Tanking, a term made popular in modern sports history refers to when a professional sports franchise purposely loses games to gain a better draft position.  In theory, a franchise might tank to secure top-tier talent available at the top of the draft. However, does this strategy actually work? How many true success stories exist, and what are the long-term consequences of tanking? today, I will answer all of these questions in a quest to uncover the truth about tanking, and what effects it actually has on a professional sports franchise.

Does Tanking Work?

In theory, following modern-day sports analytics, tanking works. Losing in a season where you all but know that you will not win a championship, to add better talent for future seasons makes complete sense on paper. Teams have successfully “tanked” in the past, look to teams like the 2009-2014 Houston Astros, who lost over 100 games in each of those seasons, got better draft capital, and by 2017 they won a World Series. Tanking does have its success stories, but how many? That depends on your definition of success. To me, a tank is successful if the team that “tanks” eventually wins a championship as a result of it. Tanking in my mind also needs to be purposeful, getting a good draft pick, as the Spurs did in the 1996-97 season when both David Robinson and other key players got injured, does not count.

More Failures than Successes

Looking back at popular tanks in sports history, most of them have not been successful. The “trust the Process” 76ers are a fantastic example of tanking not working. From 2013 to 2018 or so, the Philadelphia 76ers followed a process of losing as much as possible to stockpile assets to build a championship team. Again, all good in theory but the team has still yet to win a championship and the general manager San Hinkie, who coined the term “trust the Process” was fired before he could see the entire process through. On top of that, the team missed on key draft picks in Markelle Fultz and Jahlil Okafor, only truly hitting on Joel Embiid. There are more examples of this, such as the 0-16 and 1-15 Browns, and countless others in all other major sports leagues.

The Human Element

Tanking does not account for the human element of professional sports. On the front office side, the individual drafting the player never gets every pick right. Regardless of the league, professional sports drafts can be shots in the dark no matter how sure you are about a prospect, previously mentioned Markelle Fultz is a prime example of this. If you are tanking, you cannot miss on a draft pick or else the franchise you represent will be bad for even longer, and that’s bad for business. Speaking of Business, that is also a major factor in tanking. No fan, regardless of their buy-in to a team, wants to watch a bad product. Tanking leads to fan distrust, lack of attendance, and even at times lower sales when it comes to things like merchandise. Then there is the player side, no athlete likes to lose and that is a fact. Losing is not good for player morale and only hurts any culture that a team is trying to build. The current Myles Garrett trade request is a long-term example of this. Myles was on a team that went 0-16 (the 2017 Browns) and now that he is on a team that seems to be on a path towards rebuilding, he wants no part of it despite his ties to the city he currently plays in. Tanking is not good for players and fans alike.

Tanking can work, but it is a lottery ticket that is not worth the buying price. This is especially true when you can look at teams like the Kansas City Chiefs who took Patrick Mahomes 10th overall after trading up in the draft, while still being a good team and not tanking. Tanking is not worth the long-term effects it has on a sports franchise and if you are a well-run franchise, you should stay away from it.