DutchJazzer
Banned
takle a look at the standings
How Tanking ruins the NBA and possible solutions
- Thread starter BTP
- Start date
takle a look at the standings
DutchJazzer
Banned
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
green
Well-Known Member
Did I say winning? Listen to talk radio. Who are the talking heads talking about? What story is on Sportscenter constantly? What star is talked about being traded right now?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
green
Well-Known Member
It's not at all. I've said that in this thread. In fact, that was my main argument against BTP's idea.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
The problem with a lot of these suggestions is that there's no way that both the NBA owners AND the NBA players will agree to them. Most of what you're talking about is collectively bargained and has to be agreed to by both sides in negotiations. If anything favors the other side, it has to come with concessions in the collective bargaining process. Thus, no Franchise Tag like the NFL. No hard salary cap. No scrapping the draft in favor of a free agency free-for-all. Any real solutions needs to be (A) simple and (B) lucrative. Any solution to the problem still has to be able to MAKE MONEY. The bottom line is always the bottom line.
My solution to the problem would be a three-step process that is intended to improve parity, make the lottery more fair for truly bad teams, make regular season success more meaningful, give teams more opportunities to make the playoffs so they will play hard and try to win all the way through the end of the season and to make it so that there's some new revenue streams added so that everyone is happy with the end results.
Step One - Make the Lottery Valuable Again - The lottery system was put into place to discourage teams from tanking. I think that the idea is right, but the execution is flawed. I would change the lottery so that only the worst teams have a shot at the best players. Right now, 14 teams have a shot at the #1, #2 and #3 picks, with everyone else falling into line after those three are decided. I'd do away with that system. The new lottery would have only the bottom 6 teams in it (the worst three teams from each conference). Those teams would be part of a weighted lottery for the top six picks, and each team could end up with any of those six picks. Team #30 gets six balls, #29 gets five balls, #28 gets four balls, #27 gets three balls, #26 gets two balls and #25 gets just one ball. That's 21 total balls between the six teams. The odds for the #1 overall pick would initially be as follows - #30 = 28.57%, #29 = 23.81%, #28 = 19.85%, #27 = 14.29%, #26 = 9.52% and #25 = 4.76%.
This would also make the lottery easier to do and allow the league to TELEVISE IT!!! One of the biggest problems that they have is that fans only get to see the aftermath of the actual lottery. Lowering the number of teams involved and having less opportunities makes it exciting and easy to do it, thus making it compelling television.
Also, after the regular season ends, I would have those six worst teams compete in a double-elimination tournament to add one more ball to the lottery in their favor. It's a simple way to increase interest in those bottom-dwellers and make a little bit of money by adding a handful of games for TV revenue and ticket sales. With only 21 total balls in the lottery, adding one more ball to the equation makes a HUGE difference. If the team with the highest regular season record (#25) wins the tournament, their odds for the #1 overall pick more than doubles, up to 9.09%, while the team with the worst record (#30) has their odds drop a bit to 27.27%.
Step Two - Limit restrictions on draft picks - To eliminate situations like when Golden State screwed the Jazz by tanking the season to keep their pick, I'd make it so that there's only one option for protecting a pick. A bottom six lottery pick is the only restriction that I would allow. Anything after the top six picks can't be protected. This prevents teams from knowing that they're bad enough to possibly keep the pick until later in the season, and they run the risk of tanking for no reason. More teams will be willing to play to win if they know that they won't be bad enough to drop low enough to keep their protected pick. Another thing that it will do is cause more pick movement. Currently, it's common to see picks protected with all types of restrictions that get less strict as time goes by. That system would be gone. It's either a protected lottery pick, or they get it.
Step Three - Expand the Playoffs to include all Non-Lottery Teams - If they simply drop the lottery down to the the bottom six teams, you'd probably see more tanking by teams in order to get into that lower bracket. The teams in the middle would have nothing to play for because their options are to make it into the top 8 for a playoff spot, or tank hard and land in the bottom 3 for a lottery slot. This is the current problem with the system as it is today. There's no incentive for being in the middle of the pack. My plan would be to increase the opportunity to make it into the playoffs to any team that is not in the lottery. The trick is to do it in an exciting way without watering down the playoffs or making it so that regular season success is less important. My solution to both of those problems is to give the top seven seeds from each conference a guaranteed spot in the playoffs, while the 8th seed will have to play a best of three series against the winner of the play-in tournament to have a shot at playing the #1 seed. While I'm at it, I'd go ahead and shorten the opening round back to a best of five series. The best of seven makes it really hard for lower seeds to advance and the play-in scenario would make it even worse. The league could use the play-in tournament and best of three series to make up for the potentially lost games and also increase drama and interest in the early parts of the playoffs.
Here's what the bracket would look like. . .
Play-In Tournament
#9 vs. #12 (one game - winner advances to play-in final)
#10 vs. #11 (one game - winner advances to play-in final)
Winner of {9 vs. 12} vs. Winner of {10 vs. 11} (one game - winner advances to face #8 seed)
Best of three series to play against the top seed
#8 vs. Winner of Play-in tournament (best of three series - winner advances to face #1 seed in opening round of playoffs)
Opening round of the playoffs
#1 vs. #8 or Play-in Winner (best of five series - winner advances to quarter-finals)
#2 vs. #7 (best of five series - winner advances to quarter-finals)
#3 vs. #6 (best of five series - winner advances to quarter-finals)
#4 vs. #5 (best of five series - winner advances to quarter-finals)
and from this point, the playoffs are the exact same as they currently are. . .
My solution to the problem would be a three-step process that is intended to improve parity, make the lottery more fair for truly bad teams, make regular season success more meaningful, give teams more opportunities to make the playoffs so they will play hard and try to win all the way through the end of the season and to make it so that there's some new revenue streams added so that everyone is happy with the end results.
Step One - Make the Lottery Valuable Again - The lottery system was put into place to discourage teams from tanking. I think that the idea is right, but the execution is flawed. I would change the lottery so that only the worst teams have a shot at the best players. Right now, 14 teams have a shot at the #1, #2 and #3 picks, with everyone else falling into line after those three are decided. I'd do away with that system. The new lottery would have only the bottom 6 teams in it (the worst three teams from each conference). Those teams would be part of a weighted lottery for the top six picks, and each team could end up with any of those six picks. Team #30 gets six balls, #29 gets five balls, #28 gets four balls, #27 gets three balls, #26 gets two balls and #25 gets just one ball. That's 21 total balls between the six teams. The odds for the #1 overall pick would initially be as follows - #30 = 28.57%, #29 = 23.81%, #28 = 19.85%, #27 = 14.29%, #26 = 9.52% and #25 = 4.76%.
This would also make the lottery easier to do and allow the league to TELEVISE IT!!! One of the biggest problems that they have is that fans only get to see the aftermath of the actual lottery. Lowering the number of teams involved and having less opportunities makes it exciting and easy to do it, thus making it compelling television.
Also, after the regular season ends, I would have those six worst teams compete in a double-elimination tournament to add one more ball to the lottery in their favor. It's a simple way to increase interest in those bottom-dwellers and make a little bit of money by adding a handful of games for TV revenue and ticket sales. With only 21 total balls in the lottery, adding one more ball to the equation makes a HUGE difference. If the team with the highest regular season record (#25) wins the tournament, their odds for the #1 overall pick more than doubles, up to 9.09%, while the team with the worst record (#30) has their odds drop a bit to 27.27%.
Step Two - Limit restrictions on draft picks - To eliminate situations like when Golden State screwed the Jazz by tanking the season to keep their pick, I'd make it so that there's only one option for protecting a pick. A bottom six lottery pick is the only restriction that I would allow. Anything after the top six picks can't be protected. This prevents teams from knowing that they're bad enough to possibly keep the pick until later in the season, and they run the risk of tanking for no reason. More teams will be willing to play to win if they know that they won't be bad enough to drop low enough to keep their protected pick. Another thing that it will do is cause more pick movement. Currently, it's common to see picks protected with all types of restrictions that get less strict as time goes by. That system would be gone. It's either a protected lottery pick, or they get it.
Step Three - Expand the Playoffs to include all Non-Lottery Teams - If they simply drop the lottery down to the the bottom six teams, you'd probably see more tanking by teams in order to get into that lower bracket. The teams in the middle would have nothing to play for because their options are to make it into the top 8 for a playoff spot, or tank hard and land in the bottom 3 for a lottery slot. This is the current problem with the system as it is today. There's no incentive for being in the middle of the pack. My plan would be to increase the opportunity to make it into the playoffs to any team that is not in the lottery. The trick is to do it in an exciting way without watering down the playoffs or making it so that regular season success is less important. My solution to both of those problems is to give the top seven seeds from each conference a guaranteed spot in the playoffs, while the 8th seed will have to play a best of three series against the winner of the play-in tournament to have a shot at playing the #1 seed. While I'm at it, I'd go ahead and shorten the opening round back to a best of five series. The best of seven makes it really hard for lower seeds to advance and the play-in scenario would make it even worse. The league could use the play-in tournament and best of three series to make up for the potentially lost games and also increase drama and interest in the early parts of the playoffs.
Here's what the bracket would look like. . .
Play-In Tournament
#9 vs. #12 (one game - winner advances to play-in final)
#10 vs. #11 (one game - winner advances to play-in final)
Winner of {9 vs. 12} vs. Winner of {10 vs. 11} (one game - winner advances to face #8 seed)
Best of three series to play against the top seed
#8 vs. Winner of Play-in tournament (best of three series - winner advances to face #1 seed in opening round of playoffs)
Opening round of the playoffs
#1 vs. #8 or Play-in Winner (best of five series - winner advances to quarter-finals)
#2 vs. #7 (best of five series - winner advances to quarter-finals)
#3 vs. #6 (best of five series - winner advances to quarter-finals)
#4 vs. #5 (best of five series - winner advances to quarter-finals)
and from this point, the playoffs are the exact same as they currently are. . .
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Reasons I like this type of playoff format -
A. This format keeps from watering down the playoffs by only really affecting the #8 seed dramatically. In fact, by allowing the league to go back down to a best-of-five series for the first round it should actually make the opening round better and more compelling. The NCAA tournament is so exciting because of the Cinderella stories. Having a team win the play-in tournament and then top the 8th seed to face the best team in the conference would be exciting, even if the end result (#1 seed advancing) ends up being the exact same as it would have been in an #1 vs. #8 match-up. It also allows the league the opportunity to televise important games, while allowing the automatic qualifying teams a short break to get healthy and recover after pushing hard to finish the regular season strong before having to play games. Rested players should equal better playoff basketball.
2. It should increase fan interest and improve revenue because there's always the hope that even a bad team can win the tournament, beat the #8 seed in the best of three and find themselves the Cinderella team facing the #1 seed. All it takes is making a couple of moves, or getting healthy and playing good basketball at the end of the year and into the post-season. It also increases league-wide appeal because it keeps the fans of 8 more teams invested in the early part of the playoffs. That's more ticket sales, merchandise and television coverage.
#3. It should make the trade deadline much more fun and exciting. Even if teams start slow and struggle early, there's no reason to have a fire-sale and tank when there's a chance to make some moves, get hot and make it to the playoffs. Teams might actually try harder to get better at the trade deadline if they think those players could be the difference to making it into the playoffs and advancing.
#4. It gives fans, players and teams hope. Hope is the key to keeping teams engaged in the season and fighting to advance as far as they can. It makes it so that they're willing to develop their rookies and HOPE that they're ready to play by the time the post-season comes. It makes it so that teams don't shut down injured players too early or too easily because there's always the HOPE that they can return and contribute to something worthwhile. It makes it so that teams make prudent moves at the deadline to get better because they HOPE that they will have the pieces needed to make it to the playoffs and advance. Even if it's just a sliver of a chance, that will be enough for some teams to work harder and take chances on winning over tanking.
#5. Expanding the playoff field should actually improve the value of the regular season. If all 24 teams were seeded and given a free pass into the playoffs, then it would diminish the value of regular season games. The format I propose makes it so that it's more important to earn a top seven seed, and that even if you're low on the totem pole it's worth competing every game to try and improve your position before the season ends. Being the higher seed in the play-in tournament gives you home court advantage (plus ticket sales and revenue) in a win-and-advance situation. Just getting the last playoff spot won't be good enough anymore. The 8th seed will have to play a best of three just for the right to play against the #1 seed, thus making getting a higher seed that much more important. The top three teams still get home court advantage in the first round. The top seven teams get a short break to rest and recover while the #8 seed has to play a best of three vs. whichever team manages to come out on top of the play-in tournament. Being the #8 seed is still better than being in the tournament.. No matter how bad your season was, win five games and you're facing the top seed in the first round right in the thick of things.
I'm sure there's some things that I've missed, but overall I think that these are simple changes that could be made that would fix the tanking problem that the NBA has. It makes so that teams have something worth playing for (a shot at the playoffs) without watering down the post-season or diminishing the regular season. It removes the incentive for tanking early because only the worst 6 teams make it into the lottery. And it makes it so that the lottery is simple and effective at deterring tanking while allowing the worst teams fair opportunity to end up with the best players so that they can improve.
A. This format keeps from watering down the playoffs by only really affecting the #8 seed dramatically. In fact, by allowing the league to go back down to a best-of-five series for the first round it should actually make the opening round better and more compelling. The NCAA tournament is so exciting because of the Cinderella stories. Having a team win the play-in tournament and then top the 8th seed to face the best team in the conference would be exciting, even if the end result (#1 seed advancing) ends up being the exact same as it would have been in an #1 vs. #8 match-up. It also allows the league the opportunity to televise important games, while allowing the automatic qualifying teams a short break to get healthy and recover after pushing hard to finish the regular season strong before having to play games. Rested players should equal better playoff basketball.
2. It should increase fan interest and improve revenue because there's always the hope that even a bad team can win the tournament, beat the #8 seed in the best of three and find themselves the Cinderella team facing the #1 seed. All it takes is making a couple of moves, or getting healthy and playing good basketball at the end of the year and into the post-season. It also increases league-wide appeal because it keeps the fans of 8 more teams invested in the early part of the playoffs. That's more ticket sales, merchandise and television coverage.
#3. It should make the trade deadline much more fun and exciting. Even if teams start slow and struggle early, there's no reason to have a fire-sale and tank when there's a chance to make some moves, get hot and make it to the playoffs. Teams might actually try harder to get better at the trade deadline if they think those players could be the difference to making it into the playoffs and advancing.
#4. It gives fans, players and teams hope. Hope is the key to keeping teams engaged in the season and fighting to advance as far as they can. It makes it so that they're willing to develop their rookies and HOPE that they're ready to play by the time the post-season comes. It makes it so that teams don't shut down injured players too early or too easily because there's always the HOPE that they can return and contribute to something worthwhile. It makes it so that teams make prudent moves at the deadline to get better because they HOPE that they will have the pieces needed to make it to the playoffs and advance. Even if it's just a sliver of a chance, that will be enough for some teams to work harder and take chances on winning over tanking.
#5. Expanding the playoff field should actually improve the value of the regular season. If all 24 teams were seeded and given a free pass into the playoffs, then it would diminish the value of regular season games. The format I propose makes it so that it's more important to earn a top seven seed, and that even if you're low on the totem pole it's worth competing every game to try and improve your position before the season ends. Being the higher seed in the play-in tournament gives you home court advantage (plus ticket sales and revenue) in a win-and-advance situation. Just getting the last playoff spot won't be good enough anymore. The 8th seed will have to play a best of three just for the right to play against the #1 seed, thus making getting a higher seed that much more important. The top three teams still get home court advantage in the first round. The top seven teams get a short break to rest and recover while the #8 seed has to play a best of three vs. whichever team manages to come out on top of the play-in tournament. Being the #8 seed is still better than being in the tournament.. No matter how bad your season was, win five games and you're facing the top seed in the first round right in the thick of things.
I'm sure there's some things that I've missed, but overall I think that these are simple changes that could be made that would fix the tanking problem that the NBA has. It makes so that teams have something worth playing for (a shot at the playoffs) without watering down the post-season or diminishing the regular season. It removes the incentive for tanking early because only the worst 6 teams make it into the lottery. And it makes it so that the lottery is simple and effective at deterring tanking while allowing the worst teams fair opportunity to end up with the best players so that they can improve.
HORRIBLE format.
So the 6th and 7th worst team are 1 win apart from each other and 1 has a chance and the other doesn't. Well let's see who outtanks whom.
My team is a borderline NBA team and I got struck by injuries that have my players sidelined until March. So I tank hardcore with my good core to get the #1 seed. To add insult to injury(see what I did there?) my Derrick Rose is coming back in March, getting back into shape and when the extra ball tournament takes place in April and May I get an extra ball for a 30% chance at a #1 pick. See how ridiculous that is? That would make the current situation even worse.
The ONLY way to eliminate tanking is making flat odds. You can't have significantly better odds by losing 5 more games. The difference between #1 and #14 can't be higher than sth like 3%. Else you create an objective to hit certain loss thresholds.
I think the only way to really fight tanking is totally make it unlucrative.
My system that's a little harsh on players has 2 qualities:
-each team can only have 1 superstar unless the superstar is willing for $50M less than he could earn elsewhere. And he's heavily vulnerable via free agency as each team has 1 superstar contract to give.
-You have flat lottery odds, which make losing not really attractive. You tank 3 games for a 5% better chance, but not 15 losses for a 1% better chance. Free agency opened up gives you options to compensate if you got unlucky in the lottery and need talent influx. So what you try is get good players back and have a chance to win every night until you either hit the jackpot with a lower selection, lure a superstar into town or get a high selection yourself.