I'll go see an Albatross game eventually... My daughter is in their under 11 program. That's what I like about European sports, team are more like sports clubs, with youth programmes and stuff.
I agree that relegation would be great for North American sports.
Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 4
Last edited by Quirk; Fri Aug 9th, 2013 at 02:47 PM.
The whole tourny idea would get us closer to euro sports where crappy teams slowly work their ways up to middle of the line before they even think of making the jump to championship caliber. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
I was thinking of a way to maybe fix the tournament thing to prevent the worst teams from being completely screwed.
The teams who are eliminated in a round would be picking in order of how they finished in the standings. Here's an idea of what it would look like. I would also allow the worst 16 teams in the LEAGUE to participate (so playoff teams could technically be involved, which makes sense because some like Milwaukee were awful).
So the worst 16 teams in the league are as follows (worst to best):
Now instead of having the best teams play the worst it would be snake seeding (that probably isn't a real term). What I mean is the seeds/matchups would look like this.
10. New Orleans
So with this it makes it harder for the better teams to advance because they're playing against better some of the better non-playoff teams as opposed to the true cellar-dwellers. Also there's no strategical advantage to tanking because you're still going to have to play a mid-level non-playoff team in that case.
In the first round, 8 teams would be eliminated with the remaining 8 competing for the top 8 picks. The eliminated teams would pick from worst to best based on regular season record. So for example if Orlando (last in the NBA) was eliminated in the first round they would still pick 9th, Boston (best of the worst) conversely would pick 16th in the same scenario.
In the second round, 4 teams would be eliminated with 4 competing for the top 4 picks. So if Orlando was eliminated in the 2nd round they would pick 5th. Boston would pick 8th.
In the third round, 2 teams would be eliminated with 2 competing for the top 2 picks. So if Orlando was eliminated in the 3rd round they would pick 3rd. Boston would pick 4th.
In the finals, the winner picks 1st and loser picks 2nd.
Honestly, I am open to any solution if it means I never have to see another article on the benefits of tanking on the Raptors Republic.
I'm firmly on the anti tanking side of this argument. We have a playoff team here. Plus, getting Wiggins can't be that hard if he really wants to play for Toronto we can force a trade. Why hasn't anyone thought of that? Sure we would have to give up stars like Gay and DeRozan but well get him while keeping the others.
If I were in charge of the NBA draft lottery I would wait until the end of the season and then randomly select a number between 30 and 60. I would use the current lottery system but base the lottery on each team’s place in the standings after that randomly chosen number of games.
By way of example, we ran a simulation using last season. The number we randomly drew was 43. So that means we'd assign teams lottery balls not based on their record at the end of 82 games, but instead based on their record after Game 43.This would reduce the incentive for teams to lose on purpose late in the season once they drop out of contention for the playoffs because regardless of which number is randomly drawn, any losses after game No. 60 -- usually played in late February or early March -- would have no bearing on a team’s chances in the lottery. At the very least, this would drastically curtail “tanking season,” assuming any team would want to pack it in much before the All-Star break.
In order for this approach to be as equitable as the current system requires, a team’s league ranking at a point mid-\season is correlated with their ranking at the end of the season. I took a date from seasons between 1991-2010 and find that there is an 88 percent correlation between a team’s rank after 30 games and their rank at the end of the season (with the average team moving three places in the ranking). If you wait until after the 60th game, the correlation increases to 97 percent (with the average team moving 1.5 places in the ranking).
I like this. Certainly adds meaning to end of year games for the bottom feeders... unless they lack any sort of pride or integrity of course.
I'm not sure what changes in that situation.
Teams would still tank, they'd just spend a chunk of the season not caring whether they won games or not - and a chunk desperately trying to lose games at an increasing rate.
So basically what you'd see is up to 60 games of current 'end of the season' basketball to start the season from tanking teams, and then the remaining 22 games of potentially slightly better (although likely equally bad) to finish the year.
If most or a chunk of teams in the lottery just suck, I would expect changing the lottery still has little impact on the quality of the game.
Many fans are okay with a team relaxing over the last 25 games, or after they are eliminated from the playoffs, but starting the year in full out tank mode? You see how it plays out on this forum, and it would be even worse with fans that pay for tickets I am thinking.
I think given the mass debate over tanking (both locally and league wide) we can see there are many fans who are comfortable with a team tanking. Also, fans always come back when/if that tanking turns into winning, and they'll just as quickly disappear if a "trying" team is bad.
The NBA will never have parity because the roster sizes are so small and a single player can elevate a team into the standings. Tanking will always occur because of that. It is the only sport where tanking really matters.
If they want to eliminate the concept of tanking the more complicated approach should be no draft and to sign rookies as free agents. That's very risky though for several reasons.
If they want to keep a draft, then the lottery odds should be even for all teams that are not in the playoffs. So a bad team and the 14th worst team should all have an equal shot at any pick (could even include the 8th seeds if you want to). So the order of picks from 1-14 (or 1-16) can be random every year. It would eliminate tanking since its all random. The worst team may not get the best pick (they could get the 14th or 16th pick) but so what? It's not like the league really can get parity anyways so let the worst teams remain bad until they can get proper management in place.
Public relations people thought that boo-ing was bad when Bargnani was on the Raptors, wait till he comes and plays in the NYC uni...
OH man... I'd fucking chuck a can of primo @ him.
The NBA delivers a product. If the best ingredients are not in that product, fans get annoyed for shelling out for what they thought was a premium product only to realize it is a watered down version - after they have paid. For example, I NEVER would have shelled out money for that NJ/TOR game to end 11-12 season. That is an embarrassment to the league.
No doubt some teams (Philly - looking at you!) enter the season looking to do sh!t from the get go. However, the rule of thumb in the league is the first 25-30 games is to see where you are and what you have. If teams are giving it their all and plain old suck, well, that is not tanking.
I must say, I really like this approach. The correlations are pretty close between 30, 60, and 82 games. If anything I'd look at making the window for the games smaller. Instead of 30 game window (30 to 60) - go 15-20 game window and lower the upper end from 60 to 50 (before all-star break/trade deadline) making the window 35-50/30-50.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)