Tanks for nothing, NBA
By Bill Simmons
Page 2
Editor's note: This column appears in the April 23 issue of ESPN The Magazine.
If ESPN ever creates a channel called ESPN Anti-Classic, I hope it launches with a telecast of April 4's stink bomb between Milwaukee and Boston. Ever seen opponents basically shave points at the same time? Well, it happened. Already playing without Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva, Milwaukee shelved Mo Williams ("sore knee") and Michael Redd ("sore knee") in a desperate bid to blow the game for lottery position. And it would have worked, but they sorely underestimated an always-say-die Celtics team missing Paul Pierce ("sore elbow") and Al Jefferson ("hog-tied to a radiator"). Milwaukee lost by winning; Boston won by losing; every paying customer lost, period.
Paul Pierce
AP Photo
When the goin' gets tough ... Pierce gets to the bench.
It's a phenomenon unique to the NBA. With 30 teams and only a handful of superstar prospects per decade, landing Greg Oden or Kevin Durant really is like winning the lottery. You'd be foolish if you didn't try to swing the odds in your favor, even if that means exaggerating injuries, giving crunch-time minutes to scrubs and disgracing the integrity of the game. When Charlotte's tanking plans were recently dashed by 12th man Walter Herrmann -- who improbably ignited a few upset wins -- I half expected them to hire Shane Stant to attack Herrmann after a practice, followed by Walter rolling around like Nancy Kerrigan, screaming, "Why? Why???"
Two months ago in this space, when I introduced the concept of "fantanking" and rooted for an Oden-inspired Celtics collapse, I swear, my heart was in the right place. For the greater good, and under the current rules, the Celtics needed to lose and keep losing. And that's what happened. At the same time, I can't imagine the NBA feels good about a system that encourages fans to turn on their own teams. Remember, the league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of weighted Ping-Pong balls, until Orlando landed back-to-back No. 1 picks (defying 66-1 odds the second year). Panicking, the league significantly increased the odds that bad teams would finish in the top three, inadvertently leaving the door open for tanking again.
In retrospect, though, what's worse: Tankapalooza 2007 or a young team winning two straight lotteries? Did it negatively impact TV ratings, attendance or general fan interest to have a suddenly stacked Magic team? Were you turning off your TV in the mid-'90s because Shaq and Penny were on? The NBA's crucial mistake was forgetting that it's better to have more quality teams, even at the expense of a few extra doormats. This isn't the NFL; parity can't work. Remember the late '70s and the deadly stretch of seasons after the NBA/ABA merger? Everyone thinks play suffered because of rampant coke use and the first wave of overpaid/underachieving superstars, which was partially true. The bigger problem? The merger loaded every team's roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 through 1979, only six teams won more than 50 games, only six won fewer than 30, and nobody won more than 58 or fewer than 22. What's fun about that?
On the flip side, when the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons were battling for control of the 1980s, did anyone care that the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings were dreadful? Was it a coincidence that the NBA peaked from 1987 to 1993, with a lopsided league of quality teams and crummy teams? Call it the 600/400 Rule: More teams finishing above .600 (50 wins or more) and under .400 (50 losses or more) makes for a more entertaining league. During the glorious '88 season, my choice for the greatest ever, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league.
During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). Again, that's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier, right? Just look at this lackluster 2007 season, when we're saddled with six plus-.600 teams, five sub-.400 teams and 19 in-the-middle teams. Sure, it's moredifficult to improve because of the salary cap and luxury tax, and it's nearly impossible to snooker other GMs (even Isiah has wised up). But I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us. Ever since Orlando went back-to-back, top picks have gone to lousy teams every spring, creating a vicious circle in which the lottery replenishes weak teams with blue-chippers who aren't ready to carry weak teams. In the past 14 years, only one No. 1 pick made his team compe ive instantly: Tim Duncan, who joined a contender that had slipped only because of injuries. Looking back, was it bad that Duncan and David Robinson played together? Was the NBA's compe ive spirit compromised? Of course not.
And that's why the lottery sucks: Not only does it render the occasional Duncan/ Robinson pairing nearly impossible, not only does it reward poorly run clubs like the Hawks (103 games under .500 since the 1998-99 season), it encourages also-rans to bottom out once they suffer some bad luck because they know it's their best chance to eventually contend. So can't we admit that the lottery system has failed? Shouldn't the element of luck play a bigger role than it does?
Anyway, here's my solution:
1. Contract to 27 teams and dump Memphis, Charlotte and Atlanta, three cities that can't support NBA basketball and never could. Then we'll have a league-wide lottery to determine positioning for the dispersal draft of players from those three teams. (Note: We've already sedated Chad Ford just in case this happens.) And if a contender like Chicago happens to end up with Pau Gasol ... I think we'll manage.
2. Change the lottery back to that of the late '80s: one envelope per team, same odds for everybody, top three draft spots only. Boom! We've solved the tanking problem. If a half-decent team happens to land a franchise player, like the Wolves getting Oden and pairing him with KG ... I think we'll manage.
3. Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference, then have a double-elimination tourney for the seventh and eighth seeds between the remaining 15 teams. I suggest this for five reasons. First, it would be entertaining as . In fact, that's what we'll call it: the Entertaining-as- Tournament. Second, I'm pretty sure we could get it sponsored. Third, the top 12 teams get a reward: two weeks of rest while the tournament plays out.
Fourth, a Cinderella squad could pull off some upsets, grab an eighth seed and win fans along the way. And fifth, with the Entertaining-as- Tournament giving everyone a chance, no team could tank down the stretch without insulting paying customers beyond repair. That's the lamest thing about tanking: not that it's morally unsound, but that fans pay full price to see a depleted group of losers with dubious intentions. At a recent Bobcats-Celtics game, my father (a 34-year season ticket-holder) watched Boston toss away a double-digit lead while Pierce and Jefferson watched from the bench. To his right, a fan screamed at Doc Rivers, "You're doing the right thing!" To his left, another fan screamed that the collapse was "an absolute disgrace!" And as my father told me later, the disturbing thing was that both guys were right.
Discuss...
That's what we did in my fantasy league. For the first two weeks of the regular playoffs (which your beloved Bexar Blaze won), the bottom four teams played in a lottery tournament.
The winner of the tournament would end up with 4 balls in the hopper for next year's first draft position, the second place team with 3 and so on.
We only use the lottery to determine the first position, after that, it goes to records.
I hope Bill Simmons learns to write funny again. Anti-classic? That's a joke of some kind?By Bill Simmons
Page 2
Editor's note: This column appears in the April 23 issue of ESPN The Magazine.
If ESPN ever creates a channel called ESPN Anti-Classic, I hope it launches with a telecast of April 4's stink bomb between Milwaukee and Boston.
I think the majority of paying customers know what to expect if the teams in question have been out of playoff contention since February. The "always say die" line was prety good, I guess.Ever seen opponents basically shave points at the same time? Well, it happened. Already playing without Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva, Milwaukee shelved Mo Williams ("sore knee") and Michael Redd ("sore knee") in a desperate bid to blow the game for lottery position. And it would have worked, but they sorely underestimated an always-say-die Celtics team missing Paul Pierce ("sore elbow") and Al Jefferson ("hog-tied to a radiator"). Milwaukee lost by winning; Boston won by losing; every paying customer lost, period.
Yeah, that never used to happen before the Draft Lottery. *cough*HoustonRockets*cough*It's a phenomenon unique to the NBA. With 30 teams and only a handful of superstar prospects per decade, landing Greg Oden or Kevin Durant really is like winning the lottery. You'd be foolish if you didn't try to swing the odds in your favor, even if that means exaggerating injuries, giving crunch-time minutes to scrubs and disgracing the integrity of the game.
Now there's a relevant, contemporary reference! Where's the Urkle joke?When Charlotte's tanking plans were recently dashed by 12th man Walter Herrmann -- who improbably ignited a few upset wins -- I half expected them to hire Shane Stant to attack Herrmann after a practice, followed by Walter rolling around like Nancy Kerrigan, screaming, "Why? Why???"
I'm not sure what more the NBA could do to make their terrible teams good. Lottery or no lottery, there will never be a shortage of terrible, unwatchable teams.Two months ago in this space, when I introduced the concept of "fantanking" and rooted for an Oden-inspired Celtics collapse, I swear, my heart was in the right place. For the greater good, and under the current rules, the Celtics needed to lose and keep losing. And that's what happened. At the same time, I can't imagine the NBA feels good about a system that encourages fans to turn on their own teams.
You want watchable, meaningful basketball, and to accomplish this you want more doormats. Makes very much sense to me.Remember, the league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of weighted Ping-Pong balls, until Orlando landed back-to-back No. 1 picks (defying 66-1 odds the second year). Panicking, the league significantly increased the odds that bad teams would finish in the top three, inadvertently leaving the door open for tanking again.
In retrospect, though, what's worse: Tankapalooza 2007 or a young team winning two straight lotteries? Did it negatively impact TV ratings, attendance or general fan interest to have a suddenly stacked Magic team? Were you turning off your TV in the mid-'90s because Shaq and Penny were on? The NBA's crucial mistake was forgetting that it's better to have more quality teams, even at the expense of a few extra doormats.
That isn't happening now, so what's the problem?This isn't the NFL; parity can't work. Remember the late '70s and the deadly stretch of seasons after the NBA/ABA merger? Everyone thinks play suffered because of rampant coke use and the first wave of overpaid/underachieving superstars, which was partially true. The bigger problem? The merger loaded every team's roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 through 1979, only six teams won more than 50 games, only six won fewer than 30, and nobody won more than 58 or fewer than 22. What's fun about that?
Oh, I'm sure it was a wonderful time to be a fan of the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings. I'll bet they never once complained. And again, no substantial proof that the league was better then.On the flip side, when the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons were battling for control of the 1980s, did anyone care that the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings were dreadful? Was it a coincidence that the NBA peaked from 1987 to 1993, with a lopsided league of quality teams and crummy teams?
Bill Simmons, you're turning into the Sniglets guy. Every chance you get, you try to enter some new term or other into the lexicon. And if you must, "Ewing Effect" is a much better choice of words than "Ewing Theory".Call it the 600/400 Rule:
Let's review: Eight .600+ teams, Six .400- teams, Detroit won 54 games and finished second in the Eastern Conference, the top Western Conference finisher won 62 games, and Detroit went on to lose the NBA Finals in seven games. Yep, 2005 was a great year - but bitter old Bill Simmons thinks the league sucks now, so I guess I'm wrong.More teams finishing above .600 (50 wins or more) and under .400 (50 losses or more) makes for a more entertaining league. During the glorious '88 season, my choice for the greatest ever, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league.
BTW Bill, wasn't there a Draft Lottery in 1988?
I don't understand - with more teams tanking, we should have more .400- teams. I guess in a terrible league like the 2007 NBA, the good teams can't take advantage like they did back in the good old days.During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). Again, that's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier, right? Just look at this lackluster 2007 season, when we're saddled with six plus-.600 teams, five sub-.400 teams and 19 in-the-middle teams.
Most years, there's not a Tim Duncan waiting at the end of the lottery rainbow. For instance, Mike Miller was the 2001 NBA Rookie of the Year, which may explain why the lottery doesn't necessarily improve the situation of a bottom-feeder.Sure, it's more difficult to improve because of the salary cap and luxury tax, and it's nearly impossible to snooker other GMs (even Isiah has wised up). But I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us. Ever since Orlando went back-to-back, top picks have gone to lousy teams every spring, creating a vicious circle in which the lottery replenishes weak teams with blue-chippers who aren't ready to carry weak teams. In the past 14 years, only one No. 1 pick made his team compe ive instantly: Tim Duncan, who joined a contender that had slipped only because of injuries. Looking back, was it bad that Duncan and David Robinson played together? Was the NBA's compe ive spirit compromised? Of course not.
The thesis here is that a pairing like Tim Duncan and David Robinson is a commonplace event waiting to happen. Ohhhh-kay. It was, in reality, such a rarity that observers were questioning the very idea of two seven footers playing together.And that's why the lottery sucks: Not only does it render the occasional Duncan/ Robinson pairing nearly impossible,
And what's their best chance to get out of the doldrums? Obviously, free agents aren't lining up around the block to play in Atlanta, so they would need a blue chip rookie to turn things around. In a world without a draft lottery, Atlanta may never escape the basement. You can run a franchise as well as possible (not to say that Atlanta has), but without the players it's not going to happen.not only does it reward poorly run clubs like the Hawks (103 games under .500 since the 1998-99 season),
What is more luck-dependent than a draft lottery?it encourages also-rans to bottom out once they suffer some bad luck because they know it's their best chance to eventually contend. So can't we admit that the lottery system has failed? Shouldn't the element of luck play a bigger role than it does?
I have no way to look this up, but my gut feeling says that those cities are pretty well supporting their teams. It's like Simmons looked at the standings and said "Cut them". I'm sure he would have contracted Dallas in the '90s.Anyway, here's my solution:
1. Contract to 27 teams and dump Memphis, Charlotte and Atlanta, three cities that can't support NBA basketball and never could. Then we'll have a league-wide lottery to determine positioning for the dispersal draft of players from those three teams. (Note: We've already sedated Chad Ford just in case this happens.) And if a contender like Chicago happens to end up with Pau Gasol ... I think we'll manage.
The worst pick you could get is the fourth pick through this proposal, so Boom, problem solved?2. Change the lottery back to that of the late '80s: one envelope per team, same odds for everybody, top three draft spots only. Boom! We've solved the tanking problem. If a half-decent team happens to land a franchise player, like the Wolves getting Oden and pairing him with KG ... I think we'll manage.
Too contrived for my tastes. It's like the Play-In game expanded by a factor of fourteen.3. Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference, then have a double-elimination tourney for the seventh and eighth seeds between the remaining 15 teams. I suggest this for five reasons. First, it would be entertaining as . In fact, that's what we'll call it: the Entertaining-as- Tournament. Second, I'm pretty sure we could get it sponsored. Third, the top 12 teams get a reward: two weeks of rest while the tournament plays out.
I hate this article.Fourth, a Cinderella squad could pull off some upsets, grab an eighth seed and win fans along the way. And fifth, with the Entertaining-as- Tournament giving everyone a chance, no team could tank down the stretch without insulting paying customers beyond repair. That's the lamest thing about tanking: not that it's morally unsound, but that fans pay full price to see a depleted group of losers with dubious intentions. At a recent Bobcats-Celtics game, my father (a 34-year season ticket-holder) watched Boston toss away a double-digit lead while Pierce and Jefferson watched from the bench. To his right, a fan screamed at Doc Rivers, "You're doing the right thing!" To his left, another fan screamed that the collapse was "an absolute disgrace!" And as my father told me later, the disturbing thing was that both guys were right.
Discuss...
The big thing to do is to create nba franchises in europe.
the travel situation would be horrendous
Article makes plenty of sense until the last few ideas he posted. Theres always going to be doormats in any league, but the problem is that these teams are always bad for whatever reason. The players drafted by these teams suffer for many reasons but mostly because they arent ready to play on the NBA level. Too young, too inexperienced, too immature, and not enough good core material around him to create an environment in which a player can flourish,learn, and be properly used and coached. How many players have you seen in the last few years that wouldnt have benefited from being on a good mid level to good team to start out his career? Its how the good stay good better. upper echelon teams make a better league not parody. Weve seen what that has done to the NFL. Do you really want that in the NBA?
These teams are basically auditioning theyre players for other better teams. Shortly after the season starts, were all wondering what sad team is looking to dump talent to save a few bucks to make a run at a true superstar So those teams always stay that way unless they get theyre hands on a true extraordinary talent.
Not sure.
Take a league with 32 teams : 24 in america and 8 in europe.
You create 4 divisions : pacific, central, atlantic and europe.
Teams play 2 games against each team and 4 against same division teams. It makes a 76 regualr season games.
For the regular season :
American teams go one time in europe for an 8 games road trip.
European season start the season in america with a 12 games road trip, go back in europe, than another 12 games road trip in america around the ASG (to have all players on the same continent for teh ASG) and finish the season in europe.
It's only 2 flights for american teams and 3 for european teams.
For the playoff :
4 teams of each divisions are qualified. 2 first rounds of the playoff are between teams of the same division. Then european division champion meet atlantic champion and central champion meet pacific champion before the final. You can tweak series' format to reduce the number of flights.
I also believe they should go back to a regular lottery. Let every non-playoff team have an equal chance at picks 1-5.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
