What's new
By:

How Tanking ruins the NBA and possible solutions

heyhey said:
I think you have to have a weighted system or else as sgjazz put it the Nba will become unwatchable. I think the problem is that it is too heavily weighted. They should go back to the odds they had in the early 90s and they should draw for the first 5 instead of just the first 3. When teams have a reasonable chance of moving up they will be less likely to tank.
Click to expand...

Not bad, but distribute the percentage points heavier in the 3-5 range for teams seeding 10-14. I'd keep the chances of them getting #1 or #2 pretty minimal like now.
 
Almost always a team has to have one of the top five players in the league to win a championship.
Twenty five teams will always come up short.
Changing the lottery would not seem to change that.
Salary caps etc doesn't seem to work either.
NBA is very different from football, baseball, hockey.
NBA will never have parity.
Only way to level the playing field for all teams might be extreme rules changes.
Make the NBA a team sport again.
But have no idea what they might be.
There may be no solution for NBAs predicament.
 
slc said:
Almost always a team has to have one of the top five players in the league to win a championship.
Twenty five teams will always come up short.
Changing the lottery would not seem to change that.
Salary caps etc doesn't seem to work either.
NBA is very different from football, baseball, hockey.
NBA will never have parity.
Only way to level the playing field for all teams might be extreme rules changes.
Make the NBA a team sport again.
But have no idea what they might be.
There may be no solution for NBAs predicament.
Click to expand...

Letting players play real physical D would help a lot imo. I believe the Nba opened up the paint and instituted the perimeter hand check rules in an effort to create stars.
 
Why not just scrap all this complicated ******** and just randomly draw from the 14 lottery teams? Like it used to be.

Hell, I'm actually in favour from all 30 teams being in the lottery and having a single ball in. Whoever wins, wins.
 
Maybe take the final four or eight teams in the playoffs out of the lottery.
They probably already have a top five on their team.
 
Tanking is irrelevant. The NBA is doing better this year than it has in a long time. LA, NY, Brooklyn, Houston are all interesting and relevant. TV ratings are up. Everyone is making money. The whole system is set up to tank. It is a part of the game. It comes with guaranteed contracts. You can't change the lottery either. You have to give small market teams a chance to compete. Without tanking, Utah would NEVER win, or even compete for a title.

What would a team like Utah do, if there wasn't a lottery set up the way it is? Without tanking, and winning the lottery, Utah has NO chance. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. The only thing more fair to do is to take away the lottery and just give picks on record ala the NFL.

Whine about tanking all you want this year. When we get Jabari and turn into the Spurs, you can enjoy it with the rest of us.
 
heyhey said:
I think you have to have a weighted system or else as sgjazz put it the Nba will become unwatchable. I think the problem is that it is too heavily weighted. They should go back to the odds they had in the early 90s and they should draw for the first 5 instead of just the first 3. When teams have a reasonable chance of moving up they will be less likely to tank.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If the lottery was drawn on the top 5, with worse odds for #1, would Utah be doing anything different this year? I doubt it. It wouldn't change anything.
 
Rule changes
Eliminate the foul out rule.
How can you win a game when your best players are gone.
A top five player seldom fouls out.
Like the restore physical play idea to game.
Taking it out only helps a top five player.
 
JimLes said:
They'd have a 3% chance of winning it, like every other damn team.
Click to expand...

So, you don't want parody in the NBA? You will never get it, but the draft where the worst team has the best chance at the best player is the ONLY way to get anything close to parody.

Look at OKC and SA. Two small market teams, who get that guy, and are able to compete. There is no way SA or OKC have any chance to compete without the lottery.

Again, how does a team like Utah stay solvent without a clear way to get better? You haven't answered that question.

If you are Utah, and you know you can never sign a superstar, and you know that you need two superstars (if not three) to compete for the playoffs, let alone a title, how do you get better? And how do you get better if you know that if you end up 9th or 16th, the odds are equal? Pray you get lucky? You couldn't have 30 teams doing it this way. You would lose fan interest over night. Fans would never have hope.

At least when I am sitting there tonight watching the game in my kick *** seats, I know I am getting screwed this year. BUT, I also know that these losses are not for nothing. If the Jazz get Jabari, then they are a playoff team as early as next year. Title contending team in 2-3 years.

Why change that? Why take away the hope of a small market team? If you take away the lottery, and take away the ONLY way for a small market team to get better, then you turn the NBA into a 8 or 9 team league.
 
There needs to be a penalty for repeating teams that are in the say top 6 of the lottery, every concurrent year you should lose a % of ping pong balls and even a certain times over a determined amount of time. For example 4 times out of 6 or 7 years. Just saying that in addition to or as a supplement of other ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BTP
//r00t 4 Jazz said:
There needs to be a penalty for repeating teams that are in the say top 6 of the lottery, every concurrent year you should lose a % of ping pong balls and even a certain times over a determined amount of time. For example 4 times out of 6 or 7 years. Just saying that in addition to or as a supplement of other ideas.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree.

Anyways, how many teams are tanking this year? The Jazz? Toronto? Who else? NY isn't. Brooklyn isn't. Milwaukee might get relocated if they tank. Philly? That is three teams.

Three teams, maybe four (Utah, Toronto, Milwaukee, Philly), with three of those teams in crap markets, isn't a big deal. Tanking isn't ruining anything.

If anything, there are more teams trying for the playoffs this year than I can remember in a long, long time. Sacramento? Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top