Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intentional Losing For Playoff Seeding

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intentional Losing For Playoff Seeding

    Intentional losing has been discussed in the media as a problem that plagues the NBA. Most of the focus has been on tanking teams such as the 76ers, Knicks, and Lakers.

    However, there is another way teams intentionally lose games that I find much more worrisome.

    As we all know NBA basketball is a game of match ups, and at no time is that more apparent than in a seven game playoff series.

    As the season winds down we'll start seeing teams jockeying for position in the standings. It seems to me that this should be the time of year for really intense, exciting basketball. And, most of the time, it is.

    However, for many teams it is advantageous to fall in the standings - to avoid playing a team they match up poorly against, or to set up a series against a team they play well against.

    For example, last year it was the Nets losing games intentionally to secure a playoff match up with the Raptors. And this year, it seems to me, that it's the Raptors that would like to get on the other side of the playoff bracket from Chicago and Cleveland.

    You can't fault teams taking a strategic outlook towards their playoff seeding. After all, if the system dictates that losing a regular season game increases the likelihood of a playoff series win, then a competitive, intelligent team will do their best to ensure a loss.

    I think there's a simple solution to this that would add drama and excitement to the NBA playoffs.

    Let teams choose their opponents.

    The day after the regular season (or a playoff round) ends, hold a draft in New York. Televise it. All remaining teams must send a representative. The team with the best regular season record chooses first, then the remaining team with next best record chooses, and so on.

    Then, there is no incentive to losing games in the regular season, unless the playoff seeding has already been locked in.

    It seems unfair that Golden State will be facing a now healthy Oklahoma City Thunder team that is probably a championship contender. Why should this be the case? Golden State had the best regular season record, they have earned the right to play the weakest playoff team, not the one that happens to be in the 8th seed.

    The other reason I like this idea is because it adds some bad blood to every playoff series. The underdog will always feel disrespected after being chosen, especially if they were chosen over another team with a worse record.

    I've been thinking about this for a while now, and thought I'd put it out there, see what others think. It seems like a great idea to me!

    Thanks for reading.

  • #2
    How about the #1 seed says they want to play the #2 seed?

    How's that fair for the 2 seed?

    Shouldn't they deserve the right to play a weaker opponent like you said about GSW and OKC
    "Both teams played hard my man" - Sheed

    Comment


    • #3
      MACK11 wrote: View Post
      How about the #1 seed says they want to play the #2 seed?

      How's that fair for the 2 seed?

      Shouldn't they deserve the right to play a weaker opponent like you said about GSW and OKC
      I don't think you considered all the implications of that scenario.

      The only way the #1 seed picks the #2 seed is if the #2 seed has had a number of injuries, which then makes them the weakest team in the conference. (Or, the match ups are really lopsided, but that's hard to imagine for a #1 vs #2).

      i.e. Would you prefer that the #7 seed gets to play the weakest team in the conference? How's that fair for the #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 seeds?

      So, on balance, yes. It's fair.

      The point is that the weaker opponent isn't necessarily the one with the lower seeding. Especially in the NBA, where match ups are so important.

      Comment


      • #4
        OakTree wrote: View Post
        I don't think you considered all the implications of that scenario.

        The only way the #1 seed picks the #2 seed is if the #2 seed has had a number of injuries, which then makes them the weakest team in the conference. (Or, the match ups are really lopsided, but that's hard to imagine for a #1 vs #2).

        i.e. Would you prefer that the #7 seed gets to play the weakest team in the conference? How's that fair for the #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 seeds?

        So, on balance, yes. It's fair.

        The point is that the weaker opponent isn't necessarily the one with the lower seeding. Especially in the NBA, where match ups are so important.
        I'm speaking in hypothetically but say of if did happen and the #1 seed choose the #2 seed and the 2 seed is perfectly healthy.

        Obviously it would be rare but say GSW wants to play Memphis in the 1st round what happens?

        You're gonna force Memphis to play GSW on the road just because they choose them? That's not even close to being fair.

        Yes I understand this situation would be highly unlikely but it's possible.
        "Both teams played hard my man" - Sheed

        Comment


        • #5
          MACK11 wrote: View Post
          I'm speaking in hypothetically but say of if did happen and the #1 seed choose the #2 seed and the 2 seed is perfectly healthy.

          Obviously it would be rare but say GSW wants to play Memphis in the 1st round what happens?

          You're gonna force Memphis to play GSW on the road just because they choose them? That's not even close to being fair.

          Yes I understand this situation would be highly unlikely but it's possible.
          Why would any top seed pick a grind it out 7 game series to start the playoffs? It makes no strategic sense whatsoever.

          Which is why it wouldn't happen.

          The winning strategy is to pick the weakest team every time. Teams use winning strategies.

          Besides, if GSW were to throw caution to the wind and choose Memphis anyways, it would be an absolute barn burner of a first round series. I'd watch that.

          Comment


          • #6
            To me, it's an extremely complicated solution for a non-problem. By the time the playoffs are over, does anyone really care if some middle-of-the-division team might have dropped a game to get a matchup against a certain opponent? At most, it affects 3 or 4 games a year.
            I also think GMs would loath this system, where they are forced to make a very high-profile decision that, if they get wrong, is going to be analyzed for a team's entire offseason (or at least until the GM is fired).
            And I can't help thinking that smart GMs like Popovich are going to manipulate the system. ("Yeah, we lost a bunch of games down the stretch while we were resting half our roster so they'd be full health going into the playoffs. Go ahead, pick us for a first round matchup. I dare you." Okay, that doesn't sound like Popovich, it's about 30 words longer than any soundbite he's given. But he'd give a harrumph that would perfectly convey that sentiment.) Point is, while you're removing a certain amount of incentive to lose, you're also removing incentive to win; looking like a dangerous matchup becomes more important than actually winning games for the first half of the division. I don't really like teams playing head-games with one-another (at least in the regular season). What if, with a week left in the regular season, some Pacers media tweet that George close to returning and looking great? Is it fair to ask other GMs to attempt to verify the validity of the rumour? Lower-seeded teams will attempt to create uncertainty about their roster, in an attempt to get passed over in the picks.

            You don't mention conference seeding, so I assume you're talking about eliminating that too, right? How many people are going to tune into a Golden-State / Charlotte first round matchup? Now, how many are going to tune into a GSW / OKC matchup? No way your system would consisently deliver the 'drama and excitement' you suggest.

            Besides, I like underdogs. I'll usually root for a team that's knocked off a team that finished higher in the standings, regardless of whether it was superior play or a favorable matchup. Anything that attempts to reduce upsets is a negative for me.

            Like I said, really complicated solution to fix what I see as a non-problem.

            Comment

            Working...
            X