I brought up a couple rule changes last year to help incentive winning and I would like to have that discussion again. I think there needs to be some sort of incentive to compete and win games. The league is setup for teams to either go for it or tank. The worst thing you can do in this league is go 7-9 or 8-8 and not make the playoffs. Every year, I keep seeing average teams decide they can't win it all, so the best option is to try to lose and get a better draft slot.
I am in that boat myself. I have a good team on paper right now, but not a great team. With little money to spend in the draft, I could try to win - or I could pack it in now and rebuild quickly for the future. This shouldn't be an option - I should want to win. Some incentives I brought up last year were
--A win bonus for teams up to $3 or $5 million.
--Reversing the free agent draft order for non-playoff teams. Non-playoff teams with the best record would get the better picks in the draft.
I do not believe we have a problem with teams "tanking" in the league. I don't think any of our owners would do that. I hope I am not wrong.
We have reduced the in-season salary cap, and end the trade period at week #4. It is pretty hard to decide to "tank" a season after four games. To do so is foolish, in my opinion. London started 0-3 last year and almost made the playoffs where anything can happen. And we have a lottery for the first four picks in the draft.
IF we thought tanking was truly an issue, I'd be willing to consider revising how the draft order is determined. But I'd need to be convinced team's purposely don't try as hard as possible to win games.
We can let it play out, for sure. I still think many teams decide it is not worth it to try to win. There is literally no incentive to win in this league if you don't have a championship level team. In real life, there are many incentives to win - mainly financial.
