Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 192
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,615
    People can continue to tinker with the rules to minimize it, but there is always someone(s) that will find loopholes to gain a competitive advantage short term or long term (tanking). That's just the nature of competition.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    10,612
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    I rather see tiered flat odd, and the 7 and 8 seed from each conference included in the lottery.

    18 teams in the lotto
    3 pods of even odds (6 teams per pod)
    Pull for the top 4, go chalk after that


    Now it doesn't matter if your the worse or 4th worse team. The need to sink all the way down is smaller. With the 7 and 8 seeds included, there's little incentive to miss the playoffs for that slim chance.
    Tiered flat I'd be okay with assuming the worst teams get the highest percentage for their level, eg, the bottom 5 teams have the same odds, the next 5 have the same odds and the next 8 as you propose would have equal odds.


    Quote Originally Posted by jimboslice15 View Post
    Provide some specific evidence of tanking in either league please, because I haven't seen it.

    Some times teams rebuild but they don't get to the point of resting healthy players in order to lose games.

    Last nights Suns/Mavs game was a disgrace to the NBA.
    They've changed to a lottery since, but there was blatant tanking for Mario Lemieux in the NHL. The Leafs admittedly did it just two years ago to improve their odds at Auston Matthews.

    In the NFL, just in recent memory there was an entire "suck for Luck" campaign. I would say tanking is least in the NFL, but it does happen.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    That will never happen because of charges of collusion.
    You think team A will tank to help team B for something in return? That seems fairly incredibly unlikely.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    Quote Originally Posted by jimboslice15 View Post
    Provide some specific evidence of tanking in either league please, because I haven't seen it.

    Some times teams rebuild but they don't get to the point of resting healthy players in order to lose games.

    Last nights Suns/Mavs game was a disgrace to the NBA.
    Provide some specific evidence of tanking in the NBA. Not just anecdotal, but specific evidence.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyRealist View Post
    Collusion was my first though as well. Charlotte and Phoenix could cut a deal to pick each other right as they are blowing up their rosters, and end up with #1 and #2
    To do that two teams would have to plan to tank to be the worst 2 teams in the league, at which point those two picks would go elsewhere, then draft each other, then do it again. And if any other team got in front of one of them it could fall apart. I doubt any two teams trust each other enough for a 2 year all out tank for each other.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyRealist View Post
    My actual plan was to give lottery teams 2 balls and teams eliminated in the first round 1 ball. Is there reason to tank out of the playoffs? Yeah, a slightly better odds at moving up, versus the playoff revenue.

    Does that mean it'll be hard for bad team to get better through the draft? Yes. Does it mean some marginal playoff team is likely to get a top 10 draft pick? Also yes. But I'd like more contenders, and giving a middling team a star draft pick can do that.

    What it also does is lessen the reliance on the lottery for bad teams to get better. Instead of putting their effort into being as bad as possible, they can put it into running a better organization, developing players internally (yay G League!), and making shrewd trades.

    Sports success should not be the luck of the draw, it's should be a meritocracy. The best run organizations should succeed, and the poorly run ones should get better.
    I can get behind that plan. I think I'd expand it by adding another round to the draft and allowing team rosters to grow to 20. Give teams more time and opportunity to develop quality NBA players so if they get a star they are more ready to win.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Heediot View Post
    People can continue to tinker with the rules to minimize it, but there is always someone(s) that will find loopholes to gain a competitive advantage short term or long term (tanking). That's just the nature of competition.
    True, and the better run (owned) teams tend to head toward the top, and the poorer run (owned) teams head to the middle of the bottom.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Provide some specific evidence of tanking in the NBA. Not just anecdotal, but specific evidence.
    Lol okay, here you go pal!!

    https://www.si.com/nba/2018/02/21/ma...nking-comments

    http://www.12up.com/posts/6028450-in...reable-offense

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a8244791.html

    https://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...ick-1.17899744

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    46,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    You think team A will tank to help team B for something in return? That seems fairly incredibly unlikely.
    Yes. Seems very likely to happen.

    PROCESSING

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    The first one is pretty good, but it's still just talk ... I had forgotten about that one.

    The second one is speculation.

    The third is a league warning, still not specific evidence of tanking.

    The fourth is speculation that the league might have words with the Bulls for not playing "injured" players.

    We all know teams tank ... but the vast majority of the information is speculation and inference. But yes, NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB teams tank ... it's just that NBA teams do it bigger.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Yes. Seems very likely to happen.
    To do that two teams would have to plan to tank to be the worst 2 teams in the league, at which point those two picks would go elsewhere, then draft each other, then do it again. And if any other team got in front of one of them it could fall apart. I doubt any two teams trust each other enough for a 2 year all out tank for each other.
    Still seems unlikely.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The first one is pretty good, but it's still just talk ... I had forgotten about that one.

    The second one is speculation.

    The third is a league warning, still not specific evidence of tanking.

    The fourth is speculation that the league might have words with the Bulls for not playing "injured" players.

    We all know teams tank ... but the vast majority of the information is speculation and inference. But yes, NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB teams tank ... it's just that NBA teams do it bigger.
    I mean yeah I agree that there are certain levels to tanking but don't you think that the product some teams have put out on the floor this year has made some games unwatchable?

    You have 8-10 teams all vying to lose as much as possible for hopes of winning in the future.

    That's not a sustainable business model. None of the other leagues have that problem.

    If capital/assets could flow more freely from team to team, it would most likely alleviate these problems IMO. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    You don't think it would help if small market/rebuilding teams with tons of cap space could actually use that cap space to offer pending star FA's larger deals than their current team?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    Quote Originally Posted by jimboslice15 View Post
    I mean yeah I agree that there are certain levels to tanking but don't you think that the product some teams have put out on the floor this year has made some games unwatchable?

    You have 8-10 teams all vying to lose as much as possible for hopes of winning in the future.

    That's not a sustainable business model. None of the other leagues have that problem.

    If capital/assets could flow more freely from team to team, it would most likely alleviate these problems IMO. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    You don't think it would help if small market/rebuilding teams with tons of cap space could actually use that cap space to offer pending star FA's larger deals than their current team?
    I did say that the NBA takes it to a new level, but keep in mind that MLB every year has a "buyers/sellers season" where teams sell off their expensive talent to contenders which is itself tanking, and that is every year a third of the league stops doing what is best for winning games that season looking instead to the future which is the definitition of tanking, it's just that MLB doesn't make a big deal out of it so people don't get upset about it. It's really more of an issue with fans than the NBA.

    I think NBA teams should be hard capped with no max deals, no minimum deals, no contract limits at all, and no draft, 20 man rosters with no game inactive lists. I'm in favor of doing away with divisions and conferences and having a balanced schedule using the NFLs format of playing the top teams against each other more often. I'm in favor of having all 30 teams in the playoffs with the first 2 rounds being 3 game series. I'm in favor of radically changing the offensive and defensive rules to clear up ambiguities in the rules. I'm in favor of a totally free market (other than the cap). But I also realize that that's never going to happen so I'm looking for solutions that the current NBA might possibly accept.
    Last edited by Scoots; 04-12-2018 at 10:06 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    46,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Still seems unlikely.
    I disagree. We have some level of tampering as is. Agents and ex-executives admit to it. Mid-season near the deadline a player may be thinking of joining another team; and that agent might be talking to a GM and say something like "Hey I know a guy that gets 20PPG, 5 ASTPG, 7 REBPG that likes your team, but he doesn't like Player X".

    That stuff happens as is.

    You don't think that will get even worse where you are picking your draft order based off how another team does?

    On top of that there's too much randomness to do that. You aren't exactly letting bad teams get better with that, which is what the draft and RFA is all about.

    Tanking will never go away. All you can do is help mitigate it. Flattening draft odds some; putting limitations on how many non-traded for top 3 picks you can have in a given time, I'm for that. But anything that can take away form bad teams getting good picks is something I'm against.

    PROCESSING

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,957
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    I disagree. We have some level of tampering as is. Agents and ex-executives admit to it. Mid-season near the deadline a player may be thinking of joining another team; and that agent might be talking to a GM and say something like "Hey I know a guy that gets 20PPG, 5 ASTPG, 7 REBPG that likes your team, but he doesn't like Player X".

    That stuff happens as is.

    You don't think that will get even worse where you are picking your draft order based off how another team does?

    On top of that there's too much randomness to do that. You aren't exactly letting bad teams get better with that, which is what the draft and RFA is all about.

    Tanking will never go away. All you can do is help mitigate it. Flattening draft odds some; putting limitations on how many non-traded for top 3 picks you can have in a given time, I'm for that. But anything that can take away form bad teams getting good picks is something I'm against.
    I'm not sure you are getting it ... Team A has the worst record in the NBA which allows them the first pick of teams to pick the one they think will have the worst record the next year. So to collude with another team they will have to be in a position to draft them first, then the other team will have to tank the next year, which will then not necessarily work out how they want. There are just too many variables for it to be a significant issue.

    The current lottery is literally random, this proposal actually reduces the randomness. The worst teams get first pick of teams they think will suck. They have the best chance to get it right using skill rather than a roll of the dice.

    Or is there a specific scenario you have in mind?

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •