“Trust the process” is a term known everywhere in the sports world due to the flamboyant, outgoing, and colorful personality of 76ers superstar Joel Embiid. It is widely believed that through this “process” the 76ers acquired a franchise changing star. Tanking, in terms of the sporting world, is a concept centered around a team throwing in the white flag on games, and in essence, their season, in order to be better positioned in the draft the following year. This is a mindset and culture in which the franchise is stripped of most or all assets in order to be better suited for consistent losing. Ownership, management, players and fans all know that a struggling teams best chance at acquiring a star starts with solid positioning in the draft.
The concept referred to as tanking before the age of mass media was done unintentionally during the course of a season while today “tanking” is incorporated into the strategy of management trying to rebuild.
Is this organizational approach toward losing new in sports? The answer is no. Losing has always been and always will be a part of sports. The concept referred to as tanking before the age of mass media was done unintentionally during the course of a season while today “tanking” is incorporated into the strategy of management trying to rebuild. The increased media attention via Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and even Snapchat allows for these losing ways to be exposed and criticized like never seen before.
The 76ers approach was a bit drastic but the strategy looks like it will pay off in the long-run. The process rewarded Philadelphia with an exciting young core of Ben Simmons, Joel Embiid, Markelle Fultz, and Dario Saric.
Moving from the NBA to the MLB, where recently fans have seen the impressive turnaround of the Chicago Cubs, and more recently, the Houston Astros. The Astros went a combined 162-324 in three seasons from 2011 to 2014. This team was built to lose and it showed on the field as they were defeated in more than 100 games during each of these seasons. This period of losing allowed the Astros to accumulate prospects who would play crucial roles in their 2017 World Series Title run.
Carlos Correa, George Springer, Lance McCullers and the prospect surplus to acquire Justin Verlander, not only played an instrumental part in getting Houston its first ever World Series ring, but are also essential building blocks to this organization. Anyone competent would agree, the return on investment here was well worth it for the Houston Astros.
Can this idea of constant losing being the quickest way to championship-caliber winning be solved by each respective league?
Tanking does not guarantee an automatic turnaround for the organization. This method has always been met with mixed results and it is important to build in more ways than through the draft. Not only does a team have to get a few high picks right, they also have to properly build with outside sources that are a good fit within the organization.
Strategically this sort of losing culture can result in what seems to be a never ending downhill spiral. Just ask the Philadelphia Phillies, Cleveland Browns or Los Angeles Lakers whose recent struggles don’t seem to have a light at the end of the tunnel. From 2015-2017, the Browns did not win more than 3 games in a season, and went a combined 4-44 with nothing for the fan base to get truly excited about. On the hardwood the Lakers look to be tanking while banking that a perennial superstar will come to LA simply because of the history and the market. The image of these respective teams and the league they represent is negatively affected by all the losing and the notion that it’s as simple as losing a lot to sacrifice for big winning in the future. Can this idea of constant losing being the quickest way to championship-caliber winning be solved by each respective league?
None of the major sport leagues want to be known for fostering an environment where losing seems to be the most efficient way to accomplish eventual consistent winning. Penalizing a bad team is not a potential option as it would create too much disparity between the top and bottom teams.
The way this is done is by placing financial benefits and flexibility to teams who experience growth in wins year over year. These benefits will not be substantial or grandiose, but it is important to make them worthy enough to make “tanking” less of an attractive organizational philosophy.
Losing is inevitable. There will always be bad teams who lose more often than not, and naturally will receive a high selection in the following draft. Each entity needs to creatively think of ways to dismantle the idea in the minds of fans that the organizations they root on are entrenched in plans that don’t do everything possible to win. All this while the fans pay top dollar to watch and support.
76er fans may be happy now with the Simmons/Embiid potential superstardom. It’s still easy to remember the horrible product fielded on the court by the NBA franchise in Philadelphia just a couple years ago. Fans of any team in any league just want hope. They want that hope and excitement centered around a culture that is dedicated to winning and ultimately competing for a championship. In three seasons the 76ers on the court had zero hope to compete whatsoever. This idea of building a winner was masked by “the process” but in reality, those years are a waste in the franchise’s history. It still remains to be seen if the losing was worth it. The league needs to keep these fans interested by providing a consistent reward system for team improvement. This system needs to place healthy incentives for owners to willingly dedicate the proper resources to improve. Organizations will no longer strive to get worse and intentionally lose for a season or two.
The way this is done is by placing financial benefits and flexibility to teams who experience growth in wins year over year. These benefits will not be substantial or grandiose, but it is important to make them worthy enough to make “tanking” less of an attractive organizational philosophy. These minor benefits will include an allotted amount of money put into a bucket by all owners to encourage teams league-wide to improve and prosper. First funds will be dispersed to teams who qualify to aid in re-signing their own players. It will make the retention of homegrown talent more viable for teams on the rise. For example, 5 win improvements equal out to 3 million dollars from this league wide bucket of funds to help with resignation, while 7 wins gains 5 million dollars, etc.
It is also important to reward teams through the draft whether it be some sort of compensation round or extra picks. If this is not possible (NFL & NBA may have trouble convincing the owners of this) some sort of first movers advantage needs to be implemented in the undrafted FA market, where the teams being rewarded get the first shot on potential gems after the draft.
Lastly, these teams need to be rewarded in such a way that will benefit fan experience. Whether the specified improving team wants to spend this on stadium deals, upgrades, or community outreach projects, it undoubtedly needs to benefit both the local team and the associated league as a whole.
These are just a few potential minor benefits the league can put forward to convey a message that tanking is unacceptable. It won’t stop tanking completely as there are always teams that simply aren’t built well. Instead it will stop teams from blatantly fielding a roster that loses in a big way for multiple seasons. Tanking is something fans of any teams never deserve to see but it is difficult to put rules in place in order to limit this without making the rich richer. There is a happy medium that can be achieved.