What's new
By:

Philosophically speaking -- is tanking good for the NBA?

The way I see, tanking is directly linked to the possible ways to assemble the pieces for a contending team (or something that somewhat resembles It) outside of tanking, which for some teams might be real, but for like half the league or more, not so much. Especially under the player freedom (really a bad thing even If going too far at times ?) and "ringzzzz culture" era (that sucks, no doubt whatsoever)

I mean, what exactly could hamper tanking more than the tweaked odds and the play in games (and current improved parity around the league) ?

Maybe bring the 6/7 years contracts back (so that teams hold more control over players future) ? Make eligible to signing them only players still on the same teams they were drafted (or traded within their rookie contracts) ?
 
I don't like tanking. I don't know that any one system or odds flattening can fix intentional losing. I think parity at the top of the league is pretty good... I'm not sure parity is great for the league when it comes to ratings and stuff.

I think we have to realize that tanking is a ownership decision... ownership cares about a few things... one of them is money. Tanking certainly hurts gate receipts... but I wonder if they could tie some financial incentives to wins. So the luxury tax money that comes in gets distributed to non-tax teams. What if part of that formula depends on wins... so you have a bottom feeder team that lives at the salary floor... well your distribution gets cut substantially. You have an awesome team and because of smart planning it isn't a luxury tax team... boom you get a big financial reward.

With every incentive and manipulation it adds a ripple effect... so not sure there is any bullet proof method to reduce intentional losing.
 
Tanking is a disgrace. I get why the Jazz are doing it, but I hate it, and it's a symptom of how poor the NBA is at not providing enough measures to prevent it. The fact the worst team in the NBA is guaranteed the 5th best pick is an absolute joke. Only in the NBA does it make sense that the 14th worst team can have a shot at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best picks, but picking between 5th and 13th? No way, that's absurd!
 
Nate505 said:
Tanking is a disgrace. I get why the Jazz are doing it, but I hate it, and it's a symptom of how poor the NBA is at not providing enough measures to prevent it. The fact the worst team in the NBA is guaranteed the 5th best pick is an absolute joke. Only in the NBA does it make sense that the 14th worst team can have a shot at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best picks, but picking between 5th and 13th? No way, that's absurd!
Click to expand...
I mean the NFL just gives the worst team the #1 pick... that any better? Its different because 1 player can make such a dramatic difference in basketball.

To truly even the field I'm not sure the draft lotto odds are the spot to do it. I wonder if giving compensatory picks to teams that lose stars via FA would help. Or if you retain your own players it doesn't count against the tax or some ****.
 
Tanking is terrible for the NBA which is a reason they flattened the lottery odds a few years ago.

With that said the big market teams probably don't need to tank. However for the 20 or so smaller/mid market teams it is one of the few ways to reasonably obtain a franchise player unless they get super lucky like Milwuakee did by finding a gem like Giannis with the 15th pick. The majority of the super star players are discovered middle/high school age and selected near the top of the lottery.

It's pretty clear you need a top 10 player to even have a legitimate shot at a ring. Looking at all NBA teams from last year Giannis and Jokic were the two not drafted in the lottery and that's only because they were international guys that fell thru the cracks.
 
rjfan said:
The way I see, tanking is directly linked to the possible ways to assemble the pieces for a contending team (or something that somewhat resembles It) outside of tanking, which for some teams might be real, but for like half the league or more, not so much. Especially under the player freedom (really a bad thing even If going too far at times ?) and "ringzzzz culture" era (that sucks, no doubt whatsoever)

I mean, what exactly could hamper tanking more than the tweaked odds and the play in games (and current improved parity around the league) ?

Maybe bring the 6/7 years contracts back (so that teams hold more control over players future) ? Make eligible to signing them only players still on the same teams they were drafted (or traded within their rookie contracts) ?
Click to expand...
Player control is a big one IMO. Another one involves the down low hush hush “Star System”.

When David Stern took over as commissioner of the NBA from Larry O’Brien the league was in financial distress. Stern’s strategy was to market the league through his Star players. Then the rather surreptitious decision was made to afford greater privilege to Star Players on the court as well. (He actually copped to it in a Sports Illustrated article in the 80s stating in effect - fans come to watch the Stars not see them foul out.)

And then the more recent Doneghy allegations and the subsequent film, but it still exists and only enhances the value of young Star prospects like Wembanyama. We as fans have just internalized and accepted it with the variance with which fouls are called depending on player status. It is a team sport after all, and why should one Star player in the NBA be so much more exaggerated to winning than a Star in college.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I don't like tanking. I don't know that any one system or odds flattening can fix intentional losing. I think parity at the top of the league is pretty good... I'm not sure parity is great for the league when it comes to ratings and stuff.

I think we have to realize that tanking is a ownership decision... ownership cares about a few things... one of them is money. Tanking certainly hurts gate receipts... but I wonder if they could tie some financial incentives to wins. So the luxury tax money that comes in gets distributed to non-tax teams. What if part of that formula depends on wins... so you have a bottom feeder team that lives at the salary floor... well your distribution gets cut substantially. You have an awesome team and because of smart planning it isn't a luxury tax team... boom you get a big financial reward.

With every incentive and manipulation it adds a ripple effect... so not sure there is any bullet proof method to reduce intentional losing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so under that system teams with owners who have more money and are willing to bite the bullet win.

Just get rid of the draft. It's the easiest fix.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I mean the NFL just gives the worst team the #1 pick... that any better? Its different because 1 player can make such a dramatic difference in basketball.

To truly even the field I'm not sure the draft lotto odds are the spot to do it. I wonder if giving compensatory picks to teams that lose stars via FA would help. Or if you retain your own players it doesn't count against the tax or some ****.
Click to expand...
The compensatory pick thing is what cost us Magic Johnson. Not a fan.
 
If you have no draft every team is highly incentivized to be good.

I think you can do some cap stuff so you assure one team doesn't get all the good rookies constantly. Yes, big markets will have an advantage but big markets have an advantage under every system you can create.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top