So I stumbled across a post showing that the Rams have the 10th pick this year and it struck me as slightly odd that they should be picking 4 higher than the Phins in the first round. That oddness based on nothing more than my general perception of team success/capability when facing one another. Right or wrong in my perception, the thought then occurred to me that perhaps draft order should be based one more than just the previous years play considering that the different divisions aren't equal in strength and so records won't be equal. Instead, perhaps draft order should take into consideration the overall success of the teams and weight the order based on the previous one, two or maybe three years. That might permit more teams with more holes to address more needs and build towards a fairer allocation? Thoughts?
No, I really think that the only fair way to dole out draft picks is based on the previous season's record. Anything thats subjective whatsoever is then the first step towards corruption and dishonesty, with some teams jobbing the system and others getting benefits that they don't deserve. Now, I would argue that in the case of a tiebreaker, point differential is probably a better way to choose who gets the higher pick than strength of schedule, but I won't say that the current method is unfair.
I didn't mean a subjective method. Rank the teams based on two or three year's performance rather than just one?
Interesting, but not realistic. I think the current system is much more fair than basing it on an amalgam of three years Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
