[OhCanada-Participant]

Theres been alot of anti tank talk as of late, alot of people thinking of ways to crack down on teams that tank purposely or try to discourage losing at least. Also with the comments from many people thinking UK could beat the Sixers it made me think of a fathomable way to showcase these topics.

In futbol or soccer leagues most notably the English leagues there are multiple divisions (similar to the NCAA). In that format the worst team or teams in the 1st Division are sent down to 2nd division league and swapped for the best team or teams of the division.

I would like to see an 8 team tournament with 4 NCAA teams determined by god knows how, who, where, what, or why and 4 NBA teams determined by the 4 worst records in the NBA regular season. If the NBA team loses they have to participate the next year no matter what.

This would allow NBA personnel scout teams like Kentuckys prospects before the draft against NBA athletes.

This will never ever happen for many reasons especially due to the fact that the NBA would not appreciate having their prestigous teams lose to NCAA talent but it would be a fun tournament. 

What would you do to stop tanking or promote winning.

[he_gets_bucketsParticipant]

 I think you are underestimating how good even in the worse players in the NBA are. Even on a bad team, pretty much every guy in the league was a good college player or better, and apart from that, will have years worth of experience and just sheer size, they are grown men playing against 19 and 20 something year olds. Even the worst teams in the NBA would still be extremely hard for college teams to beat. 

[he_gets_bucketsParticipant]

 I think you are underestimating how good even in the worse players in the NBA are. Even on a bad team, pretty much every guy in the league was a good college player or better, and apart from that, will have years worth of experience and just sheer size, they are grown men playing against 19 and 20 something year olds. Even the worst teams in the NBA would still be extremely hard for college teams to beat. 

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 I always say the winner depends on the rules. It’s not the same playing with FIBA rules, college rules or NBA rules. Kentucky big men wouldn’t be able to clog the paint as they are used to. Also, I don’t think their guards would be good enough to shoot from NBA 3pt distance, meaning, any NBA team would sag off the perimeter and double team the big men more effectively.

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 I always say the winner depends on the rules. It’s not the same playing with FIBA rules, college rules or NBA rules. Kentucky big men wouldn’t be able to clog the paint as they are used to. Also, I don’t think their guards would be good enough to shoot from NBA 3pt distance, meaning, any NBA team would sag off the perimeter and double team the big men more effectively.

[nick5354Participant]

I agree with he gets buckets, it would be just too much for young college guys to go up against grown men who are far more matured in their basketball.

I think without doubt the best solution has already been suggested. My idea is credited to two posters (I forget which one’s)during an anti-tanking forum not long ago. I love the idea of a win floor. So basically it might be set to 20 games, and if a team does not register enough wins or meet the floor they will receive punishments. The most sensible punishment for not winning enough games would be to deduct percentages for every game they are under the win floor from there lottery odds. So for example if a team wins only 13 games for the year, they would be deducted say 2% for every loss they are under, leaving them with a 11% chance to win the lottery rather then 25%. The win floor and percentage points penalty would be determined in depth to make sure it is not too unfair or too lenient.

I also think adding an extra point of motivation for teams too win would be to award those 11% or lottery odds deducted to lottery teams who met the win floor.

I think this is the best and easiest option to fix tanking. Tanking will never ever stop, but I think this would see a dramatic reduction in the occurrences and general level of tanking in the league. This way does not mean teams have to fight it out or play extra games against NCAA sides which I do not think is very realistic.

[nick5354Participant]

I agree with he gets buckets, it would be just too much for young college guys to go up against grown men who are far more matured in their basketball.

I think without doubt the best solution has already been suggested. My idea is credited to two posters (I forget which one’s)during an anti-tanking forum not long ago. I love the idea of a win floor. So basically it might be set to 20 games, and if a team does not register enough wins or meet the floor they will receive punishments. The most sensible punishment for not winning enough games would be to deduct percentages for every game they are under the win floor from there lottery odds. So for example if a team wins only 13 games for the year, they would be deducted say 2% for every loss they are under, leaving them with a 11% chance to win the lottery rather then 25%. The win floor and percentage points penalty would be determined in depth to make sure it is not too unfair or too lenient.

I also think adding an extra point of motivation for teams too win would be to award those 11% or lottery odds deducted to lottery teams who met the win floor.

I think this is the best and easiest option to fix tanking. Tanking will never ever stop, but I think this would see a dramatic reduction in the occurrences and general level of tanking in the league. This way does not mean teams have to fight it out or play extra games against NCAA sides which I do not think is very realistic.

[JoeWolf1]

 Am I the only one who doesn’t think tanking is a big deal? The lottery system doesn’t guarantee the team with the worst record will get the 1st pick, and every other major US, sport the worst record automaticaly gets the 1st pick. 

My team as tanked. The 1998-99 Bulls got rid of their entire lineup in order to get a top pick, landed Elton Brand, and eventually re-built with pieces that were involved in Brand’s trade.

The 76ers are terrible. So what? They have a ton of assets, a plan, a coach that is trying, and they are going to be better next season. Guess what? If they win 9 games or something horrid like that, there is still no guarantee they’ll get the top pick. There’s always been really bad teams, even before the lottery. 

As for the talent level. Drew Gordon has logged the least amount of time for the 76ers this season. He’s 6’9” with a 7′ foot wingspan, 240 lbs, averaged a double doubel 2 full seasons at New Mexico and is only more experienced, and more physically mature than he was in the NCAA. 

Jordan McRae didn’t make the 76ers final roster, and averaged almost 18 ppg in the SEC last season. Hung 17 on UK last year, and he’s in Australia playing ball.

I just don’t care that much about tanking. The Lakers have Kobe Bryant’s will and they’ve won 2 more games than Philly. The 6ers are fielding a roster that’s pretty poor, but they have a plan. It probably sucks to be a fan, but there can only be so many good teams. They lost by 1 to Houston of Friday. MCW and Noel have been back for less than a week. This isn’t a team that doesn’t care, it’s a young and hungry team, just one that has to overcome a talent gap.

 

[Andrew1984Participant]

I totally agree. Every year, there are good teams and there are bad teams. Whether the worst team in the league finishes with eight wins or 12 wins makes no difference to me.

Just like a free-market economy, everything is regulated best by competition and self-interest. Teams are free to employ whatever strategy to build their franchise that they think is best. If a franchise’s plan is to tank for a few years, that’s their prerogative. They are responsible for whatever risk may be associated with their plan. If they feel the reward outweighs the risk, they should be free to act in their own self-interest. When you start mandating the strategies franchises employ, you’re now stifling organizations through coercion.

If it works and teams that tank for a few years start turning into dynasties, then other franchises will figure it out and do something to counteract it. If it doesn’t work, they’ll figure it out and try something else. That’s competition. It’s just like the game itself. Keep doing something that works until the other coach figures it out and stops it. Or, on the other hand, if a strategy isn’t working, recognize its ineffectiveness and try something else.

It’s really interesting to me how much of a microcosm this issue is of so many other bigger-picture topics.

[Andrew1984Participant]

I totally agree. Every year, there are good teams and there are bad teams. Whether the worst team in the league finishes with eight wins or 12 wins makes no difference to me.

Just like a free-market economy, everything is regulated best by competition and self-interest. Teams are free to employ whatever strategy to build their franchise that they think is best. If a franchise’s plan is to tank for a few years, that’s their prerogative. They are responsible for whatever risk may be associated with their plan. If they feel the reward outweighs the risk, they should be free to act in their own self-interest. When you start mandating the strategies franchises employ, you’re now stifling organizations through coercion.

If it works and teams that tank for a few years start turning into dynasties, then other franchises will figure it out and do something to counteract it. If it doesn’t work, they’ll figure it out and try something else. That’s competition. It’s just like the game itself. Keep doing something that works until the other coach figures it out and stops it. Or, on the other hand, if a strategy isn’t working, recognize its ineffectiveness and try something else.

It’s really interesting to me how much of a microcosm this issue is of so many other bigger-picture topics.

[JoeWolf1]

 Am I the only one who doesn’t think tanking is a big deal? The lottery system doesn’t guarantee the team with the worst record will get the 1st pick, and every other major US, sport the worst record automaticaly gets the 1st pick. 

My team as tanked. The 1998-99 Bulls got rid of their entire lineup in order to get a top pick, landed Elton Brand, and eventually re-built with pieces that were involved in Brand’s trade.

The 76ers are terrible. So what? They have a ton of assets, a plan, a coach that is trying, and they are going to be better next season. Guess what? If they win 9 games or something horrid like that, there is still no guarantee they’ll get the top pick. There’s always been really bad teams, even before the lottery. 

As for the talent level. Drew Gordon has logged the least amount of time for the 76ers this season. He’s 6’9” with a 7′ foot wingspan, 240 lbs, averaged a double doubel 2 full seasons at New Mexico and is only more experienced, and more physically mature than he was in the NCAA. 

Jordan McRae didn’t make the 76ers final roster, and averaged almost 18 ppg in the SEC last season. Hung 17 on UK last year, and he’s in Australia playing ball.

I just don’t care that much about tanking. The Lakers have Kobe Bryant’s will and they’ve won 2 more games than Philly. The 6ers are fielding a roster that’s pretty poor, but they have a plan. It probably sucks to be a fan, but there can only be so many good teams. They lost by 1 to Houston of Friday. MCW and Noel have been back for less than a week. This isn’t a team that doesn’t care, it’s a young and hungry team, just one that has to overcome a talent gap.

 

[apb540Participant]

Well put Joe Wolf.

Btw, for anyone who wants to "change" things and "solve" tanking, but doesn’t even so much as to mention the Collective Bargaining Agreement: stop being so stinkin’ lazy and read the damn thing! Start to finish. It’s the rules and foundations of the league in which you are complaining about. Anything that needs to be changed in the league is directly related to the CBA! 

 

  

[apb540Participant]

Well put Joe Wolf.

Btw, for anyone who wants to "change" things and "solve" tanking, but doesn’t even so much as to mention the Collective Bargaining Agreement: stop being so stinkin’ lazy and read the damn thing! Start to finish. It’s the rules and foundations of the league in which you are complaining about. Anything that needs to be changed in the league is directly related to the CBA! 

 

  

[BogDon_KryptParticipant]

This guy wants the 4 worst teams to play the 4 best NCAA teams.  I’m pretty sure the Lakers will be one of the four worst teams.  Imagine Kobe against a bunch of college kids.  He’d drop 100.

[BogDon_KryptParticipant]

This guy wants the 4 worst teams to play the 4 best NCAA teams.  I’m pretty sure the Lakers will be one of the four worst teams.  Imagine Kobe against a bunch of college kids.  He’d drop 100.

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 Make the first FIVE picks in the draft determined by lotto balls instead of just the top 3.

THEN have a wild card 6th pick open to EVERYONE in the league.  Each team would have an equal shot at it (3.33%).  

PUNISH tanking by REWARDING every team in the league with a shot at getting a top notch pick.

Why would a team tank on purpose if they could theoretically fall to the 7th pick?  

NOBODY is going to purposely tank for the 7th pick.  

Just expand the first round by ONE pick.  

THEN do a serpentine second round.  Why punish GOOD teams with the worst picks in BOTH rounds?

I would rather help the AVERAGE team that sraps and spends to make the playoffs every year.  Give those guys a shot at a top pick (6), and also reward them with slightly better second round picks.  

The big thing with having the number one pick is WHICH YEAR do you get the top pick?  If there is no LeBron or Shaq or Duncan then the top pick isn’t worth nearly as much.

So basically bad teams are chasing moving targets.  The value of the top varies BIG TIME year to year.

And, other than getting Kevin Durant, landing the second pick has often been a disaster.

… I don’t think you can discourage tanking for any one year.

CONTINUED tanking might be a different story…

SO, make it a rule that teams will be ineligble for getting the top pick in back to back years.  And, no top 3 picks for 3 years in a row, and no top 5 picks for five years in a row…

Don’t reward perennially bad teams.  

One-offs happen.  

No five year plans being "let’s be terrible for the next five years".

I hate seeing the SAME bad teams in the lottery every year. 

Don’t reward bad behavior — in one season, or over a 3-5 year stretch.  

Basically, kick out "Repeat Offenders" out of the top pick, top 3 pick, or top 5 picks after a certain amount of time.

If you want to punish BAD teams for also being CHEAP (like the current Sixers squad), RAISE the spending floor.  So, teams will have to SPEND MONEY even to be bad.  So, if you have to spend money anyway, you might as well be competitive.  THEN if teams reach just that MINIMUM spending floor TWO YEARS in a row, then they have to exceed a HIGHER spending floor the next 2 or 3 years.  

Other than that, there probably isn’t much more you can do.  Because being BAD is part of the NBA lifecycle for every team.

People complain about the Sixers for deliberately tanking and accumulating a bunch of young guys, but everyone PRAISES the T Wolves who traded their top guy since they were going nowhere for a young, flashy, "upside" guy like Andrew Wiggins.  They aren’t very good this year either.  But, they are doing it the RIGHT way (I guess).  Would you seriously punish them a ton?  My system would still allow them to pick at number 1 this year since they TRADED for Wiggins even though he was the top pick.

Guess that would be a loophole for ANY Anti-Tanking System.  What do you do with a team that TRADES for the top pick?  

My system would make them spend a bit more money (perhaps) then allow them the chance to STILL draft number one next year, but after that they could only draft as high as 2.  

For teams that get paid some of that LUXURY TAX money, then just reimburse them a percentage of their total payroll — that would reward teams for being JUST UNDER the luxury tax threshold/salary cap, instead of rewarding teams who basically spent nothing.  Don’t reward teams for being CHEAP — at least teams who are cheap for more than just one year.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JoeWolf1]

[JoeWolf1]

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 Make the first FIVE picks in the draft determined by lotto balls instead of just the top 3.

THEN have a wild card 6th pick open to EVERYONE in the league.  Each team would have an equal shot at it (3.33%).  

PUNISH tanking by REWARDING every team in the league with a shot at getting a top notch pick.

Why would a team tank on purpose if they could theoretically fall to the 7th pick?  

NOBODY is going to purposely tank for the 7th pick.  

Just expand the first round by ONE pick.  

THEN do a serpentine second round.  Why punish GOOD teams with the worst picks in BOTH rounds?

I would rather help the AVERAGE team that sraps and spends to make the playoffs every year.  Give those guys a shot at a top pick (6), and also reward them with slightly better second round picks.  

The big thing with having the number one pick is WHICH YEAR do you get the top pick?  If there is no LeBron or Shaq or Duncan then the top pick isn’t worth nearly as much.

So basically bad teams are chasing moving targets.  The value of the top varies BIG TIME year to year.

And, other than getting Kevin Durant, landing the second pick has often been a disaster.

… I don’t think you can discourage tanking for any one year.

CONTINUED tanking might be a different story…

SO, make it a rule that teams will be ineligble for getting the top pick in back to back years.  And, no top 3 picks for 3 years in a row, and no top 5 picks for five years in a row…

Don’t reward perennially bad teams.  

One-offs happen.  

No five year plans being "let’s be terrible for the next five years".

I hate seeing the SAME bad teams in the lottery every year. 

Don’t reward bad behavior — in one season, or over a 3-5 year stretch.  

Basically, kick out "Repeat Offenders" out of the top pick, top 3 pick, or top 5 picks after a certain amount of time.

If you want to punish BAD teams for also being CHEAP (like the current Sixers squad), RAISE the spending floor.  So, teams will have to SPEND MONEY even to be bad.  So, if you have to spend money anyway, you might as well be competitive.  THEN if teams reach just that MINIMUM spending floor TWO YEARS in a row, then they have to exceed a HIGHER spending floor the next 2 or 3 years.  

Other than that, there probably isn’t much more you can do.  Because being BAD is part of the NBA lifecycle for every team.

People complain about the Sixers for deliberately tanking and accumulating a bunch of young guys, but everyone PRAISES the T Wolves who traded their top guy since they were going nowhere for a young, flashy, "upside" guy like Andrew Wiggins.  They aren’t very good this year either.  But, they are doing it the RIGHT way (I guess).  Would you seriously punish them a ton?  My system would still allow them to pick at number 1 this year since they TRADED for Wiggins even though he was the top pick.

Guess that would be a loophole for ANY Anti-Tanking System.  What do you do with a team that TRADES for the top pick?  

My system would make them spend a bit more money (perhaps) then allow them the chance to STILL draft number one next year, but after that they could only draft as high as 2.  

For teams that get paid some of that LUXURY TAX money, then just reimburse them a percentage of their total payroll — that would reward teams for being JUST UNDER the luxury tax threshold/salary cap, instead of rewarding teams who basically spent nothing.  Don’t reward teams for being CHEAP — at least teams who are cheap for more than just one year.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 If the All Star Weekend gets expanded, it would be fun to watch a Team of College All-Stars vs. NBA rookies.

You could have a team of 10-12 college all-stars battle 10-12 rookies during all-star weekend.  That would be fun to watch and would give us a sneak peak of some of the top college players.

Then the next night you can have the Rising Stars challenge made up of rookies and second year guys.  

Pitting college kids against NBA players (even rookies) sounds more like an EXHIBITION type event rather than a "real" game.

If you just wanted rookies to play in the Rising Stars game then you could do a D League select team (1st and 2nd year D Leaguers) vs. College All-Stars.  So then you get college players AND D Leaguers involved in the NBA All Star Weekend.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 If the All Star Weekend gets expanded, it would be fun to watch a Team of College All-Stars vs. NBA rookies.

You could have a team of 10-12 college all-stars battle 10-12 rookies during all-star weekend.  That would be fun to watch and would give us a sneak peak of some of the top college players.

Then the next night you can have the Rising Stars challenge made up of rookies and second year guys.  

Pitting college kids against NBA players (even rookies) sounds more like an EXHIBITION type event rather than a "real" game.

If you just wanted rookies to play in the Rising Stars game then you could do a D League select team (1st and 2nd year D Leaguers) vs. College All-Stars.  So then you get college players AND D Leaguers involved in the NBA All Star Weekend.  

 

 

 

 

 

[OrserParticipant]

My preferred solution is a two-tiered league, with promotion and relegation. Take the top sixteen NBA teams and put them in "Division I," and put the bottom 14 teams (plus expansion teams in Seattle and Louisville/some other market) in "Division II." At the end of the season, the top teams from both DII conferences are promoted to DI and the bottom teams from both DI conferences drop down to DII. I don’t think promotion and relegation would ever happen in a major American pro sports league, but I think the NBA would be perfect for it, at least from a competitive standpoint.

I also like the win floor idea, but the way I’d do it is I’d have the draft order based on which teams are closest to 20 wins. So a team with seven wins (which is 13 wins from 20 wins) would pick in the same spot that a team with 33 wins (which also 13 wins from 20 wins) would. This would at least discourage teams from being truly awful, though it wouldn’t stop teams from purposely losing at the end of the season.

[OrserParticipant]

My preferred solution is a two-tiered league, with promotion and relegation. Take the top sixteen NBA teams and put them in "Division I," and put the bottom 14 teams (plus expansion teams in Seattle and Louisville/some other market) in "Division II." At the end of the season, the top teams from both DII conferences are promoted to DI and the bottom teams from both DI conferences drop down to DII. I don’t think promotion and relegation would ever happen in a major American pro sports league, but I think the NBA would be perfect for it, at least from a competitive standpoint.

I also like the win floor idea, but the way I’d do it is I’d have the draft order based on which teams are closest to 20 wins. So a team with seven wins (which is 13 wins from 20 wins) would pick in the same spot that a team with 33 wins (which also 13 wins from 20 wins) would. This would at least discourage teams from being truly awful, though it wouldn’t stop teams from purposely losing at the end of the season.

[Author]

Posts