pm
- PBSL Team: DC Wizards
Re: Suggestion: Removing the Draft
I don't think the draft is the problem. It's the purposeful losing in the season that's the problem. I personally look forward to the draft every year no matter where I am drafting. This could be an alternative, but I think it would have to come with some other changes too.
I don't think we can have anyone go over the cap with this. What is the issue with going over the cap if there is no way for other people to get better players other than FA. So a hard cap at the league set salary cap would help with that, which I don't think people would like.
I also would say that we need a two year minimum on all Free Agent signings without a team option because then people can just bid one year and have that cap fall off. With the league already started, the teams who have won already have an advantage for players that look for winning as a priority, so it wouldn't completely make things even.
I don't think an overhaul of the draft will accomplish anything personally. It completely changes the game, while some adjustments can still deter tanking.
I don't think we can have anyone go over the cap with this. What is the issue with going over the cap if there is no way for other people to get better players other than FA. So a hard cap at the league set salary cap would help with that, which I don't think people would like.
I also would say that we need a two year minimum on all Free Agent signings without a team option because then people can just bid one year and have that cap fall off. With the league already started, the teams who have won already have an advantage for players that look for winning as a priority, so it wouldn't completely make things even.
I don't think an overhaul of the draft will accomplish anything personally. It completely changes the game, while some adjustments can still deter tanking.
Re: Suggestion: Removing the Draft
There are some unintended consequences with this solution. Logpmess has outlined one of them (1 + Team Option is basically an expiring contract in Free Agency).
Another is the loss of Restricted Free Agency. If we are no longer drafting rookies, it means we also aren't getting access to their RFA rights. This might be a positive or a negative change, depending on your point of view, but it would be a change nonetheless.
The next thing we would have to consider is "how to phase this in?" If we vote on it and phase it in immediately, past trades where talent was sent out in return for draft picks look awful because now it becomes "talent sent out for nothing." It can punish teams' earlier moves. But if we say, "phase this in three years from now" suddenly draft picks in the next three years become super-valuable commodities because they will net you a talented player on the cheap for four years, giving you Bird Rights when those players expire while letting you bid on the best rookies when the rule is phased in despite having cheap depth around them.
I do not deny this would have been a great idea had we started the league with it. Figuring out how to phase it in on the fly is a lot more difficult, though, especially given the way it punishes teams for moves they may have made under different rules.
As to "anti-tanking" measures, I think there is less "moral hazard" in teams trading away talent in the hopes of non-guaranteed future returns from the lotto, and then sucking because they have no talent than there is in teams that scheme gameplans to keep talent on the roster while losing games to improve their lottery position to build talent for the future. It's the difference between the "front office" tanking (which IRL front offices are incented to do) and players/coaches tanking (which IRL they are never incented to do).
It has been pointed out that policing Depth Charts could be a subjective thing; for example, one could argue that the Blazers suppressing their starters minutes in favor of longevity has been integral to their success, and (1) it is difficult to judge something as subjective as "is this a valid depth chart" and (2) any judge of "is this a valid depth chart" would need to have no dog in the race... in other words, you can't ask another owner to be the judge.
I much prefer an approach that is "results-based" so there is no subjectivity involved. I would propose the following:
Right now, "Team Settings" for each team are set to "Computer Control" for "Coach Games" (meaning the computer tries to follow your Depth Chart, but on a play-for-play basis, the computer automatically subs out tired players, calls defenses etc.) and all other settings are "User controlled."
Proposed Anti-Tanking Rule: If a team loses 10* games in a row or falls more than 15* games under the .500 mark at any point during the season (e.g., losses - 15 >= wins so this could happen as early as a 1-16 record even without a 10-game losing streak), at the beginning of the next regular season sim, all players on IR are activated, then "Depth Chart" and "Gameplan" for that team's settings are set to CPU control the rest of the season instead of User controlled (in other words, the team automatically selects "Recommended" the rest of the season). These settings are reverted to "User" at the start of the next season. (If the team roster is of a size where players must be placed on IR to be legal - 14 or 15 players - the Commissioner will set the 14th and/or 15th players on the depth chart following the "Recommended" entry to IR; if a team has injured players and they are placed in the 14th or 15th slot, the commissioner will repeat the "Recommend then deactivate players in slots 14 and 15" process when the player returns to health). By tying this change to an objective measure "your team has lost X games" instead of a subjective one "I think your DC sucks" nobody can argue that their DC shouldn't be changed ("you may think it sucks but I genuinely think it gives me the best chance to win") because you have either lost the predetermined number of games or you haven't. A completely objective standard.
Once a team is under CPU control for DC's and Game Plans, the GM should check into the DC thread with "Auto" instead of "Same" (or posting changes) to continue getting credit for activity.
* We could use any numbers here instead of 10 and 15 but these seemed like the right numbers to make it clear that any team that reaches this level of losing is either bereft of talent - and this change won't matter - or is deliberately underperforming, which is a moral hazard and which setting to CPU control should correct before they can tank to a top draft pick since you'd have to finish around 34-48 to avoid CPU depth charts kicking in, which is usually nowhere near the top of the lotto. Setting the figures much higher means by the time they kick in, a deliberately underperforming team has gotten a significant jump on a lotto pick.
Another is the loss of Restricted Free Agency. If we are no longer drafting rookies, it means we also aren't getting access to their RFA rights. This might be a positive or a negative change, depending on your point of view, but it would be a change nonetheless.
The next thing we would have to consider is "how to phase this in?" If we vote on it and phase it in immediately, past trades where talent was sent out in return for draft picks look awful because now it becomes "talent sent out for nothing." It can punish teams' earlier moves. But if we say, "phase this in three years from now" suddenly draft picks in the next three years become super-valuable commodities because they will net you a talented player on the cheap for four years, giving you Bird Rights when those players expire while letting you bid on the best rookies when the rule is phased in despite having cheap depth around them.
I do not deny this would have been a great idea had we started the league with it. Figuring out how to phase it in on the fly is a lot more difficult, though, especially given the way it punishes teams for moves they may have made under different rules.
As to "anti-tanking" measures, I think there is less "moral hazard" in teams trading away talent in the hopes of non-guaranteed future returns from the lotto, and then sucking because they have no talent than there is in teams that scheme gameplans to keep talent on the roster while losing games to improve their lottery position to build talent for the future. It's the difference between the "front office" tanking (which IRL front offices are incented to do) and players/coaches tanking (which IRL they are never incented to do).
It has been pointed out that policing Depth Charts could be a subjective thing; for example, one could argue that the Blazers suppressing their starters minutes in favor of longevity has been integral to their success, and (1) it is difficult to judge something as subjective as "is this a valid depth chart" and (2) any judge of "is this a valid depth chart" would need to have no dog in the race... in other words, you can't ask another owner to be the judge.
I much prefer an approach that is "results-based" so there is no subjectivity involved. I would propose the following:
Right now, "Team Settings" for each team are set to "Computer Control" for "Coach Games" (meaning the computer tries to follow your Depth Chart, but on a play-for-play basis, the computer automatically subs out tired players, calls defenses etc.) and all other settings are "User controlled."
Proposed Anti-Tanking Rule: If a team loses 10* games in a row or falls more than 15* games under the .500 mark at any point during the season (e.g., losses - 15 >= wins so this could happen as early as a 1-16 record even without a 10-game losing streak), at the beginning of the next regular season sim, all players on IR are activated, then "Depth Chart" and "Gameplan" for that team's settings are set to CPU control the rest of the season instead of User controlled (in other words, the team automatically selects "Recommended" the rest of the season). These settings are reverted to "User" at the start of the next season. (If the team roster is of a size where players must be placed on IR to be legal - 14 or 15 players - the Commissioner will set the 14th and/or 15th players on the depth chart following the "Recommended" entry to IR; if a team has injured players and they are placed in the 14th or 15th slot, the commissioner will repeat the "Recommend then deactivate players in slots 14 and 15" process when the player returns to health). By tying this change to an objective measure "your team has lost X games" instead of a subjective one "I think your DC sucks" nobody can argue that their DC shouldn't be changed ("you may think it sucks but I genuinely think it gives me the best chance to win") because you have either lost the predetermined number of games or you haven't. A completely objective standard.
Once a team is under CPU control for DC's and Game Plans, the GM should check into the DC thread with "Auto" instead of "Same" (or posting changes) to continue getting credit for activity.
* We could use any numbers here instead of 10 and 15 but these seemed like the right numbers to make it clear that any team that reaches this level of losing is either bereft of talent - and this change won't matter - or is deliberately underperforming, which is a moral hazard and which setting to CPU control should correct before they can tank to a top draft pick since you'd have to finish around 34-48 to avoid CPU depth charts kicking in, which is usually nowhere near the top of the lotto. Setting the figures much higher means by the time they kick in, a deliberately underperforming team has gotten a significant jump on a lotto pick.
The Cat is Back
-
Xist2Inspire
- Posts: 3736
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:12 pm
- PBSL Team: DC Wizards
Re: Suggestion: Removing the Draft
Yeah I figured that it could be hard to implement. Since I'm one of GMs that would stand to lose a lot with this change, I figured that me bringing it up would help kickstart talks. 
1. I worry that it'll cause more GMs to "tune out". Like if your team legitimately isn't good or can't keep up despite trying to compete, being automatically barred from active participation (yet still expected to keep up appearances of activity for a relative pittance of points) is going to frustrate some people.
2. This would have to be paired with some kind of oversight/regulatory body for offseason moves, to prevent a GM from "building" a team guaranteed to end up on the "Auto" list.
This is a fair idea, but:WigNosy wrote: Mon Sep 08, 2025 4:29 pmProposed Anti-Tanking Rule: If a team loses 10* games in a row or falls more than 15* games under the .500 mark at any point during the season (e.g., losses - 15 >= wins so this could happen as early as a 1-16 record even without a 10-game losing streak), at the beginning of the next regular season sim, all players on IR are activated, then "Depth Chart" and "Gameplan" for that team's settings are set to CPU control the rest of the season instead of User controlled (in other words, the team automatically selects "Recommended" the rest of the season). These settings are reverted to "User" at the start of the next season. (If the team roster is of a size where players must be placed on IR to be legal - 14 or 15 players - the Commissioner will set the 14th and/or 15th players on the depth chart following the "Recommended" entry to IR; if a team has injured players and they are placed in the 14th or 15th slot, the commissioner will repeat the "Recommend then deactivate players in slots 14 and 15" process when the player returns to health). By tying this change to an objective measure "your team has lost X games" instead of a subjective one "I think your DC sucks" nobody can argue that their DC shouldn't be changed ("you may think it sucks but I genuinely think it gives me the best chance to win") because you have either lost the predetermined number of games or you haven't. A completely objective standard.
Once a team is under CPU control for DC's and Game Plans, the GM should check into the DC thread with "Auto" instead of "Same" (or posting changes) to continue getting credit for activity.
1. I worry that it'll cause more GMs to "tune out". Like if your team legitimately isn't good or can't keep up despite trying to compete, being automatically barred from active participation (yet still expected to keep up appearances of activity for a relative pittance of points) is going to frustrate some people.
2. This would have to be paired with some kind of oversight/regulatory body for offseason moves, to prevent a GM from "building" a team guaranteed to end up on the "Auto" list.
