Reply With Quote
It may seem brilliant at the first glance, but in the end:
Tanking is probably a problem that is here to stay.
its actually pretty ing brilliant the more i think about it. link posted below but i'll give the tl;dr version
basically you keep a tally of a team's wins AFTER they've been eliminated from playoff contention, and the team with the most points in that system gets the highest pick. so teams like the sixers who get eliminated with about 30 games to go have plenty of opportunity to rack up 10-12 wins... while the good teams that miss the playoffs (say, Pelicans) are only going to be eliminated from contention with about 2-3 games to go... so its not like you have a system where a pretty good team flukes into a great draft spot.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/phd-st...185100179.html
It may seem brilliant at the first glance, but in the end:
Tanking is probably a problem that is here to stay.
This whole tanking debate is played-out and boring, and the media is only entertaining it because several teams are doing a better job of tanking than their beloved Lakers.
What is the problem with tanking?
- Bad teams not trying? They would lose 90% of those games regardless
- Quality teams with 1 or 2 injuries shutting guys down for season
Except for the 1996 Spurs (who finished with 3rd worst record) when has tanking affected the league long term? Seems a case of bad teams being bad.
I think that's the problem. Every year teams are "tanking" but it rarely helps.
imo if u put a product out there...u have no business having a big slice of tv revenue
tv revenue should be base on where ur ends on the standings, penalize those fkn ty teams who put out ty roster and tankn...u can have ur high pick,, but u wont get paid for it...
tanking puts out a product. that's not a good thing for the league or the fans
Exactly. This is why I don't understand the controversy
bad teams will still be bad. but tanking is ugly on another level
a lot of the bad teams are small market with low budget. cutting their revenue will put them under
what stops tanking teams for tanking earlier?
Most teams are just going to start tanking earlier...so instead of seeing the ty product mid season and late, we see them early.
At least with this format we still get some delusional teams busting their asses trying to make a name for themsleves.
Why worry about their record after elimination? Why not just go with the 17th place and down? East teams would have the best chances under the system in the OP. They'd be able to win easier and be able to be eliminated later so they'd not need as many wins to have a better winning percentage afterward.
I say those teams. Put the top 16 teams in the playoffs. You cannot force a team to be compe ive. That's where consumer demand comes in. If they are selling tickets, they are doing their jobs.
you didn't think about it much then.
It actually is pretty brilliant. I'm trying to find a major fault with it but can't, definitely much better than the current system or any other ideas that have been proposed tbh.
Not bad, not bad at all.
basically you keep a tally of a team's wins AFTER they've been eliminated from playoff contention, and the team with the most points in that system gets the highest pick. so teams like the sixers who get eliminated with about 30 games to go have plenty of opportunity to rack up 10-12 wins... while the good teams that miss the playoffs (say, Pelicans) are only going to be eliminated from contention with about 2-3 games to go... so its not like you have a system where a pretty good team flukes into a great draft spot.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/phd-st...185100179.html
what sucks is that it's usually the same teams tanking over and over.
The best point the article makes is that tanking isn't done by the players or coaches, it's done by the front offices. The coaches and players are going to work their asses off to win, even the Sixers. It's Hinkie and those like him that purposefully build bad rosters. You have to take away the incentive to put together a crap team on purpose to get rid of tanking. This proposal doesn't do that.
Given that the East is so bad, it's actually pretty hard to get mathematically eliminated from the playoffs in the East. The biggest beneficiaries would be teams at the bottom of the West because they would get eliminated earlier in the season and would have more opportunities to rack up wins past that point. For this proposal to work we would need a balanced schedule and the elimination of conferences.
Please. Clipps INVENTED tanking - because they just always SUCKED! -15 points son.
Tanking is a myth and was proven false when the kniks pushed the spurs in a couple weeks ago
I was thinking something similar. Take the bottom half of the nba at all start break. Seed lottery teams then. Award balls.
Have a midseason lottery team tournament, where only players with less than three years experience play. The winners get lottery balls. The second half of the season would reward the most improved team.
So basically I want tons of lottery balls.
And at the final lottery announcement ceremony a team can challenge a higher ranked team to a 15m game to get their pick. They surrender their second round pick if they lose.
Let's also let fans vote on best lottery team; that team gets more balls.
they might tank earlier, but its better than tanking the entire season tbh... most teams won't be tanking in the first 30 games or so anyway
it also takes away the incentive for teams to give younger players bigger roles to end a season, since they are gunning for wins, not development. its not flawless, but i'm for any system that incentivizes wins for bad teams
The simplest way is everyone has equal shot at top-5 pick, five teams pulled, then win% decides 6-14, playoffs decide 15-30.
It doesn't reward tanking, doesn't hurt compe ive teams. If you're the worst team, your guaranteed a top-6 selection. Don't like that, spend more money on scouts, managers, players, coaches. It forces orgs to be compe ive in all aspects since draft selection isn't tied solely to losses. It also adds balance to imbalanced conferences.
The purpose of owning a franchise is to make money. If fans continue to support a losing franchise then the franchise is doing something right. It might look bad to the fans of successful NBA franchises, but there are teams like the Knicks that make far and away more money than the Spurs and yet they don't win anything. They get the better free agents, yet they don't win anything.
When big market teams tank no one seems to care, it's good for the NBA that they have the best talent. When hole teams tank and the best rookies end up in hole cities spending 4 years on a hole team with no real championship aspirations, that's bad for the rookie and bad for the future of the league. It's not bad for the franchise though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
