How to stop the tankathon

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,123
What happens in baseball is a matter of asset management. The White Sox decide they are unlikely to win in the near future so they trade 3 years of Chris Sale for 6 years of Yoan Moncada and 6 years of Michael Kopech. That the White Sox end up losing more games this year is a by product. In basketball, losing is often the goal itself.
Valid answer but are the Kings tanking when they trade Cousins or did they trade Cousins thinking it would improve the team long term? Are the Lakers tanking by trading Louis Williams for a 1st round pick or bettering their near future?

I don't think tanking is a problem as long as players don't tank. The Suns and Lakers are arguably tanking but they were both in the bottom 3 teams long before they benched Bledsoe, Deng and Mozgov. Are they tanking or are they developing their young players? Is sitting Bledsoe tanking or is it being cautious and letting your best player fully heal rather than risk further injury in a lost season?

I bet the Suns are a considerably better team next year. The Lakers, I'm not so sure.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,756
So you'd expect mist of them to have losing records. But what are the chances that the two which don't just happen to be the ones who don't benefit from tanking?
In fairness on of those two lottery teams has (arguably) two top ten players, so you sort of expect them to have a winning record since acquiring the second guy.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,375
New York, NY
What happens in baseball is a matter of asset management. The White Sox decide they are unlikely to win in the near future so they trade 3 years of Chris Sale for 6 years of Yoan Moncada and 6 years of Michael Kopech. That the White Sox end up losing more games this year is a by product. In basketball, losing is often the goal itself.
When the Lakers traded Lou Williams it was primarily because it would get them a higher draft pick, sure, but the goal isn't losing, it is gaining long term talent at the expense of a few meaningless wins that season. That's not really different, it's just that the mechanism for getting the long term talent is different.

As is often noted, players don't tank, and coaches rarely do much in that space, so the primary complaint is about GMs making teams worse today to be better tomorrow. That is the exact same thing as what happens every season in baseball at the trade deadline and everyone accepts as a normal and appropriate part of the game.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,167
When the Lakers traded Lou Williams it was primarily because it would get them a higher draft pick, sure, but the goal isn't losing, it is gaining long term talent at the expense of a few meaningless wins that season. That's not really different, it's just that the mechanism for getting the long term talent is different.

As is often noted, players don't tank, and coaches rarely do much in that space, so the primary complaint is about GMs making teams worse today to be better tomorrow. That is the exact same thing as what happens every season in baseball at the trade deadline and everyone accepts as a normal and appropriate part of the game.
I have no problem with the Lou Williams trade, you're right that it's no different than the Sale trade. The tanking part generally takes the form of keeping players out of games. I actually don't have a huge problem with that either, but it is definitely fundamentally different from trading stars for pics/prospects.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,123
Baseball teams are not tanking to get a better draft pick. They are playing younger kids to see what they have. The Lakers, most definitively, are not.
The Lakers are definitely playing their younger kids to see what they have. They may be playing them with the intend to lose but improving for next season is a byproduct of that. Russell, Ingram, Randle, Zubac, Enis, all need to play and I doubt the Lakers know what they have with any of them. Randle maybe, but he's still 22. The Lakers have nothing at all to gain by playing Deng and Mozgov and have more to gain by using that time to develop their younger players.

Again, the Lakers were in the bottom 3 even with Lou Williams, Deng and Mozgov. With those 3, they may win an extra 5-6 games. Or they could trade one for a 1st round pick, bench Deng and Mozgov because they aren't part of the future, use the 70 minutes a night to develop their young players while in the process netting a better pick.

Benching 30 year old Mozgov for 20 year old Zubac is literally playing the younger kids to see what they have and what most lottery teams should be doing. Building for the future and giving time to players that may be part of that future. Not Deng and Mozgov.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,834
How about eliminating fouling out? Call them like you see them, and the stars only come out when they are tired. Is there some obvious problem with letting someone get a 6th or even 7th foul? I don't see how this would goon the game up, in fact it would get called closer because the refs could call the game clean.
IIRC, the ABA had a no foulout rule for a time. Every personal foul after 6 was an extra shot, or the fouled team kept the ball after the foul shots or some such.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,782
Somewhere
As is often noted, players don't tank, and coaches rarely do much in that space, so the primary complaint is about GMs making teams worse today to be better tomorrow. That is the exact same thing as what happens every season in baseball at the trade deadline and everyone accepts as a normal and appropriate part of the game.
I think the issue is that GMs are inadvertently Ted Stepien-ing themselves for the sake of a few more lottery tickets.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,751
The difference between MLB and the NBA is baseball has real minor leagues, so you can trade your stars for prospects who you will have under contract right away.

There are few if any prospects in the D-league, so you have to tank for a statistical chance at one coming out of college or out of the international ranks.

Maybe the NBA should look at the European model, where the best young players get signed at 16 years old (like baseball players from the DR or Cuba) and placed on "scout teams" until they are ready for minutes with the big club.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,437
Rotten Apple

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
477
Brooklyn by way of Orono
Glad he's trying but I think Silver may be solving the wrong problem, and as @cheech13 said in another thread changing the inflection point isn't likely to help anyway.

If a team wants to bottom out for a year I have no problem with it. 'Chronic' tanking is the real problem as it becomes detrimental to the league itself when a team, along with its fanbase, intentionally wallows in the mire.

The simplest solution is to prohibit a team which drafted in the top 3 from doing so in subsequent years. Their pick, whether traded or not, would not be lower than 4th regardless of lottery outcome. GMs won't plan the rebuild around serial tanking for at best pick 4.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
As noted above, I think this is the wrong problem. The Nets had the worst record with literally no incentive.

The problem is the teams in the 4-15 range jockeying for more ping pong balls, not the Lakers deciding (then not?) to tank in February. This change will create more incentive for teams on the bottom of the playoff cusp to get themselves out of the playoffs.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,167
This change will create more incentive for teams on the bottom of the playoff cusp to get themselves out of the playoffs.
Will it? Making the playoffs is a big deal for everyone involved -- players, coaches, fans -- and means significant revenue for owners. Even a first round exit can be a stepping stone for a team. Are teams going to sacrifice that for a small chance in the lottery?
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
If we care about only getting to the playoffs, I don't think tanking is a problem - there are many many paths to making the playoffs that don't involve a need to tank. The problem that creates tanking is everyone wants a shot at the title, and there are far fewer paths to that, and teams seem to think tanking is one of them.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,930
The Lakers are definitely playing their younger kids to see what they have. They may be playing them with the intend to lose but improving for next season is a byproduct of that. Russell, Ingram, Randle, Zubac, Enis, all need to play and I doubt the Lakers know what they have with any of them. Randle maybe, but he's still 22. The Lakers have nothing at all to gain by playing Deng and Mozgov and have more to gain by using that time to develop their younger players.

Again, the Lakers were in the bottom 3 even with Lou Williams, Deng and Mozgov. With those 3, they may win an extra 5-6 games. Or they could trade one for a 1st round pick, bench Deng and Mozgov because they aren't part of the future, use the 70 minutes a night to develop their young players while in the process netting a better pick.

Benching 30 year old Mozgov for 20 year old Zubac is literally playing the younger kids to see what they have and what most lottery teams should be doing. Building for the future and giving time to players that may be part of that future. Not Deng and Mozgov.
What is tanking and what is building for the future? Or are they one in alike? The Lakers most used 5-man unit last year (by greater than 100%) included both Deng and Mozgov......and were a +44 over 402 minutes of floor time. The dropoff from serviceable NBA veterans to clueless young kids is fast and furious in this league.

http://www.82games.com/1617/1617LAL2.HTM

 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,675
Portsmouth, NH
What is tanking and what is building for the future? Or are they one in alike? The Lakers most used 5-man unit last year (by greater than 100%) included both Deng and Mozgov......and were a +44 over 402 minutes of floor time. The dropoff from serviceable NBA veterans to clueless young kids is fast and furious in this league.
Then fix that problem and adopt an NFL style system where you need to be 3 years post high school to enter the draft. Part of the alpha dog system that dominates the league now can be attributed to the one and dones not developing enough before they enter the league and they can't adjust. Deeper league equals less star driven equals less need to tank.

Or, just let teams tank, like every other league does; maybe put in a marginal system like the NHL, but if an owner/FO wants to tank, they're the ones feeling the pinch from their fans and in their pocket, why does the league need to step in?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,930
Then fix that problem and adopt an NFL style system where you need to be 3 years post high school to enter the draft. Part of the alpha dog system that dominates the league now can be attributed to the one and dones not developing enough before they enter the league and they can't adjust. Deeper league equals less star driven equals less need to tank.

Or, just let teams tank, like every other league does; maybe put in a marginal system like the NHL, but if an owner/FO wants to tank, they're the ones feeling the pinch from their fans and in their pocket, why does the league need to step in?
I don't feel that is a fix at all. The NBA was an alpha dog league long before one-and-dones. The nature of the game allows the stars to make a greater impact than any other major sport going back to Mikan, Russell, Wilt, Jabbar, Magic, Bird......and the list goes on and on.

The NBA was a stars league when it was an 8-team league and is when it's a 30-team league. That isn't changing unless you make severe and unprecedented rules changes which of course isn't going to happen.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,735
The simplest solution is to prohibit a team which drafted in the top 3 from doing so in subsequent years. Their pick, whether traded or not, would not be lower than 4th regardless of lottery outcome. GMs won't plan the rebuild around serial tanking for at best pick 4.
I agree with this. Just stop teams from picking low in multiple years in a row. One thing I would add is that this should only affect a team's own pick - if a team is clever enough to pick up some other team's pick, that should be exempt.

Thus, if a team picks #1 in a year with their own pick, their own t pick can't be 1, 2, or 3 in the following year; if a team picks #2 with their own pick, their own pick can't be #1 or #2 in the next year; if a team picks #3 with their own pick, their own can't be #1 in the next year.

You could also accomplish the same thing by focusing on the record - that if a team finishes with the first, second, or third worst records multiple years in a row, they keep losing ping-pong balls but that would require some additional thought on how to best structure it.
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
I would go one step further by dropping them one slot for back to back lottery years. So if they finished in the lottery last year, whatever pick they end up with in this years lottery drops one (and everyone else leapfrogs a spot)
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,282
I think flattening the odds is the proper solution and I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that. Make the odds for 1-13 less lopsided than they currently are and the incentive to tank is significantly reduced. From a pure entertainment standpoint, it would be a lot more fun too if more teams had a realistic shot of getting a top 3 pick. If you call it a lottery, then make it a true lottery.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,123
I think part of the solution lies in the G league but indirectly. When teams begin to use it more, a lot of these young 1st rounders will be on the NBA court less which should improve quality of play. It also allows the 19-20 year old kids who are actually NBA ready to play in the NBA.

I do wonder if there was a 3 year rule if more players would go the Brandon Jennings route.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
21,502
Melrose, MA
I think flattening the odds is the proper solution and I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that. Make the odds for 1-13 less lopsided than they currently are and the incentive to tank is significantly reduced. From a pure entertainment standpoint, it would be a lot more fun too if more teams had a realistic shot of getting a top 3 pick. If you call it a lottery, then make it a true lottery.
Disagree. This just incentivizes missing the playoffs.

I think there should just be some limit on how many high draft picks a team can get in succession.
 
Sorry if this was mentioned before. Can't read the whole thread right now. I don't follow basketball at all. Just curious. But wouldn't the simplest solution be to award the first pick to the first non-playoff team with the best w-l record? 2nd to 2nd, etc. This would give teams who are close to playoff caliber a great chance to make the playoffs the following year while eliminating tanking. What reasons why this wouldn't work?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,282
Disagree. This just incentivizes missing the playoffs.

I think there should just be some limit on how many high draft picks a team can get in succession.
How so? You think teams would really sacrifice the excitement for the playoffs for a lottery pick? Maybe if a generational talent were available but otherwise I don't see it.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,469
Sorry if this was mentioned before. Can't read the whole thread right now. I don't follow basketball at all. Just curious. But wouldn't the simplest solution be to award the first pick to the first non-playoff team with the best w-l record? 2nd to 2nd, etc. This would give teams who are close to playoff caliber a great chance to make the playoffs the following year while eliminating tanking. What reasons why this wouldn't work?
Let's say a team was in 9th place, and would guarantee themselves the 8th seed in the playoffs with a win in their final game. Of course, that 8th seed means a broom job at the hands of the Warriors. Lose, and they get to draft the "next LeBron".

I can see the GM, who was just told by his owner that he has to make it past the first round of the playoffs the following season or he's out, telling the coach to rest his regulars that final game.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
But wouldn't the simplest solution be to award the first pick to the first non-playoff team with the best w-l record? 2nd to 2nd, etc.
Because 1) teams would tank to try to miss the playoffs, and 2) some of the worst teams in the league would be locked in perma-suck.

How so? You think teams would really sacrifice the excitement for the playoffs for a lottery pick?
Yes.

It wouldn't be just another lottery pick. It would be the top picks in the draft.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,282
It would be a chance at a top pick. They could easily land 12th and then they've sacrificed the playoffs for a late lotto pick. Sorry, just not buying it. I'm sure it could happen in some instances but I doubt it would be prevalent.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Post-season double round robin of non-playoff teams. Teams 1-10 (from the bottom) start with 10 to 1 wins. Teams 11-14 start with 0 wins. The team with the most wins at the end gets the #1 pick, rest of the picks go in descending order of wins.

(I'm also for shortening the season)
 
Last edited:

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,123
Because 1) teams would tank to try to miss the playoffs, and 2) some of the worst teams in the league would be locked in perma-suck.



Yes.

It wouldn't be just another lottery pick. It would be the top picks in the draft.
Would it outweigh the ticket receipts of at least 2 playoff games? For some teams, probably. For others? Not so sure. It would also depend on the strength of the draft. It is a business and some of these guys do want to maximize profits. The playoffs bring in a lot of money. If it is a problem, how would the NBA add more value to making the playoffs than having a chance to pick 1st?

I'm not sure the problem is fixable since it's been a problem since at least 1984 and existed before the lottery. It's somewhat ironic that the best player ever would go 3rd in that draft. With that said, Hakeem is one of the best players to ever step on the court himself and brought 2 titles to Houston so I'm sure there are no regrets.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
For the record, from my perspective tanking is really not that big of a problem for the product, and all the attention on it is because super mega wealthy owners feel like they should have an even higher entitlement than they already enjoy by being super mega wealthy.

What I'm saying is, fans of the Lakers don't fucking care if they tank one season or two (in aggregate, obviously some fans do). But Bob Sarver I bet makes a big stink about it at owners meetings. Etc.

I also don't think the players really do tank as much as people talk about them tanking. Like, I think that ratio is about 1:10000.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
So people think that a 25% chance of getting the first pick with the worst record is... Too high?

This is nuts. This is the point of the draft. Worst teams get the best picks. End.

If you want to fix tanking make rookies less valuable, get rid of the RFA or the two team options.
If a rookie was a 3 year deal with no rites would people tank forever.

Basketball is by far the most difficult to rebuild in, with dynasties still happening. And we want to make it harder for bad teams to improve. There are already almost zero ways, and now the idea is to make the draft even harder to.

This whole thing is bullshit
Fix the CBA if you have a problem with it. The lottery is already dumb.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Would it outweigh the ticket receipts of at least 2 playoff games? For some teams, probably. For others? Not so sure. It would also depend on the strength of the draft. It is a business and some of these guys do want to maximize profits. The playoffs bring in a lot of money.
Of course this is true for some teams. But those teams aren't tanking under the current system either: look at the Pacers.

And yet people feel that there are enough teams willing to intentionally be bad instead of fighting for a playoff spot that the system needs to be changed. The very people arguing in favor of reform are the ones saying that teams are, in fact, willing to intentionally avoid the playoffs to get a top 5 pick.

If it is a problem, how would the NBA add more value to making the playoffs than having a chance to pick 1st?
This is the heart of the issue.

There is no advantage to making the playoffs other than a couple of extra nights of ticket sales. (And pride, I suppose.) An 8 seed and a 7 seed have a 1-3% chance of advancing, and a near 0 chance of winning a title. So a rational owner who wants to win a title should prefer even the current low chance of a top 5 pick in the lottery to getting to the playoffs as a punching bag.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,675
Portsmouth, NH
I think making odds more equal only makes it worse.

In my opinion there is very little to gain right now by making the back end of the lottery vs the growth your team gets by making the playoffs, even if you get swept. The draft is so top heavy every year, there's not a whole hell of a lot of discernible difference between picking 14 or making the playoffs and picking 15 (yes, I know conferences make it not that simple, but you get the point). I don't think many teams - or at least any smart team - is going to tank a couple games to eschew playoff revenues and what the experience brings in order to get a .5% chance at the top pick or a 1.8% chance at a top 3. Increase that to, say, 10% and maybe it's more attractive.

I honestly don't even understand why this is a thing. I get that basketball is more easily dominated by one player, since there's only five on the floor at a time. But how different is that than how much the NFL has become about your QB? You still need other players but you need your stud. Yet I don't recall cries for a lottery during Suck for Luck, or the Jets tanking this year etc etc.

Get rid of the fucking thing. Get rid of max contracts. If a team wants to tank and get top pick and then offer Lebron $80M let them do it and figure out the rest of their payroll and roster under a hard cap.
 

The Needler

lurker
Dec 7, 2016
1,598
I honestly don't even understand why this is a thing. I get that basketball is more easily dominated by one player, since there's only five on the floor at a time. But how different is that than how much the NFL has become about your QB? You still need other players but you need your stud. Yet I don't recall cries for a lottery during Suck for Luck, or the Jets tanking this year etc etc.

Get rid of the fucking thing. Get rid of max contracts. If a team wants to tank and get top pick and then offer Lebron $80M let them do it and figure out the rest of their payroll and roster under a hard cap.
Because the NBA is not capitalism or even competition. The Celtics or the Warriors don't benefit if another team tanks, or sucks, and loses its fans, or money. They actually lose. Each team is not an independent island that rises and falls on its own. When one team loses value, it hurts the other owners. The goal of the commissioner is to make money for all of the owners; rules that promote "competitive balance" are actually intended to increase team value while limiting the importance (and cost) of labor. By tanking, a team not only risks overall league revenue and the brand, but it emphasizes and increases the value of players.
 

cardiacs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,111
Stamford, CT
3-5-7 rule
If you picked in the top 3 last year, you can't pick higher than 7 the next year
If you picked in the top 5 last year, you can't pick higher than 5 the next year
If you picked in the top 7 last year, you can't pick higher than 3 the next year
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,675
Portsmouth, NH
Team values are not hurting and the income is generated from league wide TV deals, not from gates or concessions. Shit, the Celtics pay most of their team revenue to the Bruins as rent. Shared revenue solves that.

Tanking didn't prevent the biggest revenue spike ever the last couple years - and such a huge cap jump - it's not going to bankrupt the league. And again, it's not a different model than any other league. NFL teams tank every year and it's become just as common in the MLB now - that's why the Astros are so good. It's actually smart if you do it properly.

But to your other point, 'competitive balance' isn't accomplished with the current system and flattening the lottery odds isn't going to solve that. The only thing that will is a hard cap and getting rid of max contracts. If competitive balance was their true goal, they would have fought harder against the union for phasing in the salary cap increase because that huge spike last season only made it worse.
 
Because 1) teams would tank to try to miss the playoffs, and 2) some of the worst teams in the league would be locked in perma-suck.
So make the 8th place playoff team the top pick. 9th place the 2nd. Eliminates tanking to miss the playoffs. Doesn't the perma suck issue happen now anyways?? I mean the worst teams would have serious incentive to get better. I mean I know it would be difficult for some, but how much worse would it actually be than it is now??
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
21,502
Melrose, MA
For the record, from my perspective tanking is really not that big of a problem for the product, and all the attention on it is because super mega wealthy owners feel like they should have an even higher entitlement than they already enjoy by being super mega wealthy.

What I'm saying is, fans of the Lakers don't fucking care if they tank one season or two (in aggregate, obviously some fans do). But Bob Sarver I bet makes a big stink about it at owners meetings. Etc.

I also don't think the players really do tank as much as people talk about them tanking. Like, I think that ratio is about 1:10000.
I think players barely tank at all. To the extent it happens, tanking is 95% done by GMs (via assembling lousy teams, trading away good players in-season, and keeping injured players on the shelf longer than necessary), maybe 4.5% on coaches via allocation of playing time, and 0.5% (or less) on players. Only in rare cases do players have incentive to tank. (Would a Jae Crowder type on a bad team tank to get his team a better shot at a Jayson Tatum?).

I do think "The Process" (strategic extended multi-year tanking) is BS, so I wouldn't mind seeing limits on how much one team could gain via a long run of tanking. Cleveland had 3 1s in 4 years, Philly has had a 1, a 3, and a 5 over the past 3 years. At some point (not sure exactly where) there should be a limit.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
477
Brooklyn by way of Orono
3-5-7 rule
If you picked in the top 3 last year, you can't pick higher than 7 the next year
If you picked in the top 5 last year, you can't pick higher than 5 the next year
If you picked in the top 7 last year, you can't pick higher than 3 the next year
I like it. Again, from where I sit tanking for a season is fine and rearranging the deck chairs seems fruitless. Remove the incentive for teams to actively suck for an extended period and move on.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,038
It comes down to this:

What problem are we trying to solve through the draft lottery?

I don't think it's a big problem that a bunch of teams are going to try to copy the 76er Process and tank multiple seasons in a row to accumulate draft picks. So far the 76ers are the only team to do it and the jury is still out as to whether the talent they've assembled will grow into a championship team. Restricting bad teams from getting high draft picks in back to back years will only hurt legitimately bad teams and make it so bad teams stay bad longer. I think this is bad long term for the league.

The problem with tanking happens at the end of the year when you have a bunch of bad teams who have no shot at the playoffs but are so tightly bunched together that every game they win can have a highly negative impact on whom they will draft. Look at last year. The difference in record between the fourth worst 76ers and the seventh worst Knicks was only three wins. But the 76ers had more than double the lottery combinations. That's crazy.

The only tweak necessary is to adjust the formula for assigning combinations. Instead of awarding combos strictly based on your position among lottery teams, base it your actual number of losses. If the worst two teams this season finish with 21 and 22 wins, they should have almost exactly the same number of combinations. That way the result of each individual game will have a much smaller impact on a team's lottery chances.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,123
3-5-7 rule
If you picked in the top 3 last year, you can't pick higher than 7 the next year
If you picked in the top 5 last year, you can't pick higher than 5 the next year
If you picked in the top 7 last year, you can't pick higher than 3 the next year
This would put teams in the 8,9 slots in the top 3 almost every single year. It would also get really confusing.


So make the 8th place playoff team the top pick. 9th place the 2nd. Eliminates tanking to miss the playoffs. Doesn't the perma suck issue happen now anyways?? I mean the worst teams would have serious incentive to get better. I mean I know it would be difficult for some, but how much worse would it actually be than it is now??
And then you have the possibility of teams who have already secured themselves a playoff spot intentionally losing games to get the 8 seed, because what difference does it make to be the 7th seed?
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
20,510
Saskatoon Canada
Personally I think it is fine. Tanking has its own risks and detriments. I was in Phoenix this year and the place was empty and tickets were easy to get. Enthusiasm for the team was low. They had spent a high draft pick on Dragon Bender and he looks far from a lock.
 

Hagios

lurker
Dec 15, 2007
672
Get rid of one and done.

1. There will be much less information on the best players because they won't have the year in college against a higher caliber of competition.
2. The best players will be one year younger and one year less skilled and physically developed.
3. (OT) other sports like tennis, hockey and soccer allow young players to go straight to the pros. I think a lot of the pearl clutching about college is driving by racial resentment over wealthy young black men.

Get rid of the team options

Fewer years of control (particularly considering most elite prospects are below average for the first couple years in their career) means the "surplus value" of high draft picks will be much less.

Otherwise the system is pretty good. Teams will still tank for a sure thing like a LeBron James, but no system can cover all cases. The NFL doesn't have a major tanking problems but they still got suck for luck.
 
And then you have the possibility of teams who have already secured themselves a playoff spot intentionally losing games to get the 8 seed, because what difference does it make to be the 7th seed?

As opposed to what happens now?? They could also lose themselves right OUT of the playoffs too. There is NO way to eliminate and prevent ANY tanking. You want to minimize it,
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,099
Gallows Hill
Team values are not hurting and the income is generated from league wide TV deals, not from gates or concessions. Shit, the Celtics pay most of their team revenue to the Bruins as rent. Shared revenue solves that.
The Celtics don't pay rent to the Bruins. The deal is the Celtics have a lifetime lease and Delaware North gets all the concession money.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,675
Portsmouth, NH
Yes. He gets concession money when the C's play. But many teams play in arenas where they get no concession money. Not paying rent is significant
OK, let me rephrase, as I've gotten a little off topic and indirect.

The majority of sports teams do no make the substantial portion of their revenue off of tickets and concessions. They make them off of the national TV deals, their own local TV deals, the shared revenues, etc., the things that are used to determine salary caps or luxury tax ceilings. Sponsorships and their market. Their ownership of their arena, etc etc etc.

Some make more than others, obviously, but team values aren't being significantly depreciated if a team tanks or sucks. The 2016 Forbes list has the following teams ranked as such:

#1 NY Knicks
#2 LA Lakers
#7 Brooklyn Nets
#14 Phoenix Suns
#15 Sacramento Kings

Five of the top 50% of teams valuation have been dog shit for multiple seasons. Three of which are in major markets. Yet their valuations continue to rise, league revenues continue to rise and the salary cap continues to rise.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

If an individual owner or FO determines it's in the best interest of their team to tank - whether that be flat out Sixers style tanking or dropping a couple games at the end of the year to miss the playoffs and get into the lottery - they're not hurting anything other than the hallowed "integrity" of the game or marginally their own pocket, from (sometimes, as you mention) lost concessions or from ticket sales.

Why should they be prevented from doing it? Are we defending the fanbase or the game? Because it's not impacting the financial status of the league or the revenues other teams get from the league as whole.
 

The Needler

lurker
Dec 7, 2016
1,598
You keep asserting as thought it's irrefutable fact that tanking does not, and will not affect fan interest, and subsequently TV revenues. If a rising tide lifts all boats, so does the falling tide depress them.

I get that you don't think a handful of teams tanking could impact fan interest and thus league revenue/team value (based on, apparently your assessment of a few years of Forbes valuation, and seemingly without considering the concept of lagging indicators). I'm guessing you also wonder why the NFL should care about CTE when Forbes had team values up 20% last year.

So why DO you think Adam Silver is against tanking? Purely his innate sense of justice and fair play?
 
Last edited:

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,675
Portsmouth, NH
I don't recall suggesting that tanking doesn't or will not affect fan interest for a franchise. Of course it does, on a certain micro level for an individual franchise. I don't think I've implied that and if I have I didn't intend to and will take a mea culpa on it.
What I'm saying is those marginal losses from tickets and concessions - from the presumable fans that are upset their team is tanking - are not what are buttering the bread for an NBA franchise. TNT and ESPN aren't dropping absurd amounts of money to show the Pelicans or the Suns or the Kings or a half dozen other teams. They don't give a shit if those teams tank. And the people paying cable fees for those networks don't either, partly because they don't have a choice, since it's bundled. If you're paying Comcast or Directv or whatever, you're paying them whether you watch it, whether you don't or whether or not you care if the Sixers are tanking. The networks care because they can sell ad revenue when the Cavs and Dubs are on, or even in big markets like NY or LA people are going to watch either way.

The biggest risk for a team tanking, financially speaking, is for their regional networks and even those deals are set long in advance. They might lose on sponsorships, yes. They might lose on luxury boxes, yes. But they're not risking the league in the process. Those are their own money and in my opinion it should be up to the owner to make that call. It's his money at that point.

My viewpoint isn't based purely on Forbes valuation, but also the incredible leap that the cap took the last couple years - while blatant tanking was occurring. If it was hurting the league, how did revenues go up so much, so quickly? Those sinking ships didn't seem to drag much down, did they? Serious tanking started long before the last CBA was agreed upon.

Why does Adam Silver care? I don't really know, but I assume much like all sports, powerful owners that pay his salary are in his ear, for whatever reasons they have. And perhaps a vague PR version of integrity of the league that isn't quite as championed as it is by Mr. Clown nose.

CTE? Reallly? The NFL cares about CTE because of lawsuits. They give two shits about the health of their players. They're worried about their exposure legally. It has literally no relevance in a discussion about tanking. Tanking is t hurting the bottom line. CTE could.