NBA Postseason Change Ideas

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Oh, so the issue isn't just tanking but also penalizing good teams for being good. Are there any more problems we are trying "fix", or is it just those two?

The problem statement needs to be clear or we may end up solving the wrong problem and making the current situation worse.

Don't put all 30 teams in the lotto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[franklin]

Also, as far as anti-tanking ideas, I think the 2nd round should be an inverse of non-playoff teams records. Currently it's based on record, worst team drafting 1st in the 2nd round. Instead it should be the best non-playoff team drafting 1st in the 2nd round.

Combine that with the upcoming flattening of odds in next year's lottery, there might be more incentive to win games towards the end of the season than to lose.

They could also take away the top pick from the 8 top playoff teams (not based on regular season record but post-season results) and lottery them with equal odds to the 10-17th place teams who would then have 2 first round picks. That would do a lot for the league's parity problem and tanking issue.

 

[Jack Strop]

I see no reason whatsoever to change the lottery. Unless the league institutes a hard cap, with no exceptions, the larger market teams and those with owners who have deep pockets, will continue to dominate. I'd love for every team to be given $110M and then see what happens. You'd have a choice between using 80% of it on 3 stars and then filling with minimum salary types, or going with a deeper team. There could also be draft compensation depending on FA losses and additions (like the NFL): end of 1st or 2nd depending on the nature of the loss. For example, Jazz would get a pick at the end of the 1st for the Hayward and Hill losses. Had they signed a top FA, the compensation would move to end of 2nd round (or none).

 

[radiohegel]

Yeah, but some teams might be so far out of the bottom 3 that they might just try to improve their 2nd round pick?

IDK, I think it would work better if the odds were even flatter than the new upcoming change.

And even if it doesn't, I think it's nice for the teams who actually played relatively well. Maybe the play-in game can get the 1st overall pick in the 2nd round too.

What if you gave the play in winners a guaranteed top-6/8 (or so) spot in the lottery? Maybe say picks 6 and 7 are allocated to the winners of the play in for each conference (order maybe even just decided by coin flip), unless they happen to strike gold and get a top three pick in the lottery selection. That way you have another avenue to getting a really great draft pick, and probably as good of one as you will likely get in a tank slog like what's happening with the bottom this year.

 

[♪alt13]

teams 1-6 get a bye
teams 7-10 play a 3 game series

I think this largely takes care of the whole top 16 teams thing because only the bottom 5 in each conference will be in the lottery. The NBA gets an additional 8 to 12 playoff games and those games are all good match ups. Further it gives the teams that actually might be playing in June a week off before the playoffs start.

 

[gregbroncs]

Playoff format is fine, but I think taking the 16 best teams is better. The play in games kind of sounds fun. I wish they would abolish conferences for AS purposes. The game doesn't matter but the status clearly does. I think it is part of the reason Hayward left.

They want to do away with tanking, but no matter what they do 7-10 teams will have motivation to be bad. The new lotto format was supposed to fix it but I think it will may make it worse.

They should go to some sort of bidding system... you get allocated draft "space" based on where you finished in the standings and a bonus for making the playoffs. You can roll forward the "space" so if you are the worst team and the draft sucks you can choose not to bid your allocation for a terrible player. Could also trade the allocations to other teams (within a limit). Would help facilitate trades... a second round pick may not be valuable but getting some extra space would. This type of system would put more responsibility on good management and not luck. Would allow middle teams to get better by saving their space until they have enough to bid on a difference maker.

Only way I've heard that abolishes tanking is to do a rotating draft. In a 30 year period every team will draft at every position in the draft.

 

[♪alt13]

Only way I've heard that abolishes tanking is to do a rotating draft. In a 30 year period every team will draft at every position in the draft.

If only the bottom 10 teams were in the lottery and they all had a 10% chance at number 1, Why would you tank? Finishing with the worst and the 10th worst record is exactly the same and I don't see a team purposefully missing the Playoffs for a 10% chance at the number one pick.

 

[gregbroncs]

If only the bottom 10 teams where in the lottery and they all had a 10% chance at number 1. Why would you tank? Finishing with the worst and the 10th worst record is exactly the same and I don't see a team purposefully missing the Playoffs for a 10% chance at the number one pick.

That makes it so the teams that are 11th through 20th have a great reason to tank. This idea may make it so a full 2/3rds of the league has incentive to tank.

 

[♪alt13]

That makes it so the teams that are 11th through 20th have a great reason to tank. This idea may make it so a full 2/3rds of the league has incentive to tank.

No it does not. That strategy would work out what once-in-a-decade?(even then the dude might be a bist)The rest of the time that team ends up with the 10th pick. If a team wants the 10th pick that bad they could tank now and get it.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

No it does not. That strategy would work out what once-in-a-decade?(even then the dude might be a bist)The rest of the time that team ends up with the 10th pick. If a team wants the 10th pick that bad they could tank now and get it.

Teams 11-16 or more might still tank. Is only the number 1 pick up for grabs or more lottery spots. Teams on the bubble would pack it in for 10% and positioning in the top ten.

The difference of a spot or two is so huge in some drafts that teams are justified in actively losing.

They could lock in lotto odds mid season or average a year or two in the math. Make it harder to manipulate. Or weight the first half of the year twice as much as the second half of the year.

They have to make it harder for a team to say “we lose these next 20 games and we get X pick” if the math gets to hard to plan around or neuters late attempts to lose the motivation is gone.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Locking in lotto odds earlier or putting much more weight on the first half of the season would seem eliminate a lot of tanking. Atlanta, Chicago, and maybe Phoenix were invested in losing from day one. Phoenix might just be really bad and not intentionally bad.

Stop teams from tearing down their teams at the trade deadline and not playing good players down the stretch or de-activating guys to lose down the stretch.

 

[Jack Strop]

I see nothing wrong with a reset. Teams make bad decisions or finish out a ride with stars, those stars retire and the team needs to rebuild. If you punish teams, you'll see even more trying to trade stars near the ends of their careers. LA, Boston, Utah, Chicago, Detroit...the list goes on for teams that were loyal to their players and then went through losing periods in order to rebuild.

What I think hurts the league are the teams that decide to tank for many years. Or simply refuse to sign FA's to supplement their draft picks (like the process in Philly). Perhaps stipulate a team that has a top-4 pick in one season cannot pick in the top-10 in the next. So even if those teams finish in the lottery again, they would be automatically slotted 11-14.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I see nothing wrong with a reset. Teams make bad decisions or finish out a ride with stars, those stars retire and the team needs to rebuild. If you punish teams, you'll see even more trying to trade stars near the ends of their careers. LA, Boston, Utah, Chicago, Detroit...the list goes on for teams that were loyal to their players and then went through losing periods in order to rebuild.

What I think hurts the league are the teams that decide to tank for many years. Or simply refuse to sign FA's to supplement their draft picks (like the process in Philly). Perhaps stipulate a team that has a top-4 pick in one season cannot pick in the top-10 in the next. So even if those teams finish in the lottery again, they would be automatically slotted 11-14.

Something like that second measure would be good, but that seems a little too harsh. Maybe you can't pick in the top 5 - 3 years in a row... maybe top 7. Maybe something where you can't have the top three pick in consecutive years.

 

[Jack Strop]

Something like that second measure would be good, but that seems a little too harsh. Maybe you can't pick in the top 5 - 3 years in a row... maybe top 7. Maybe something where you can't have the top three pick in consecutive years.

Now that the top-4 will be determined by drawing, perhaps just restrict it to that. No top-4 in consecutive years. But I still like being a bit harsh at some point. Have to incentivize teams to get better. Even Utah didn't need to "tank" for 4 years. Lindsey just didn't spend on free agents, despite Utah being 28th-30th in payroll. But he wanted lottery picks. Jazz weren't tanking by the literal definition. Lindsey just wasn't doing much to provide anything beyond the 4-5 he viewed as the "core" group.

But then again, I see that as a valid strategy. I see what Philadelphia did as a valid strategy. You need stars in the NBA to contend. And if you aren't a Boston, GS, LA, etc. they generally aren't going to come to you as free agents. So "tank", draft 1-2 top prospects and then hope those players will, in turn, put you on the map. That worked for OKC. It's worked for Minny (although they also made the Wiggins/Love trade).

 

[hgb]

Lets use England for example - lower teams get a massive pay day if they can advance in domestic tournaments. If the NBA can hold aside a certain amount of money per season win and per playoff win, teams will try. It will be more advantageous for a team to win for those payouts than lose in the hopes of winning a lottery.

That's not really how it works in European football (soccer to you guys). There's generally a domestic cup tournament (knockout), but the most important tournament, by far, is league play, where you play everyone twice, in England that amounts to 38 games (20 teams in the top division). There's really no significant attempt to level the playing field in terms of money (except the TV deal pays all teams), so wages in the top clubs are significantly higher than the middle-of-the-pack teams.
The big thing that makes games interesting in Europe is relegation. End up bottom three, you play in the next division down next year.

 

[LoPo]

HGB - My idea is taking the futbol league format (home and away) for the season but using an FA Cup type format for the playoffs. In the FA Cup, every team has a shot regardless of size. Sure, there are some early round maulings, but the teams still have a shot. If we want NBA teams competing late into the season, give everybody a shot. Dallas won't upset Houston in a 3 game series, but it would still be intriguing.

I love promotion/relegation, but our owners will never adopt that system.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[MDAV28]

I think it for sure should be top 16, but I'd like to find a way to get the top 2 seeds a first-round bye and incorporate a play-in tournament that way.

Maybe 14 teams make the playoffs (with 1 and 2 getting a bye) and the last 2 spots (13 and 14) are decided by a tournament between teams 13-20.

 

[MDAV28]

But then again, I see that as a valid strategy. I see what Philadelphia did as a valid strategy. You need stars in the NBA to contend. And if you aren't a Boston, GS, LA, etc. they generally aren't going to come to you as free agents. So "tank", draft 1-2 top prospects and then hope those players will, in turn, put you on the map. That worked for OKC. It's worked for Minny (although they also made the Wiggins/Love trade).

Of course it's a valid strategy. That's the problem. But I disagree with the notion that FA go to big markets anymore. I think it's been proven FA's are more likely to go to a place with another star or stars more than anything.

I personally think a hard cap and no max contracts kills two birds. The parity and creation of "super teams" and also would help with tanking. I mean you could completely eliminate tanking if rookies just entered a free market and went to the highest bidder, but that would probably create unintended consequences. I understand why the NBPA wouldn't go for a no-max contract system though because it would kill the "middle-class" of NBA players.

 

[Jazzta]

HGB - My idea is taking the futbol league format (home and away) for the season but using an FA Cup type format for the playoffs. In the FA Cup, every team has a shot regardless of size. Sure, there are some early round maulings, but the teams still have a shot. If we want NBA teams competing late into the season, give everybody a shot. Dallas won't upset Houston in a 3 game series, but it would still be intriguing.

I love promotion/relegation, but our owners will never adopt that system.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

That's be something else if the Jazz relegated and the Stars promoted lol. The ACB (Spanish League) uses that format of promotion/relegation but I agree I don't see that happening here with the way franchises are structured.

 

[LoPo]

This is just a terrible look for the league (front page on ESPN): http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22573750/how-nba-bottom-dwellers-putting-tanking-clinic-nba

Something has to be done about teams losing on purpose. It's starting to affect us. Since the All Star Break, the Suns have "lost" twice to West teams fighting for the playoffs. The Kings and Bulls have also "lost" similar games. Our early schedule was brutal and now we are paying the price for our competitors getting easy wins.