Reply With Quote
The new suggested reform doesn't really solve tanking though. All it does is solve tanking between the two worst tanking teams, and promote tanking between the 4th-8th worst tanking team.
I think they likely win 50. The NBA is that bad. But 60? Naw, they'll lose more games when teams are forced or at least have an incentive to try. We've lost to tankers, yes, but we've mostly beat them silly.
The new suggested reform doesn't really solve tanking though. All it does is solve tanking between the two worst tanking teams, and promote tanking between the 4th-8th worst tanking team.
wut ? decreasing a team ceiling by 10 games because of bad teams trying to play harder ? wtf
Pretty illogical tbh.
Its meant for the absolute worst teams, so long as a team has one of the three worst records, they have a equal shot at the #1 seed. It doesn't remove the incentive for being bad it just minimizes the reward.
Thee worst teams, unless it's been altered. But otherwise, yeah.
How about giving the #1 pick to the team with the best record to not make the playoffs..
This garbage ass roster won't win 60 games even if those teams were tanking. Pointless discussion.
I'd go with one ping pong ball per loss for each team up to a maximum of 50. A bad team doesn't need to tank to lose 50 games.
I think it makes a difference bc Pop rests Manu and the old crew strategically whenever the schedule gets soft and If he can afford it a lot of games late in the year. Teams that are tanking have given Pop a chance to play his younger players more without risking a loss too much.
Bottom line, it favors the deeper and younger teams.
But this reform is too mild to really disincentivize tanking. There will still be a fair amount of tanking just not as pronounced among the top 3 tankers to end the season. The league also doesn't like resting if healthy players and will start fining. The Lakers for example shut down for the season their young prospects, even when healthy.
Are they talking about doing something with tanking teams?
Legit question: When has tanking worked out tho? I'm talking tanked then got the #1 pick and that pick went on to become a franchise player that netted championships or close.
1997 Spurs?
1984 Rockets?
Last edited by gospursgojas; 09-21-2017 at 09:19 PM.
I've always supported this, but they're obsessed with the parity even though there's zero parity at the top.
Cavs tanked for LeBron.
Ricky Davis as your #1 option will lose you some games.
When BNSFs post dumb . Golden states acquisiton of Kevin Durant basically added 10 wins to their expected performance. You're claiming that bad teams "trying harder" on the whole will collectively as as much impact on the Spurs' record (negatively) as adding Kevin Durant had on the Warriors record (albeit positive for them)
Let me spell this out for you: you're a ing idiot and there is no way in you'll ever be elevated to the hallowed ranks of GNSF status. We don't want you.
Especially when he shoots at his own basket.
It could be the dumbest logic of all time.
When BNSFs post dumb . Golden states acquisiton of Kevin Durant basically added 10 wins to their expected performance. You're claiming that bad teams "trying harder" on the whole will collectively as as much impact on the Spurs' record (negatively) as adding Kevin Durant had on the Warriors record (albeit positive for them)
Let me spell this out for you: you're a ing idiot and there is no way in you'll ever be elevated to the hallowed ranks of GNSF status. We don't want you.
By the way, adding 10 wins would have put the Warriors at 83 and -1. But I know you meant expectations vs. expectations.
The only right way to do this is that you can only get in lottery once every 5 years. Teams like Cleveland and Philly cannot have 5 starters who are top 5 draft picks on their 1st contracts. Here's why:
You don't want the hype of the new blood to be snuffed out in just a season because the team that drafted them is completely useless thus gets no air time. You want the fresh new star to be in the spotlight at times, make or break.. but these guys like KAT and Embiid and to an extent, Anthony Davis, are wasting away yearly with their only real showing being in exhibition games.
The Warriors have the right idea they just did it the wrong way. The NBA should have condensed talent, not diluted talent. There's no reason that some kicking D-leaguer should be getting air time in the playoffs. The NBA has to push their future stars, and they do a job of it. That forces them to hold on way too long to tired ass players like Kobe, Amare, Melo, Wade, etc... while you have these young guns who should be getting that air time. Corporate America is milking the last drops out of the proven merchandise movers, but not really prepping the incoming batch.
Screw the lottery. Penalize the owners for putting out an inferior product on the floor--hit them where it hurst--their pockets. In business, inferior products/services don't sell and are eventually fazed out--same should be said for some teams/owners.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
