Competitive balance?

[hollodero]

(07-03-2018, 09:01 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why would that bother you?  You strike me as a man that would appreciate balance and parity.

I used to make a thread about my reasons every year. You haven't read those? 

-- so in short, I'm not for parity at all costs. Handing the best pick to the worst team is rewarding failure. See: Browns, Cleveland. Pick over pick is wasted there. Which isn't fair to the selected players, not fair to the teams that beat them, and it obviously keeps them from making some fundamental changes to end the misery.

Also, as maybe an even bigger concern, quite a bunch of games turn meaningless in the second season half. To be precise, it's even worse than that. It makes winning those games a strategical mistake and fans root against their own team in hopes of a better draft pick. This is wrong.

As solution, I'd give the first pick to the best team that didn't make the playoffs, go downwards to the Browns (or whoever really sucked due to bad coaching, bad ownership etc.) and then add the playoff teams at the end of the draft rounds. Let the Browns try something else than waiting for the No.1 selected savior. Let all games be meaningful to the end. And don't reward failure :)