... get players and in 2 seasons' time they're on their way to back-to-back championship. We don't like that. There's been hundreds of post here to show it. And I hate tanking.
This is what I really want objective evidence of. How many teams who tank (meeting whatever definition would garner any proposed penalty) actually go on to substantially improve their team to the point of dominating multiple levels of competition? It's an honest question, and I really don't know the answer to it. My gut tells me that this isn't quite as common as it's generally accepted. But my gut, glorious as it may be, isn't objective evidence either. But it's clearly true that whether or not tanking actually leads to better results down the road, the
perception definitely is such that tanking does so.
And like SM said, I agree that tanking should be a possible strategy, one that can be good in the long run for a team to pursue. Now, I don't want it to lead to teams that are overwhelmingly powerful. But if the difficult and boring time spent tanking yields an overall benefit that makes a middle of the road team stronger, then I have to give some credit to the manager who spent the time and dedication on that strategy.
Overall though I do agree that having multiple teams tank in the same league makes for kinda a boring season. Once it's clear that there's a tanking team in your division, then there's a big incentive to tank yourself, just to a lesser degree than the other team. That race to the bottom seems to lead to a big disparity in the top teams in the league who are aiming for promotion, and the tanking teams. A bit more competition throughout would be welcome I think.
I tend to favor some combination of various remedies discussed here:
-a slight increase in the player salary floor. I'd leave it at 60% of TV money in D5, but the rest I would increase one step (i.e.m D3/4 would be at 100% of salary floor, D2 is 120% of TV contract, and D1 is 140%).
-an increased penalty for multiple forfeits. I'd say that the 4rd forfeit gets you the same penalty as relegation does, and lasts the remainder of the season
-an increased penalty for suffering multiple blowout losses. I think the 4th loss of 40 points or more gets you the relegation penalty for the rest of the season.
I suspect that in response to changes like these, the perception that tanking is beneficial would be reduced. Teams who tank in order to train young players could still do it, and try and come back stronger on home grown talent. The other teams who tank for purely financial reasons would at least try to do enough to avoid the penalties, and thus field better, more competitive teams on average. Teams could still 'throw' a few league games to continue competing in the Cup.
I think crucial in a system like this, or any system that will penalize tanking, is that the negative aspects are made abundantly clear to all managers. So, in the 'adaptive' system like my earning the relegation penalty for a certain number of forfeits/blowouts, the manager needs to be alerted to how many forfeits they've made, and how many more they have before the penalty starts. If it's a more opaque system, such as the "4th place really
is better than 5th place" scenario we currently have, it will fail. It won't adequately change managers' behavior.