undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmkovach2mo ago0 comments

The prevailing narrative here is that the team was actively looking to lose to acquire draft picks. Hugh Jackson was extremely good at losing, so he stayed.

The owner of the Cleveland Browns uses the team to generate more revenue. For NFL teams, performance has little to do with their value or ability to generate additional revenue.

There is no strong financial incentive to win in the NFL, aside from the owner's ego. The Browns' owner's ego is driven by money, and the result shows on the field.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

triceratops2mo ago· 1 in thread

> The prevailing narrative here is that the team was actively looking to lose to acquire draft picks

But if they don't care about winning, why bother getting good draft picks?

xnorswap2mo ago

From doing more research about this, it seems they don't want to use the good draft picks, but to sell them on to teams that do want to win.

The draft pick is itself a commodity that can be traded*, so by losing they get a premium commodity, that they can sell on, and by selling their picks they ensure that they continue to lose to get the valuable commodity.

They even lobbied to tweak rules around selling draft picks: https://www.reuters.com/sports/browns-ask-nfl-allow-draft-pi...

* This seems completely absurd to me, but perhaps there would just be backroom deals otherwise, and having it sanctioned brings it into the light?

datsci_est_20152mo ago

> For NFL teams, performance has little to do with their value or ability to generate additional revenue.

Like an allegory for performative capitalism in America. Profit and quality completely decoupled in the wake of market capture (rent seeking).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse