“You play to win the game!”
If you’re a sports fan, you probably know that line uttered by former NFL coach Herm Edwards, which has since become a staple of press conference montages.
The line really does sum up the goal of professional sports. Teams don’t go out and compete because they have nothing better to do.
So how could any pro sports team, in good conscience, justify losing on purpose?
Of course, no one is going to come out and say that they’re trying to lose. But like it or not, strategic on-field failure — or as it’s commonly called, tanking — is seen by many as a viable strategy to improve the long-term fortunes of a team through short-term suffering.
It’s important to note that coaches and players don’t tank; they are always going to give 100 percent effort no matter how bad the team might be. It is the general manager’s and the rest of a team’s front office that goes about setting their franchise up for intentional failure.
In the modern sports landscape, teams which aren’t close to contending for a championship have recognized that sacrificing wins in order to acquire young talent through the draft or trades is often the quickest, most-efficient way to become a contender.
This is because it’s generally acknowledged that you want to be either very good or very bad. Teams that are stuck in no-man’s land — good enough to contend for the playoffs but not good enough to win championships — are the ones which often have the toughest path to ultimate success.
With the NFL Draft just a month away, the Cleveland Browns sure seem to be willing to play the long game if it means success. Including the No. 1 selection in April’s draft, the Browns possess a whopping 22 draft picks over the next two years, as they hope that sheer quantity of options will yield multiple impact players.
The Philadelphia 76ers have in fact coined an even more popular term than tanking, referring to it instead as, “The Process”. Though it eventually cost former GM Sam Hinkie his job, his moves allowed Philadelphia to land potential superstars Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons (as well as another likely top pick in this summer’s draft), has earned him cult hero status amongst certain factions of the Philly faithful.
Tanking is by no means a new phenomenon: the NHL in particular has had tanking-related controversies dating all the way back to when Mario Lemieux first entered the league.
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that tanking a franchise — when executed properly — can indeed lead to championships down the line.
Look no further than the reigning World Series champion Chicago Cubs. Several years’ worth of last-place finishes allowed the Cubs to build a foundation of young studs, who along with a good mix of veterans led Chicago to its first championship since 1908, with more future titles a strong possibility.
Both the Pittsburgh Penguins and Chicago Blackhawks were able to rebuild their franchises through the selection of superstars at the top of the draft (Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, etc.).
Even the San Antonio Spurs — considered the model of any modern pro franchise — owe a large chunk of their decades-long excellence to some strategic losing. When David Robinson was injured during the 1996-97 campaign, and with Tim Duncan primed to be the top pick in the upcoming draft, the Spurs determined it was in their best interest to mail in the season in order to give themselves the best shot at selecting Duncan. The rest, as we know, is history.
Of course, losing is the easy part. Anybody can set a team up for failure. But to execute a successful rebuild, there are numerous factors involved.
First and foremost, there has to be a player or players worth tanking for. This is easier to forecast in the NBA and NHL, whereas in the NFL only a franchise quarterback is deemed worthy of throwing a season away. And you need the scouting personnel to know the difference between a Peyton Manning and a Ryan Leaf.
You must also have the right people in the front office. The Edmonton Oilers had multiple top-three draft picks over the years, but only with the recent selection of generational talent Connor McDavid have they finally been able to break through. The Browns themselves have been near the bottom of the NFL for years due in large part to their inability to find a long-term solution at head coach.
Perhaps the ultimate question is whether or not tanking is morally defensible. The NHL has taken steps to discourage losing on purpose by lessening the odds of the draft lottery and the chance to obtain the number one overall pick. Those who comprise the “old guard” in pro sports scoff at the very mention of tanking.
Losing on purpose is not the easiest thing in the world to stomach. But in a sports world where winning now is a necessity, teams looking to reverse their fortunes are finding themselves wondering: is there really a better way?
