BaF Season 7- Discussion thread- Rule change proposal on page 81.

[Smash3]

What are we even discussing right now. A rule change to stop tanking in year 7?



Everyone knows my stance on tanking, and I also said in year 2 (when the extension rule was put in place) that the rules incentivize tanking now. The tiny boost in FA for competing teams does not make up for the value of having superstars locked up for cents on the dollar for close to a decade. I also said then, that over a long enough time the tanking teams will have too big a competitive advantage - which is why it is no surprise tanking teams have won the last couple championships.

If we wanted to address the problems with tanking we could have done it years ago, it's hypocritical (talking to the vets who tanked) to want to change it now when so many of y'all have reaped the fruits of tanking.

At the end the day I feel like this rule proposal is too controlling, petty and hypocritical as at least one known tanker drafted this.

I am sure the Commish will handle what needs to be handled behind the scenes.

Against.

[Buzzard]

What are we even discussing right now. A rule change to stop tanking in year 7?



Everyone knows my stance on tanking, and I also said in year 2 (when the extension rule was put in place) that the rules incentivize tanking. The tiny boost in FA for competing teams does not make up for the value of having superstars locked up for cents on the dollar for close to a decade. I also said then, that over a long enough time the tanking teams will have too big a competitive advantage - which is why it is no surprise tanking teams have won the last couple championships.

If we wanted to address the issues with tanking we could have done it years ago, it's hypocritical (talking to the vets who tanked) to want to change it now when so many of y'all have reaped the fruits of tanking.

At the end the day I feel like this rule proposal is too controlling, petty and hypocritical as at least one known tanker drafted this.

I am sure the Commish will handle what needs to be handled behind the scenes.

Against.

Excellent points. I vote against the rule change.

[bishnykfan]

Just skimming through the last 10 pages or so and I believe I recorded everyone's vote to this point. But if I missed a teams vote, please let me know so I can update.

RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL

Below is the final and only rule change submission for this upcoming season. Please read and discuss. Voting needs to be done by one week from tonight 7/14. Voting can be done via PM or by quoting this post. Majority (16 votes) is needed to pass.

Tanking Measurements

If a team is deemed tanking by losing games on purpose through lineup manipulation, the commissioner will have the power to take away the team's first round pick, meaning the pick will forfeit and there will be 30-x picks made in the first round. Steps until a team loses their first round pick;

Reporting: GMs will be able to report teams they suspect are throwing games away through lineup manipulation, such as sitting, playing their best players unrealistic minutes or playing them out of position.

1st strike: If reports by 3 different GMs are received about one team, Bish will review and make the final call on whether to issue a strike or not. 1st strike would just be a warning to the team that they will have to stop what they are doing to avoid further strikes.

2nd strike: If reports by 3 different GMs are received about the same team again, Bish will review and make the final call on whether to issue a 2nd strike. 2nd strike would mean the team loses their ability to set lineups for 2 weeks. Commissioner will have the power to set lineups for the team during this period, in which he can let the sim take charge of the team.

3rd strike: If the team continues their behaviour and gets reported by 3 different GMs once more, Bish will review and decide whether to hand out the 3rd strike or not. If the 3rd strike is issued the team will lose their first round pick.

Strikes will reset in 2 years so that teams at the end of the season can not think season is about to be over to get away with tanking through lineup manipulation.

If Bish decides to not issue a strike, GMs will need new game evidence to report the same team again. GMs who reported a team for a strike will be able to report again for another one, meaning 3 different GMs (not 9) would be enough for a team to go from 1 strike to 3.

Resting players will not be considered lineup manipulation. It will be up to the commish to review the reports and decide if the teams' actions warrant a strike.

Spoiler:

FOR (10)- Bos, Chi, Den, LAC, LAL, Min, NY, SA, Sac, Tor

AGAINST (11)- Dal, Det, GS, Hou, Ind, Mia, OKC, Orl, Phi, Por, Utah

[HerSports85]

I don't like this tanking rule, all the teams who either:

A) already tanked and are now setup for the future will vote FOR
B) All contending teams will vote for since they wouldn't need to tank.

Teams in the basement already have enough hard time making it out with the skewed free agency rules + not a lot of great free agents make it to free agency since it is fairly easy to extend players.

Just seems like a way to screw over teams looking to rebuild when they're already screwed with the skewed free agency being against them.

I disagree. A few years ago I traded all my team away for almost entirely picks. My lineup was terrible. But I wasn't manipulating the lineup or anything, my team was just that bad.

My point is the teams in our league who are tanking and have terrible rosters will still be terrible regardless. You don't get a strike for having **** players, only for benching better players for worse players. This rule would directly target the teams with playoff rosters who decide to tank. Not the true tankers.

I'm on the fence but tend to agree with this take. No one accused Memphis of tanking last season because he was just legitimately bad after taking over a horrible situation. I was almost definitely going to vote against because I don't want to take away the option for teams who inherit bad situations. If teams want to tear it down and sell of any players of value they have left to tank and get the best pick possible, they need that option. If we are talking strictly lineup manipulation though, I think everyone should put their best lineups out there.

I still have concerns though.

1. Bish has enough on his plate already. I'm not comfortable having him having to referee spats between owners.
2. I think the loss of pick is too severe.
3. I'd like clarification on what happens to the loss of pick in the (highly likely) event that the team who just lost his pick decides to up and leave BAF. Are we left to find an owner to take over a team that just lost it's lottery pick or does that get returned.

I'm uncomfortable with the third strike penalty. I'm all for parts 1 and 2, especially 2. Let the sim coach set lineups and minutes for that point on. I think that puts the stop on tanking for the year. While it doesn't deter future tanking like the loss of a 1st round pick would, I just think in a league where owners didn't pay hundreds of millions for their teams, this penalty is something that most BAF owners would just walk away from.

For that reason, as proposed:

ORLANDO - AGAINST

Me and Wack already had a concerns about the 3 GMs reporting the offense, but your point about the draft picks are valid and an area of concern. Now that I've slept on it, losing a FRP is too severe.

On the other hand, the tanking when you have star players (especially more than 1) need to be addressed. Too many teams are doing it and it's taking away from the game.

Is it too late to make changes to the rule? Instead of losing a FRP how about you lose control of your rotation for the remaining of the year and the computer completely takes over.

[2010]

LEFT HAND FINISHING ABILITY

Read on Twitter

— — —

FLOATER

Read on Twitter

— — —

VISION / PASSING / PLAYMAKING

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

— — —

SPEED / DRIVING / TWITCHINESS

Read on Twitter

— — —

DEFENSE

Read on Twitter

— — —

HUSTLE / INTANGIBLES

Read on Twitter

— — —

SIZE

Read on Twitter

— — —

THE THREE

Read on Twitter

[bringbackhoffa]

I disagree. A few years ago I traded all my team away for almost entirely picks. My lineup was terrible. But I wasn't manipulating the lineup or anything, my team was just that bad.

My point is the teams in our league who are tanking and have terrible rosters will still be terrible regardless. You don't get a strike for having **** players, only for benching better players for worse players. This rule would directly target the teams with playoff rosters who decide to tank. Not the true tankers.

I'm on the fence but tend to agree with this take. No one accused Memphis of tanking last season because he was just legitimately bad after taking over a horrible situation. I was almost definitely going to vote against because I don't want to take away the option for teams who inherit bad situations. If teams want to tear it down and sell of any players of value they have left to tank and get the best pick possible, they need that option. If we are talking strictly lineup manipulation though, I think everyone should put their best lineups out there.

I still have concerns though.

1. Bish has enough on his plate already. I'm not comfortable having him having to referee spats between owners.
2. I think the loss of pick is too severe.
3. I'd like clarification on what happens to the loss of pick in the (highly likely) event that the team who just lost his pick decides to up and leave BAF. Are we left to find an owner to take over a team that just lost it's lottery pick or does that get returned.

I'm uncomfortable with the third strike penalty. I'm all for parts 1 and 2, especially 2. Let the sim coach set lineups and minutes for that point on. I think that puts the stop on tanking for the year. While it doesn't deter future tanking like the loss of a 1st round pick would, I just think in a league where owners didn't pay hundreds of millions for their teams, this penalty is something that most BAF owners would just walk away from.

For that reason, as proposed:

ORLANDO - AGAINST

Me and Wack already had a concerns about the 3 GMs reporting the offense, but your point about the draft picks are valid and an area of concern. Now that I've slept on it, losing a FRP is too severe.

On the other hand, the tanking when you have star players (especially more than 1) need to be addressed. Too many teams are doing it and it's taking away from the game.

Is it too late to make changes to the rule? Instead of losing a FRP how about you lose control of your rotation for the remaining of the year and the computer completely takes over.

Per the proposal you would only lose your pick after you have blatantly manipulated your line up twice and received 2 warnings from the commissioner who ultimately decides to hand out a strike or not

This proposal does not punish bad teams, if your team sucks that's fair game, this rule is to punish teams that have a solid team and are benching star players prolong periods of time to secure a better pick as oppose to compete for a playoff spot. Ultimately 3 different GMs would have to make a case to Bish on the severity of the line up manipulation that is occurring and justify giving a strike, if Bish agrees with the aruguement it would be up to him still whether he wants to hand out a strike or not

Sent from my SM-G990W using RealGM mobile app

[Deeeez Knicks]

I will vote against

[2010]

For those voting AGAINST:

Loopholes are supposed to be closed. For instance I have a young promising core but still not good enough to contend for a championship yet.

Theoretically, I could make a very appealing offer to HEZI to reacquire my 2024 1st while sacrificing an asset(s) to go the CONtext route and tank another consecutive year by stacking the deck on top of my already stellar / cheap youth.

I could limit mins, citing Wemby’s perceived fragility, claiming Amen can’t shoot well enough to warrant extensive mins, benching Wood claiming I plan to set up a W&C deal and can’t risk letting him get injured, etc.

How do you effectively legislate against that while you’re voting AGAINST this ruling?

In the best interest of the health of the league…

The CONtext strategy overdoing the Trust The Process team build method must be stopped. To add to that, the end of the season tank tactics were shameless. Very nasty way of running a BaF franchise.

[bringbackhoffa]

Read on Twitter

Hopefully I got myself a serviceable player for a buck after he went undrafted in this yrs BAF draft

[mpharris36]

No one has been talking about him but Julian Champagnie has been the best player throughout the summer league so far. Let's see if it translates to in season minutes and production.

DN got a good one.

[2010]

No one has been talking about him but Julian Champagnie has been the best player throughout the summer league so far. Let's see if it translates to in season minutes and production.

DN got a good one.

He’s been traded to me actually. Waiting for the freeze to thaw.

[mpharris36]

No one has been talking about him but Julian Champagnie has been the best player throughout the summer league so far. Let's see if it translates to in season minutes and production.

DN got a good one.

He’s been traded to me actually. Waiting for the freeze to thaw.

Damn you move fast. Got him last night in between all the hub bub...

[Buzzard]

For those voting AGAINST:

Loopholes are supposed to be closed. For instance I have a young promising core but still not good enough to contend for a championship yet.

Theoretically, I could make a very appealing offer to HEZI to reacquire my 2024 1st while sacrificing an asset(s) to go the CONtext route and tank another consecutive year by stacking the deck on top of my already stellar / cheap youth. By limiting mins, citing Wemby’s perceived fragility, claiming Amen can’t shoot well enough to warrant extensive mins, benching Wood claiming I plan to set up a W&C deal and can’t risk letting him get injured, etc.

How do you effectively legislate against that while you’re voting AGAINST this ruling?

In the best interest of the health of the league…

In the NBA being a bad team multiple years in a row is not unusual. The mighty Spurs have been a lottery team 4 seasons in a row.
Spurs picks the last 4 seasons, 1, 9, 12, and 11

If you want to model the Spurs, go for it.

[2010]

No one has been talking about him but Julian Champagnie has been the best player throughout the summer league so far. Let's see if it translates to in season minutes and production.

DN got a good one.

He’s been traded to me actually. Waiting for the freeze to thaw.

Damn you move fast. Got him last night in between all the hub bub...

Nah, I’m just messing with you. I wish he traded him to me.

[2010]

For those voting AGAINST:

Loopholes are supposed to be closed. For instance I have a young promising core but still not good enough to contend for a championship yet.

Theoretically, I could make a very appealing offer to HEZI to reacquire my 2024 1st while sacrificing an asset(s) to go the CONtext route and tank another consecutive year by stacking the deck on top of my already stellar / cheap youth. By limiting mins, citing Wemby’s perceived fragility, claiming Amen can’t shoot well enough to warrant extensive mins, benching Wood claiming I plan to set up a W&C deal and can’t risk letting him get injured, etc.

How do you effectively legislate against that while you’re voting AGAINST this ruling?

In the best interest of the health of the league…

In the NBA being a bad team multiple years in a row is not unusual. The mighty Spurs have been a lottery team 4 seasons in a row.
Spurs picks the last 4 seasons, 1, 9, 12, and 11

If you want to model the Spurs, go for it.

Ok, as long as GMs understand by voting AGAINST the proposal they are leaving open the option for that operational model.

But there should be no complaints if after the model of operation is detailed in this thread then executed in season, GMs would no longer have a legitimate gripe if they voted AGAINST legislating out these sort of tactics.

[bringbackhoffa]

For those voting AGAINST:

Loopholes are supposed to be closed. For instance I have a young promising core but still not good enough to contend for a championship yet.

Theoretically, I could make a very appealing offer to HEZI to reacquire my 2024 1st while sacrificing an asset(s) to go the CONtext route and tank another consecutive year by stacking the deck on top of my already stellar / cheap youth. By limiting mins, citing Wemby’s perceived fragility, claiming Amen can’t shoot well enough to warrant extensive mins, benching Wood claiming I plan to set up a W&C deal and can’t risk letting him get injured, etc.

How do you effectively legislate against that while you’re voting AGAINST this ruling?

In the best interest of the health of the league…

In the NBA being a bad team multiple years in a row is not unusual. The mighty Spurs have been a lottery team 4 seasons in a row.
Spurs picks the last 4 seasons, 1, 9, 12, and 11

If you want to model the Spurs, go for it.

This proposal does not stop you from having a bad team and try to secure a top pick.

It stops a team such as mine who can decide I dont have a good enough team to beat the Spurs for the championship and decide to bench Morant, Edwards, Durant for a prolonged period and try to get lucky in the draft lottery and draft another stud for the future.

Sent from my SM-G990W using RealGM mobile app

[mpharris36]

He’s been traded to me actually. Waiting for the freeze to thaw.

Damn you move fast. Got him last night in between all the hub bub...

Nah, I’m just messing with you. I wish he traded him to me.

I was about to say...

[E-Balla]

You're a smart guy you can differentiate what TC did and sitting the MVP of the league for a lengthy period of time. And this isn't to call out Fat or 2010 or Richard only....there were no rules against what they did. So they took advantage to get a better asset to get better quicker.

I think to have something at least in place might dissuade the most egregious cases in the future.

I know there's a difference between the two and that I can differentiate if I wanted to but tanking is tanking so to me it's the same ****. If the free agent ratings were more functional tanking itself would have enough of a downside to make going to the play ins and giving it a shot at the playoffs seem like a better option than the 7th worst record or whatever it was Rich had.

Like I won 63 games and I'm in the same tier as 2 of the 3 guys that led to the creation of this rule.

Like Toronto is a 3 in player happiness and Brooklyn is a 2. Not to mention the Star player category is now being taken advantage of to gain a good FA rating for the second straight year.

I feel you the FA rating is kinda the best we have right now. It can't just be simply on last year wins because that doesn't value consistent winning. For the most part the good teams get rated high...I think you probably get hit the most on the rating because you don't have that star player which most good teams do. That is also kudos to your ability to win without a top tier player but that also doesn't help you in terms of FA rating.

There will be a team with the worst record regardless of what we do I guess my thought on the process is wouldn't we rather have the good young players go to mostly the really bad teams (which is why proposed rule if anything helps them the most). If a team has a lot of talent its not ideal for that team to get the best young controllable player that ideally would go to one of the really bad teams that need it.

I don't think there is a perfect solution...and I was iffy on going "FOR" for it. But Bish having the FINAL review on any report makes me feel comfortable enough. What I don't agree with is because we haven't put an end to it previously we shouldn't change anything going forward. New laws and rules get created all the time to adjust to the times. If we have new information about something that isn't good for the game just because its been done in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed in some capacity.

I just think personally the rule is useless and if free agency ratings were fixed so that things player actually take into account matter maybe then people won't tank. Maybe give guys that tank/sit healthy players for x amount of games an automatic 1 or even a -1 for player happiness. That way there's a severe punishment for tanking because IRL players are actively avoiding tanking squads unless your giving FVV more money than Kyrie and Dillon Brooks 20 mil.

[E-Balla]

I disagree. A few years ago I traded all my team away for almost entirely picks. My lineup was terrible. But I wasn't manipulating the lineup or anything, my team was just that bad.

My point is the teams in our league who are tanking and have terrible rosters will still be terrible regardless. You don't get a strike for having **** players, only for benching better players for worse players. This rule would directly target the teams with playoff rosters who decide to tank. Not the true tankers.

I'm on the fence but tend to agree with this take. No one accused Memphis of tanking last season because he was just legitimately bad after taking over a horrible situation. I was almost definitely going to vote against because I don't want to take away the option for teams who inherit bad situations. If teams want to tear it down and sell of any players of value they have left to tank and get the best pick possible, they need that option. If we are talking strictly lineup manipulation though, I think everyone should put their best lineups out there.

I still have concerns though.

1. Bish has enough on his plate already. I'm not comfortable having him having to referee spats between owners.
2. I think the loss of pick is too severe.
3. I'd like clarification on what happens to the loss of pick in the (highly likely) event that the team who just lost his pick decides to up and leave BAF. Are we left to find an owner to take over a team that just lost it's lottery pick or does that get returned.

I'm uncomfortable with the third strike penalty. I'm all for parts 1 and 2, especially 2. Let the sim coach set lineups and minutes for that point on. I think that puts the stop on tanking for the year. While it doesn't deter future tanking like the loss of a 1st round pick would, I just think in a league where owners didn't pay hundreds of millions for their teams, this penalty is something that most BAF owners would just walk away from.

For that reason, as proposed:

ORLANDO - AGAINST

Me and Wack already had a concerns about the 3 GMs reporting the offense, but your point about the draft picks are valid and an area of concern. Now that I've slept on it, losing a FRP is too severe.

On the other hand, the tanking when you have star players (especially more than 1) need to be addressed. Too many teams are doing it and it's taking away from the game.

Is it too late to make changes to the rule? Instead of losing a FRP how about you lose control of your rotation for the remaining of the year and the computer completely takes over.

We address it by changing the FA setup. It's crafted specifically to benefit tanking squads and it puts zero value on trying to make the playoffs unless you're contending. Flatten FA ratings at the top, make tanking teams at the bottom, and suddenly tanking is a great way to secure draft talent but it leaves you in a position where you can't use your money for much else other than cap dumps without breaking the bank.

Like what's stopping 2010, Fat, and Rich from tanking if they still are able to sign players to the same deals contenders could if they feel like it in FA.

[E-Balla]

This will be subjective and based off bish but maybe adding a "GM competency" category on top of fixing player happiness? Tanking GMs will automatically get a 1, guys known to compete will get a 3+, guys that successfully compete/contend get a 5.