Why all the hysteria?

[Destructive]

Originally posted by dendol

All that talk of "tanking" games was really getting on my nerves.

I would never agree to that. We should try our guts out right the way through the season.

[Bear]

Re: Re: Re: Why all the hysteria?

Originally posted by Charlie
Perhaps. But one of my overall points has been that the posts I'm referring to are over-reactions.

You have a point there. Perhaps we should ban all (losing) match comments until after 24 hours have passed

[BAM_BAM]

Originally posted by dendol
can someone actually define the term "tanking"?

I think the understanding of tanking a game is to throw it and lose it on purpose for reasons of profit (prioriy draft picks). And to suggest we could do that also disgusts me.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by Bart
I believe leave the draft as is, i.e. 16th gets 1st pick, but no priority pick for finishing on less than 6 wins.

agree. simplest solution. not too tempting and not easily open to exploitation.
can't agree with a lottery, can you imagine the fuss if a strongly performing team was handed a first-five pick two or three years in a row. all kinds of accusations of corruption would be slung about.

i just thought of one to really upset people: picks in order of lowest gate receipts. okay, so i'm fuelled by envy, but i reckon it would have a real levelling effect over the years.

the doggies would probably break 20,000 at a match sometime into their seventh premiership.

[Tooth Fairy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why all the hysteria?

Originally posted by Bear
You have a point there. Perhaps we should ban all (losing) match comments until after 24 hours have passed

Agreed. It is now constitutionally correct for Des to close RWO down after any loss that the swans incur (or if saddo forgets to punch the ball). The shutdown will be for a period of no more than 24 hours unless saddo makes more than 2 mistakes per game, in which case RWO will remain shutdown for the rest of the week until heads cool down.

[dendol]

Originally posted by BAM_BAM
I think the understanding of tanking a game is to throw it and lose it on purpose for reasons of profit (prioriy draft picks). And to suggest we could do that also disgusts me.

to throw it on purpose. To be honest, I dont think ANY club is capable of that - maybe Collingwood, but thats a debate for another time.

All clubs are in it to win it, and if they cant win it this year, then they will look to win it next year or a few years after that. They know they need the best young kids. Why not a pick 1 courtesy of a priority? I certainly wouldnt be disappointed in the Swans if we went down this path if we were 4-15 and obviously out of finals.

Blood all our youngsters, play Bazza at CHB, Kennelly at FF and try a few new tactics. No one is going out to lose intentionally - we are planning for the future by giving our kids a run. At the end of it, we see which kids may be good enough, and maybe we will get a pick 1 and 3 at the draft. Is what I just described considered tanking?

I think a lottery for the bottom 4 teams, with no priority picks. That way, there is absolutely no incentive to finish 16th. Most of the time, teams ranked 9th to 12th are still in the run for finals so they definately wont be tanking games to get in the "lottery".