[Bulldog]

Hey guys,

You know Im kind of new when it comes to betting in the NFL. Have done it for fun during the last 2 seasons, but never taken it too seriously.

But there is something that bothers me. Please tell me if Im totally off here.

Doesnt the way the NFL draft is set up give teams without playoff hopes a strong incentive to lose their last games. Specially if there's a couple of great players in college football.
I mean they have already packed it up for the season, might as well do what will give them the best chance to win next year by getting a possible franchise player...
I think last year a late game between the 49ers and the Cardinals was called by the media "The Reggie Bush Sweepstakes"
I mean this would never happen in soccer leagues for example because the last teams are kicked off to a lower league...
But I just dont know how this doesnt affect the NFL's last games. Am I missing something??
And how could you fix it if it becomes too obvious??

[McBa1n]

That's true on paper - however, you're forgetting one thing that NFL teams have that OTHER major sports do NOT - and that's pride.

It's VERY rare to see teams 'tank' games for draft position, because losers do not last long in the NFL. If teams tanked, it would be (and is) very obvious, which is why you almost never see it (in fact, I havn't in watching football - although, I HAVE seen it in the NBA and NHL almost annually).

Even if your team goes 3-13, if you won your last 3 games, that says something. Football is such a short season and losers get tagged. There is almost no reason to try to lose in the NFL if you're a marginal or worse coach or player - because you probably won't get any work again or a nice salary with a signing bonus.

Also, I've seen a few of those 'Reggie Bush' sweepstakes - heck, I remember the 'Aikman/Mandarich' bowl. I havn't seen a team pack it in and not try in ANY of those games. With only 16 games and being the largest sport on the planet, it's magnified so much when you're such a big loser.

Also, since Houston obviously could've had Reggie Bush,do you think they tanked the game-- and then didn't draft Reggie Bush?
I did watch that game and it was one of the better ones of the season - because both teams tried and both teams stunk. For some reason, those games make the best football to watch, IMO. Plus there's no hype, so you'd never think it.... Weird, huh?

[Bulldog]

I appreciate your answer very much.
You're probably right for the most part.
Definitely wrong about football being the largest sport on the planet... at least the football you're reffering to. Outside the US football is a marginal sport in a few countries and nonexistent in the rest of the world.
I do understand what you say about pride and might be true but I still think that giving incentives to the worst teams will always be problematic...
Thanks again for taking the time to answer ** Bain