PDA

View Full Version : Cure For Tanking?



ABOMB_56
08-09-2013, 04:17 AM
I stumbled upon this presentation from the SSAC (Sloan Sports Analytics Conference) when reading an article on Grantland that essentially provided a way to reward teams for not throwing away their season to get a chance at the better pick.

The presenter argued that fans are still paying top dollar to watch their favorite teams play even when they are out of playoff contention, so the least the players could do is to actually try to win than blatantly tank.

Essentially he said that once the teams are mathematically eliminated from getting the 8th seed, they are placed on the clock to see who can get the most wins and that would net that team the first pick and so forth.

For example, say the Rockets were eliminated from the playoffs on March 30, the Pelicans on April 3, and the Bobcats on March 21, the amount of wins they amassed from that point to the end of the season would determined their position in the draft.
So, say the Rockets won 7 games, the Bobcats won 5 games and the Pelicans won 6 games, the order of the top 3 picks would go Rox, Pelicans, then Bobcats.

This way would give the worst teams more games to amass wins to go towards their total that would determine their position in the lottery, it would encourage playing a full 82 game season rather than shutting a star down with a "lower back injury" and still expecting fans to pay full price, and it would make the playoff bound teams earn their wins to gain positioning for their road to the finals.

No more rewarding tanking and I believe this applies really well to this year considering the talent of the draft class.

Here's the video link of the presenter who actually has statistical data to show how some of these scenarios would have played out in the NBA, the NHL and the NFL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88SFYiPMl_M

waveycrockett
08-09-2013, 04:34 AM
That wouldn't stop tanking. It would make teams want to be the best of the worse. Teams would basically tank until March.

mark1125
08-09-2013, 06:51 AM
That wouldn't stop tanking. It would make teams want to be the best of the worse. Teams would basically tank until March.

This. On top of that, you have schedules to think about. If the Bobcats play the lower tier teams while the Bucks draw the Heat, Bulls, Spurs, etc., that really isn't an even playing field.

There is no sure fire fix for tanking. Maybe weigh the lottery a little bit more towards evening the odds.

PhillyFaninLA
08-09-2013, 07:04 AM
I think its an interesting idea but you are potentially punshing the teams that are legitmatly that bad.

What if you are just a poorly run franchise and not a tanking one, what if your scouts are terrible, what if you get hit with a bunch of injuries and can't compete?

edit: While I hope the Sixers win 7 games this year and get Wiggins or Parker and have $40 mil or so in cap space next off season I don't respect tanking and I think generally speaking players don't tank, coaches might, GM's or Presidents might, but I think a player with any heart will not do anything but try and compete.

IndyRealist
08-09-2013, 08:42 AM
The goal of tanking then would be the team to be mathematically eliminated first, giving you the most possible games to get wins against playoff teams resting their starters.

If you want to get rid of tanking then give each non-playoff team 2 ping pong balls, and give each team eliminated in the first round 1 ping pong ball. For non-playoff teams there is no advantage to being worst, and for teams on the borderline of the playoffs, there is only a slight lottery advantage to dropping out that you have to weigh against the increased revenue of having playoff games (which is a couple of million a game, considering players only get minimal pay for playoff games and they are on national TV).

When people want to eliminate tanking, just like when they want to a "balanced" league where small market teams can compete with lesser resources, what they're really saying is that they want it to be random. A weighted system will always lead to teams trying to maximize their advantage.

MTar786
08-09-2013, 09:06 AM
i think the WORST team in the league should automatically get the 1st pick and the rest of the teams go into a lotto. i think that would stop tanking by a lot. not every is going to tank for the WORST record when they have to compete with teams like the bobcats to get that lol. and if you look at the last so many drafts.. the number 1 pick is what everyone goes for obviously. the second pick and onwards isnt as big a deal. especially when you are in a Lotto to get 2nd pick at best. also it helps the teams that really suck not have to suck so bad again.

BALLER R
08-09-2013, 09:15 AM
But if a team really sucks they couldn't win even if they wanted to.

kdspurman
08-09-2013, 09:16 AM
They could just do something like Stern did to Pop & the Spurs for resting his guys lol. Money talks

2-ONE-5
08-09-2013, 09:39 AM
this is a ridiculous idea. teams like Charlotte lose bcuz they suck not bcuz they are tanking.

ManRam
08-09-2013, 09:44 AM
I don't like it either.

Even just fining teams, well, that's tricky. How could you justify fining Orlando last season? They weren't resting guys. They were doing the right thing too. Tanking does kinda suck, but the BAD teams are still the ones tanking, and they're still the ones that need to be rewarded with good draft picks. It's not like fringe playoff teams are tanking for months here...


And also, tying into my earlier comment, the phrase "tanking" is used far too liberally. Were Orlando or Charlotte for example really out and out tanking? Or were they just bad teams playing their young guys and looking towards the future? If the latter is true they shouldn't be punished.

NYCkid12
08-09-2013, 09:48 AM
I dislike this idea....I'll be honest I don't see many teams tanking, I think there just that bad....Olrando and Charlotte were the worst teams in the league this yr and the record showed it...theyre not trying to lose they just do not have the talent


And bottoming out is the beginning of a rebuild, fans should understand that

It's already a system that is at a disadvantage to the worst team in the league

bholly
08-09-2013, 09:55 AM
i think the WORST team in the league should automatically get the 1st pick and the rest of the teams go into a lotto. i think that would stop tanking by a lot. not every is going to tank for the WORST record when they have to compete with teams like the bobcats to get that lol. and if you look at the last so many drafts.. the number 1 pick is what everyone goes for obviously. the second pick and onwards isnt as big a deal. especially when you are in a Lotto to get 2nd pick at best. also it helps the teams that really suck not have to suck so bad again.

Except that that gives way more incentive for the worst teams to tank even more blatantly. If the worst pick is guaranteed LeBron James or Shaq or Andrew Wiggins, a guy who can completely change the direction and value of your franchise, teams won't stop at much to get them. They'd tank more blatantly than we've ever seen before, right from the start of the season.

Theyhateme459
08-09-2013, 01:41 PM
I give the idea an A for effort... but for reasons others pointed out and more I don't like it... I'll rather just keep this system. Another issue would be what if the EC is horrid while the WC is good... teams in the WEST could be eliminated much quicker than a team maybe worst than them in the EC because the 8th seed has such a low record.

True Sports Fan
08-09-2013, 02:45 PM
Hey! That means Sacramento may actually win the lottery for once. But, as mentioned above there are a lot of teams just poorly run that can't win and aren't actually tanking. If smaller market teams could sign stars or very solid players, that would stop tanking as much. But you can't just force players to go somewhere.

bearadonisdna
08-09-2013, 04:32 PM
It would be like the loser superbowl or loser march madness.

Hellcrooner
08-09-2013, 05:12 PM
I have a better idea.


Vertical Divisions.
Promotion and Relegation.

There you got two problems solved at the same time.

No more tanking.
Fewer Franchises On the upper echeleon.
better product.

tredigs
08-09-2013, 05:24 PM
I have a better idea.


Vertical Divisions.
Promotion and Relegation.

There you got two problems solved at the same time.

No more tanking.
Fewer Franchises On the upper echeleon.
better product.

Be more specific, how many teams would you keep in D1 NBA? Would teams like the Bobcats still get fully to be part of the revenue share if they're in DII 5+ years and making even less money for the league? How many teams are promoted/demoted each year - two?

JEDean89
08-09-2013, 05:37 PM
With Wiggins on the board and tons of guys at the top, I think this is an issue that will be brought to the forefront of the nba this year, much like flopping last year. My solution is to simply reduce the weight that the top 4 picks get, so its more like 15% for the worst team. I don't think any team would throw away a season for a 10% chance at the top pick. It should also happen that teams in the 10-14th seed should be higher weighted. Something like

10 for the top 4 which is a 40% chance the top pick will go to a bottom 4 team.
7.5 for the next 6 which is a 45% chance it will go to a team in the 5-10 range
then the 4 remaining teams have a 3-4% chance, meaning a 15% chance it will go to teams in the 11-14 range

I feel like this is the only way to fix tanking. The lottery honestly can't be every teams solution to getting better. Look at teams like the Knicks, the Bobcats, the Wizards, who all drafted terribly in the lottery for a while. It's just too much of a crapshoot to tank a whole season. Then you have teams like the Nuggets who get Evan Fournier with the 22nd pick, who ends up being a younger, bigger, better Austin Rivers, who was taken with the 10th pick. Look at their profile pages if you disagree with me. A problem with being in the lotto is that you can't take a risk on Kenneth Faried, you will get killed if he doesn't work out. Teams like the Nuggets and the Spurs seam to have more young talent then teams like the Kings, who only have one guy to show for years of tanking.

tredigs
08-09-2013, 05:54 PM
With Wiggins on the board and tons of guys at the top, I think this is an issue that will be brought to the forefront of the nba this year, much like flopping last year. My solution is to simply reduce the weight that the top 4 picks get, so its more like 15% for the worst team. I don't think any team would throw away a season for a 10% chance at the top pick. It should also happen that teams in the 10-14th seed should be higher weighted. Something like

10 for the top 4 which is a 40% chance the top pick will go to a bottom 4 team.
7.5 for the next 6 which is a 45% chance it will go to a team in the 5-10 range
then the 4 remaining teams have a 3-4% chance, meaning a 15% chance it will go to teams in the 11-14 range

I feel like this is the only way to fix tanking. The lottery honestly can't be every teams solution to getting better. Look at teams like the Knicks, the Bobcats, the Wizards, who all drafted terribly in the lottery for a while. It's just too much of a crapshoot to tank a whole season. Then you have teams like the Nuggets who get Evan Fournier with the 22nd pick, who ends up being a younger, bigger, better Austin Rivers, who was taken with the 10th pick. Look at their profile pages if you disagree with me. A problem with being in the lotto is that you can't take a risk on Kenneth Faried, you will get killed if he doesn't work out. Teams like the Nuggets and the Spurs seam to have more young talent then teams like the Kings, who only have one guy to show for years of tanking.


That's how it used to be, but then you just here the cries of collusion and rigging when a decent team gets the pick.

JEDean89
08-09-2013, 05:59 PM
ya but wasn't it equal before the lottery? i mean statistically a team like bulls should only win every 20 years or so, i think it's silly that people cry outrage over the Cavs, or the Pelicans last year. The lottery needs to be fixed, teams need to stop tanking and this year will be the worst year of tanking on record.

elledaddy
08-09-2013, 06:01 PM
Who gives a ****** about tanking? When was the last time a team drafted a player with the first pick and then won a championship with that player on the team? I dont feel like looking this up or even trying to think about it so Im really asking. When was the last time

abe_froman
08-09-2013, 06:16 PM
1.that wouldnt stop tanking
2.there is no cure for tanking
3.why are so many fans obsessed with stopping it.the fans of good teams are unaffected and the fans of non contenders want their team to tank,so i dont understand why its so hated,its just good strategy

MTar786
08-09-2013, 07:10 PM
Except that that gives way more incentive for the worst teams to tank even more blatantly. If the worst pick is guaranteed LeBron James or Shaq or Andrew Wiggins, a guy who can completely change the direction and value of your franchise, teams won't stop at much to get them. They'd tank more blatantly than we've ever seen before, right from the start of the season.

good point lol

lol, please
08-09-2013, 07:25 PM
Finding a way to eliminate tanking would be taking a huge step in the right direction.

IndyRealist
08-09-2013, 07:53 PM
Who gives a ****** about tanking? When was the last time a team drafted a player with the first pick and then won a championship with that player on the team? I dont feel like looking this up or even trying to think about it so Im really asking. When was the last time

Tim Duncan.

JEDean89
08-09-2013, 08:04 PM
Yah only two guys have done it, Tim Duncan and David Robinson, so unless you are Tim Duncan or have Tim Duncan on your team, it hasn't happened. I feel like a lot of that is the nature of the lottery. A number 1 pick can be good enough to make you a playoff team, but not a true contender. That is why the Bulls got so lucky with D-Rose, they had a team around him. I think if John Wall had gone to a fringe playoff team he would be in a different situation. Also, unless your Tim Duncan, it's very difficult to win early in a players career. So #1 picks go to **** teams, make them a little better and then get stuck in Pergatory. By the time their 8 years is up or whatever and they are 26-27 they bolt in their prime. There just isn't enough talent in the lottery to be a true solution. FA and forced trades will always determine the heirarchy of this league. Teams like the Thunder and Bulls are the exception, not the rule.

JEDean89
08-09-2013, 08:09 PM
1.that wouldnt stop tanking
2.there is no cure for tanking
3.why are so many fans obsessed with stopping it.the fans of good teams are unaffected and the fans of non contenders want their team to tank,so i dont understand why its so hated,its just good strategy

because it's not what the sport is about and a team shouldn't get a pick over another team that is just as bad only because they purposely lost games. That's my point, lottery teams should be encouraged to climb out through FA and not by being a bottom 4 team. Fan's are intoxicated by the idea of high draft picks but as we have concluded, they shouldn't be. Everyone cheers when they get the number 1 pick but it almost guarantees they wont win them. Fans are wrong to want to tank, the mentality has to change. This league should be more competitive, I'm tired of watching games against **** teams that over in the 3rd. People said there was no cure for flopping and they were right, but there is a way to vastly reduce it, and that's through fines. I shouldn't have said weighting the lottery different is a cure, but it would reduce it. Teams would tank out of the playoffs consecutive years? Ownership and players probably wouldn't be ok with that. It's a lot easier to tank from 10th seed to the 16th than from the 7th to the 9th just for a pick.

ManRam
08-09-2013, 08:36 PM
I think figuring out ways to prevent bad teams from intentionally tanking should be an issue low on the totem poll right now. There are many more pressing issues.

All-In
08-09-2013, 10:36 PM
Doesn’t the lottery kind of already stop “full-blown” tanking….i mean the last time that the team with the worst record in the league won the lottery….Magic back in 2004 with Dwight….”tanking” doesn’t guarantee anything and establishes a negative culture and team identity

alexander_37
08-09-2013, 10:40 PM
This still eliminates the idea of parity. As long as there is a draft there will be tanking.

Hellcrooner
08-09-2013, 11:43 PM
Be more specific, how many teams would you keep in D1 NBA? Would teams like the Bobcats still get fully to be part of the revenue share if they're in DII 5+ years and making even less money for the league? How many teams are promoted/demoted each year - two?

16 in top tier 16 in second división.

8 make playoffs in top tier 8 make promotion playoffs in second tier.

bottom two teams get relegated the last two standing in the promotion playoffs get promoted.


Draft.

1st round.

the 6 top tier teams that did not make playoffs + the 2 promoted ones get equal odds at picks 1-8

the 6 teams that couldnt get promoted + the two relegated ones equal odds to pick 9-16

the other 8 teams on second tier pick 17-24

the 8 first tier teams pick 25-32

Repeate for second round.

bholly
08-10-2013, 12:00 AM
^^That all works in football and whatever other sports because there are way more teams, including perpetually really good teams and perpetually less good teams and not too much need for mobility between the divisions. In the NBA there's a lot more parity and a lot more likelihood for a team to improve rapidly - you don't want to have a situation where would-be-contenders are stuck in a bottom division just because you want to have divisions.

I also don't see what problems it would solve. How does it prevent tanking? Wouldn't the bottom division teams tank just as much? If not more, given they can't make the playoffs no matter what?
And why is fewer top division teams important? Why is less playoff teams good?

bholly
08-10-2013, 12:02 AM
16 in top tier 16 in second división.

8 make playoffs in top tier 8 make promotion playoffs in second tier.

bottom two teams get relegated the last two standing in the promotion playoffs get promoted.


Draft.

1st round.

the 6 top tier teams that did not make playoffs + the 2 promoted ones get equal odds at picks 1-8

the 6 teams that couldnt get promoted + the two relegated ones equal odds to pick 9-16

the other 8 teams on second tier pick 17-24

the 8 first tier teams pick 25-32

Repeate for second round.

This is stupid. The whole point of the lottery and draft system is so that the worst teams get the best chance to get better and create competition. Say what you want about the way the current system perverts their incentives, there's no way that giving the worst teams late lottery picks is an improvement.

tredigs
08-10-2013, 12:09 AM
16 in top tier 16 in second división.

8 make playoffs in top tier 8 make promotion playoffs in second tier.

bottom two teams get relegated the last two standing in the promotion playoffs get promoted.


Draft.

1st round.

the 6 top tier teams that did not make playoffs + the 2 promoted ones get equal odds at picks 1-8

the 6 teams that couldnt get promoted + the two relegated ones equal odds to pick 9-16

the other 8 teams on second tier pick 17-24

the 8 first tier teams pick 25-32

Repeate for second round.

The toughest battle in this would probably be those with long term TV deals where they would want to renegotiate contracts, but on its face I actually love this style - it's essentially a year of playoff teams against each other. And when's the last time a team that was >4 seed actually won a title? If ever. So it's not as if they'd be taking away actual title hopes.


This is stupid. The whole point of the lottery and draft system is so that the worst teams get the best chance to get better and create competition. Say what you want about the way the current system perverts their incentives, there's no way that giving the worst teams late lottery picks is an improvement.

Thing is, they'd only have to be a top 23 team to get the 9-16 picks, and a top 16 team for a chance at the #1 pick. It's definitely great for anti-tanking.

bholly
08-10-2013, 12:17 AM
Those teams don't win titles often, but they make the playoffs interesting - eg this year's Warriors or Bulls, the 2011 Grizz, etc.

Not to mention situations like the 2008 champion Celtics, who would've instead spent that year in the bottom division without even a chance at making the playoffs. It's stupid.

bholly
08-10-2013, 12:19 AM
Those teams don't win titles often, but they make the playoffs interesting - eg this year's Warriors or Bulls, the 2011 Grizz, etc.

Not to mention situations like the 2008 champion Celtics, who would've instead spent that year in the bottom division without even a chance at making the playoffs. It's stupid.

bholly
08-10-2013, 12:23 AM
Thing is, they'd only have to be a top 23 team to get the 9-16 picks, and a top 16 team for a chance at the #1 pick. It's definitely great for anti-tanking.

Yeah, but it also would create a class system where it's almost impossible for the teams at the bottom to ever get away from the bottom. That's way too big of a price to pay to stop tanking.

bearadonisdna
08-10-2013, 12:36 AM
I thought the lottery WAS the cure for tanking. There is no perfect system. Its funny how in the NFL u hear less about tanking when its actually more beneficial.

tredigs
08-10-2013, 12:39 AM
Yeah, but it also would create a class system where it's almost impossible for the teams at the bottom to ever get away from the bottom. That's way too big of a price to pay to stop tanking.

Eh - isn't it pretty much like that right now anyway? For the random bottom feeders that suck long enough to get good picks and hope that they pan out (or if they have new management and actually grow them productively), more often than not they leave before they can get a title. I think the $ incentive to get to the top tier would induce better overall play. And every game in a season would matter.

2008 Celtics is a huge anomaly where a team went from bottom feeder to contender over night, but you're right that is one instance. As for the Warriors this year and teams like them, at least they would make the B playoffs awesome (and likely get to their finals and be promoted).

The idea of having every regular season game matter and having far less blowouts is an interesting concept. I do actually think it would work.


I thought the lottery WAS the cure for tanking. There is no perfect system. Its funny how in the NFL u hear less about tanking when its actually more beneficial.

Less sure things and it's a sport where 1 player has far less impact.

Knowledge
08-10-2013, 01:10 AM
There is nothing you can do because basketball is a sport, where their are a limited number of great players, which creates a limited number of championship contending teams. You can find great players in football, hockey, and baseball in later rounds during the draft, in the NBA, most great players were drafted in the top 10.

Since 1980, only 9 different teams have won NBA titles, and I believe 27 of those titles come from 4 teams. You can't blame teams for tanking when you have a league that is designed to reward a handful of teams with titles over long stretches of time.

Maybe you could create a hard cap where teams are forced to decide on which one star they want to keep, but too many teams would be against that idea.

Knowledge
08-10-2013, 01:11 AM
16 in top tier 16 in second división.

8 make playoffs in top tier 8 make promotion playoffs in second tier.

bottom two teams get relegated the last two standing in the promotion playoffs get promoted.


Draft.

1st round.

the 6 top tier teams that did not make playoffs + the 2 promoted ones get equal odds at picks 1-8

the 6 teams that couldnt get promoted + the two relegated ones equal odds to pick 9-16

the other 8 teams on second tier pick 17-24

the 8 first tier teams pick 25-32

Repeate for second round.

bad idea

bholly
08-10-2013, 01:28 AM
Eh - isn't it pretty much like that right now anyway? For the random bottom feeders that suck long enough to get good picks and hope that they pan out (or if they have new management and actually grow them productively), more often than not they leave before they can get a title. I think the $ incentive to get to the top tier would induce better overall play. And every game in a season would matter.

No? There's a huge history of bad teams getting good players and rising to the top. The standings turnover is crazy in the NBA.
Under the system he's proposing it wouldn't just be a matter of teams deciding they have enough incentive to get to the top. When you can't draft good players, and you can't sign good players (because they all want to play for top division teams)


2008 Celtics is a huge anomaly where a team went from bottom feeder to contender over night, but you're right that is one instance. As for the Warriors this year and teams like them, at least they would make the B playoffs awesome (and likely get to their finals and be promoted).

No, they'd have been at the bottom of the top division and not in any playoffs, at least the way hellcrooner described it above.

Hellcrooner
08-10-2013, 01:29 AM
bad idea

tell that to the totallity of the pro leagues of EVERY sport outside of the U.S ( and maybe japan) wich use vertical división, promotion/ relegation systems.


The only reason such a scheme has never been integrated in the U.S.A in sports is because it would eventually kill the Ncaa.

There is enough talent in the states to have 160 teams in 10 vertical divisions.
And then add talented europeans.


Absorbing the ncaa, making the game closer to the people, making it difficult for bandwaggoner cause every frigin major town has its own pro team.

tredigs
08-10-2013, 02:08 AM
No? There's a huge history of bad teams getting good players and rising to the top. The standings turnover is crazy in the NBA.
Under the system he's proposing it wouldn't just be a matter of teams deciding they have enough incentive to get to the top. When you can't draft good players, and you can't sign good players (because they all want to play for top division teams)



No, they'd have been at the bottom of the top division and not in any playoffs, at least the way hellcrooner described it above.

Well, there's a huger history of teams sucking, getting better for small stints while ultimately missing a title, then sucking again. At least in the other scenario there's a higher chance to go somewhere in the playoffs (whether it be I or II), and to move up or down based on earned production.

There are still problems with the system, like a teams fans such as Charlotte not being able to see Lebron James or Kevin Durant come to town potentially ever throughout their prime, but at least they'd get to see their team not get blown out every night and would always be fighting for something (while still seeing plenty of elite NBA talent).

I just like the idea better, and Crooners right that it's not exactly a coincidence that this is how the vast majority of the rest of the world runs their leagues. I was curious how they would run the lottery, but his idea makes some sense (tweaks could be made of course).

This will not happen, but it's the only true answer to the OP's question and IMO a potentially much more entertaining NBA.

bholly
08-10-2013, 10:06 AM
I just like the idea better, and Crooners right that it's not exactly a coincidence that this is how the vast majority of the rest of the world runs their leagues.

The NBA is fundamentally different to other leagues. Liga ACB, for example (which I'm sure is what crooner bases most of this stuff on), is actually the top division of something like 5 professional divisions, with all the non-professional clubs fitting in below that. It's not a standalone league with fixed teams like the NBA, it's a system that pretty much any basketball team in the country can win their way up to if they're good enough. That model doesn't work for a league like the NBA, which is much much larger and more professional in terms of money and the business side. The NBA is a closed league, while the Liga ACB is the top tier of an open league.

They also don't have a draft system quite like the NBA, with franchise changing guys coming through each year to be distributed amongst the teams.

And, most importantly, the competitive outcomes: Real Madrid and FC Barcelona have, between them, won 48 of the last 57 titles, and also been runners up 30 times. There have been 3 finals in the last 30 years that didn't include at least one of those teams. Only one team has played in the second division, been promoted, and gone on to win a title - and that was a team that only dropped to the second division for a year and played 13 seasons back in the top division before it won. Just take a look yourself at the all-time table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liga_ACB#All-time_Liga_ACB_table It's the same 5 or 6 teams filling out the top of the table every single year, and none of them have worked their way up from the second division.

The league exemplifies a lack of parity. It's a class system with a few competitive long-time top division teams, and then everyone else who doesn't have a chance. It's the same in football in Europe, the same in everything else. Most teams aren't even playing for a championship - ever - because they just aren't that calibre of team. They're just playing to win each week and hopefully finish above their main rivals. It's nothing like the NBA.

The NBA is a fundamentally different league, and it's a league that values parity and encouraging the worst teams to get better. Creating a euro-style anti-parity league does the opposite. And all to stop 'tanking', ie to stop teams that aren't competing anyway from being a bit worse. It's ridiculous.

Hellcrooner
08-10-2013, 11:40 AM
The NBA is fundamentally different to other leagues. Liga ACB, for example (which I'm sure is what crooner bases most of this stuff on), is actually the top division of something like 5 professional divisions, with all the non-professional clubs fitting in below that. It's not a standalone league with fixed teams like the NBA, it's a system that pretty much any basketball team in the country can win their way up to if they're good enough. That model doesn't work for a league like the NBA, which is much much larger and more professional in terms of money and the business side. The NBA is a closed league, while the Liga ACB is the top tier of an open league.

They also don't have a draft system quite like the NBA, with franchise changing guys coming through each year to be distributed amongst the teams.

And, most importantly, the competitive outcomes: Real Madrid and FC Barcelona have, between them, won 48 of the last 57 titles, and also been runners up 30 times. There have been 3 finals in the last 30 years that didn't include at least one of those teams. Only one team has played in the second division, been promoted, and gone on to win a title - and that was a team that only dropped to the second division for a year and played 13 seasons back in the top division before it won. Just take a look yourself at the all-time table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liga_ACB#All-time_Liga_ACB_table It's the same 5 or 6 teams filling out the top of the table every single year, and none of them have worked their way up from the second division.

The league exemplifies a lack of parity. It's a class system with a few competitive long-time top division teams, and then everyone else who doesn't have a chance. It's the same in football in Europe, the same in everything else. Most teams aren't even playing for a championship - ever - because they just aren't that calibre of team. They're just playing to win each week and hopefully finish above their main rivals. It's nothing like the NBA.

The NBA is a fundamentally different league, and it's a league that values parity and encouraging the worst teams to get better. Creating a euro-style anti-parity league does the opposite. And all to stop 'tanking', ie to stop teams that aren't competing anyway from being a bit worse. It's ridiculous.

Thats the key, have every town have their team ( wich collides with the ncaa system).

As for parity, the team from the town i grew up Breogan( lugo) Managed to stay for a lot of years in the acb league, it has been relegated and promoted several times, ( right now its in second división) they even managed to end top 6 once and play european competition.

Well go figure that town has 90000 inhabitants, yep you read that right 90000 inhabitants its like the 50th biggesst city in spain but still due to a good job on the youth schemes adn savy signings they managed to stay for years fighting the barcelonas, madrids, valencias, sevilles an zaragozas.

thats the beauty of that system, that ,if say Topeka makes a good work and has a good generaton of youngsters they manage to go all the way up to the first división.

It also eliminates almost completely the bandwaggons cause if teres a team in your town you root for it.

HouRealCoach
08-10-2013, 12:58 PM
Say if a team is hit with injuries and get eliminated then their players come back.. kind of like Washington did last year, wouldn't be fair to the teams that actually suck

Crackadalic
08-10-2013, 01:28 PM
The current era of tanking isn't as bad as Pre-lottery where the worse teams always gets the first pick. I don't see how tanking itself can ever be fix honestly

bholly
08-11-2013, 01:35 AM
Thats the key, have every town have their team ( wich collides with the ncaa system).

As for parity, the team from the town i grew up Breogan( lugo) Managed to stay for a lot of years in the acb league, it has been relegated and promoted several times, ( right now its in second división) they even managed to end top 6 once and play european competition.

Well go figure that town has 90000 inhabitants, yep you read that right 90000 inhabitants its like the 50th biggesst city in spain but still due to a good job on the youth schemes adn savy signings they managed to stay for years fighting the barcelonas, madrids, valencias, sevilles an zaragozas.

thats the beauty of that system, that ,if say Topeka makes a good work and has a good generaton of youngsters they manage to go all the way up to the first división.

It also eliminates almost completely the bandwaggons cause if teres a team in your town you root for it.

That's sort of my point. The NBA and its owners have no interest in becoming the top part of a mostly non-professional system where every town is part of it. The NBA is a whole different animal to that. It's a billion dollar industry, not the top of some pyramid of representative teams in some second tier league.

And your comments about your hometown just emphasize my point. I'm a non-American and I follow Euro sports, so I understand being happy just playing in the big leagues when you're from a small-ish town. But Americans don't care about that, at least in the big leagues. They want a chance to win. They want parity. They don't want to aim to fight the Lakers, they want to win. They don't want the pride of their clubs life to be that they finished in the top 6 once. They want championships. They don't want it to be a matter of waiting for a generation of local youngsters just to get them to the top league, they want to compete on even footing from the start.

The Euro system makes sense in a world where the top division still isn't worth all that much, and where there's already the local infrastructure in place. It makes no sense in a country where the top 30 teams are a whole different universe to anything else in the world, and are about ten thousand times more valuable. It's a whole different world, and there's no reason the Euro system should fit it any better than the current system.

If people understood the realities of the system you're proposing, I'm quite confident you'd have no support. You just present it as 'it would fix tanking!' and people jump on board without any experience of what it's really like. In short: the type of system you're proposing works fine for your country and my country, but would be completely awful for the world's premiere basketball competition and completely the opposite of what its fans want.

bholly
08-11-2013, 01:43 AM
The current era of tanking isn't as bad as Pre-lottery where the worse teams always gets the first pick. I don't see how tanking itself can ever be fix honestly

This.
Tanking is bad, but it's not like it's some huge horror that we absolutely can't live with. The problem with tanking is that bad teams end up being a little worse than they would otherwise, and thus those bad teams are less competitive. That's it. That's the problem. That bad teams are worse.
I recognize that in an ideal world we shouldn't have the incentives for teams to tank, but in the real world I think it's the lesser of whatever evils we could choose between. Proposing a solution with a whole new class system (or any system where the worst teams have next to no chance of getting up from the bottom) might fix tanking, but it comes at a much greater cost than tanking ever was. Tanking might suck, but I've never seen a proposal whose outcomes would be better. If anyone has one I'm all ears, but so far every proposal I've seen is sort of like cutting off the league's legs in order to cure a slight pain in its foot - even if it might technically fix the problem, the overall outcome is much much worse.

slashsnake
08-11-2013, 06:56 AM
I really could care less about how a 15-47 team does in their last 20 games. If they want to tank, go for it. Get your young players some experience. Try out new schemes. Rest your vets who could help next year.

The league has already devalued that worst record by 75% I believe (vs. NFL for example where the worst team has a 100% chance at the #1 overall pick).

slashsnake
08-11-2013, 06:59 AM
I do wonder really though how much tanking truly goes on for the potential for a better pick?

I wonder if most of it is about getting a jump start on the following season, resting players, and scouting your own backups in game situations.

When you are trying for a slightly higher chance to get Greg Oden instead of Kevin Durant... tanking for draft position doesn't really have a lot of upside to it. lol