Ideas to stop teams from tanking (post yours here)

TGW · Post #1 » by **TGW** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 4:29 am

So with the tanking issue front and center yet again this season, I was trying to come up with ways to eliminate or at least minimize potential tanking. I came up with two...maybe the financial gurus can help me out to see if the first one is reasonable.

Idea 1: Instead of dispersing the luxury tax revenue to the teams that didn't pay the tax, pay the non-playoff teams a set amount of money for each win they get over 30 wins (could be set higher or lower...30 is an arbitrary number). Every win over 30 nets that team a million dollars per win. So for example, a 42-42 team that doesn't make the playoffs still gets 13 million from the tax revenue pool (1 mil is an arbitrary number...obviously the number would depend on the amount of tax revenue collected for that particular season. This past season, the revenue was well over 60 mil).

Idea 2: Have some sort of "NIT"-like tournament for the number one pick. I don't know what the details would be, but allow the worst team to have homecourt throughout (although I could still see teams trying to tank for homecourt advantage lol). This would at least make the postseason a little more interesting to fans, and would generate more revenue for the teams not in the postseason.

Post #2 » by **nate33** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 4:44 am

I don't think tanking is a big problem. The lottery pretty much solved it by making the worst team have just a 25% chance of landing the #1 pick and the second-worst team still having a 21% chance. Perhaps it can be tweaked a bit so that the first 5 picks are determined by lottery rather than the first 3. The goal is to still have a general inclination for the worst teams to get the best talent to help foster parity, but to avoid having the odds favor the worst team over other bad teams by such a degree that they actively seek to lose games.

The other tweak that I would support would be to use the average the last two seasons to determine pick order, rather than just one season. That way, teams don't throw games just because they lost a player or two due to injury.

queridiculo · Post #3 » by **queridiculo** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 4:47 am

Honestly? I'd just completely randomize the draft order with every team getting the same shot, lottery bound or not.

The one slight adjustment I'd probably make is to put the conference final participants at the bottom of the draft order regardless of what their position is according to the lottery.

TGW · Post #4 » by **TGW** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 4:54 am

queridiculo wrote:Honestly? I'd just completely randomize the draft order with every team getting the same shot, lottery bound or not.

The one slight adjustment I'd probably make is to put the conference final participants at the bottom of the draft order regardless of what their position is according to the lottery.

So you'd be okay with the Pacers getting the number one pick?

hands11 · Post #5 » by **hands11** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 4:58 am

Why would you want to stop this. Looks like a lot of fun.

queridiculo · Post #6 » by **queridiculo** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 5:20 am

TGW wrote:
queridiculo wrote:Honestly? I'd just completely randomize the draft order with every team getting the same shot, lottery bound or not.

The one slight adjustment I'd probably make is to put the conference final participants at the bottom of the draft order regardless of what their position is according to the lottery.

So you'd be okay with the Pacers getting the number one pick?

Under my scenario the conference final participants would get the last 4 picks, so assuming the Pacers did make it there, they wouldn't get the first over all.

.. other than that, yeah, I have no problem with top teams getting high picks.

WallToWall · Post #7 » by **WallToWall** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 7:04 am

I cant think of another incentive to tank other than positioning for the draft pick. In most drafts, the obvious talent is usually about 8-10 picks deep. There are exceptions...we have drafts that are only 2 or 3 deep (like last year), or 15 deep. I would suggest that what we have, in terms of weights, for the draft pick position is already pretty good. Its not a given that the team with worst record will get the #1 pick. I wouldnt think it bad if the weights were increased, such that there is even lesser of a chance for the team with the worst record to get a best pick.

Knighthonor · Post #8 » by **Knighthonor** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 8:00 am

So what will the legit bad teams do in your draft system
since they cant attract free agents, and have no trade value?

MJG · Post #9 » by **MJG** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 8:01 am

I don't think tanking is actually a problem that needs solving. That said, if you do want to eliminate it, all you have to do is eliminate any incentives for losing games. Something like what was already suggested, where all 30 draft spots are doled out completely at random, would do the trick. Whether or not that would actually be an improvement, I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

Post #10 » by **pineappleheadindc** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 8:22 am

I guess you could relegate the bottom few teams to the D league.

Zero (is equal the better term?) weighting for a lottery of all teams that missed the playoffs.

GMs of bottom three teams must go on overnight romantic date with the Luv-a-Bulls.

Sluggerface · Post #11 » by **Sluggerface** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 8:35 am

I really, really, really wish the league would just do away with max contracts, let a team pay a player whatever they want, and put in a hard cap. I think it would level out so much of what's wrong with this league (Brook Lopez shouldn't be getting payed as much as Lebron James in salary). Big Markets won't be able to keep building super teams. You would never see a Miami situation again, and Small Markets would have legit chances at being players in free agency, instead of praying that they can fetch a miracle from the lottery.

Nivek · Post #12 » by **Nivek** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 12:14 pm

Sluggerface wrote:I really, really, really wish the league would just do away with max contracts, let a team pay a player whatever they want, and put in a hard cap. I think it would level out so much of what's wrong with this league (Brook Lopez shouldn't be getting payed as much as Lebron James in salary). Big Markets won't be able to keep building super teams. You would never see a Miami situation again, and Small Markets would have legit chances at being players in free agency, instead of praying that they can fetch a miracle from the lottery.

This was what I wanted them to do in the last CBA. Oh well.

My solution to tanking: keep the draft lottery, but change it. Instead of giving extra weight to bad teams, give every non-playoff team one entry, AND give every team that loses a first round playoff series one entry. Have a random drawing for the 1st 22 slots in the draft.

Absolutely zero incentive for losing regular season games.

No one will tank a first round playoff series.

pancakes3 · Post #13 » by **pancakes3** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 12:47 pm

I liked Cuban's ruthless proposal that the bottom 3 teams are just flat out eliminated from the chance of getting the #1 pick.

mohammed10 · Post #14 » by **mohammed10** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 12:49 pm

pineappleheadindc wrote:I guess you could relegate the bottom few teams to the D league.

Zero (is equal the better term?) weighting for a lottery of all teams that missed the playoffs.

GMs of bottom three teams must go on overnight romantic date with the Luv-a-Bulls.

OK, I'm on board with this proposal...can you just picture Ernie with Evadney? That would be must-see TV.

Pine - would you then promote the top D-league teams to replace the NBA bottom feeders?

fishercob · Post #15 » by **fishercob** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 1:42 pm

Nivek wrote:
Sluggerface wrote:I really, really, really wish the league would just do away with max contracts, let a team pay a player whatever they want, and put in a hard cap. I think it would level out so much of what's wrong with this league (Brook Lopez shouldn't be getting payed as much as Lebron James in salary). Big Markets won't be able to keep building super teams. You would never see a Miami situation again, and Small Markets would have legit chances at being players in free agency, instead of praying that they can fetch a miracle from the lottery.

This was what I wanted them to do in the last CBA. Oh well.

My solution to tanking: keep the draft lottery, but change it. Instead of giving extra weight to bad teams, give every non-playoff team one entry, AND give every team that loses a first round playoff series one entry. Have a random drawing for the 1st 22 slots in the draft.

Absolutely zero incentive for losing regular season games.

No one will tank a first round playoff series.

Totally agree on max contracts.

As to tanking, what about inverting the lottery process and thus flipping the incentive to lose into an incetive to win. The team with the most lottery balls is the non playoff team with the best record, and so on. You'd have to tweak it somehow -- because you'd have 7 and 8 seeds trying to miss the playoffs.

But this would eliminate tanking. You wouldn't have the sixers trading Hawes and Turner for nothing if their future depended on winning. It would also solve the buyout parade (if you view that as a problem) too.

Post #16 » by **nate33** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 2:25 pm

Nivek wrote:My solution to tanking: keep the draft lottery, but change it. Instead of giving extra weight to bad teams, give every non-playoff team one entry, AND give every team that loses a first round playoff series one entry. Have a random drawing for the 1st 22 slots in the draft.

That's what we had previously (minus the first round losers being included). Everyone cried foul when a pretty good Knicks team landed Patrick Ewing.

I think the system we have now is pretty close to as good as it gets. The goal for the NBA is to make money. Parity is profitable. Fans of bad teams keep showing up because at least the lottery gives them hope for the future. The money lost from a fan base without hope is greater than any money gained by eliminating all incentives to tank.

I would be in favor of eliminating the cap on max contracts. Or have a max salary of $15M or so, but each team gets one franchise designation where they can pay one player $25M. That way, the few superstars would get spread out amongst more teams.

queridiculo · Post #17 » by **queridiculo** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 3:02 pm

Nivek wrote:
This was what I wanted them to do in the last CBA. Oh well.

My solution to tanking: keep the draft lottery, but change it. Instead of giving extra weight to bad teams, give every non-playoff team one entry, AND give every team that loses a first round playoff series one entry. Have a random drawing for the 1st 22 slots in the draft.

Absolutely zero incentive for losing regular season games.

No one will tank a first round playoff series.

I'd absolutely be on board with that.

gtn130 · Post #18 » by **gtn130** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 3:32 pm

Solution is no max contracts and a hard salary cap as other posters already stated.

Free Agency needs to be more viable so that teams of any market without a star player could potentially sign someone instead of relegating themselves to the lottery every year, hoping to draft an all-star. The team with cap space, regardless of market, would have a huge leg up over the team without cap space in signing someone -- even if it's Milwaukee vs LA Lakers.

Currently the teams with desirable markets are the only real free agency players, which IMO isn't fair. Also would be nice to stop hearing the "I need to build my brand" dbaggery coming from players dreaming of playing for LAL or NYK.

jivelikenice · Post #19 » by **jivelikenice** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 3:46 pm

Nivek wrote:
My solution to tanking: keep the draft lottery, but change it. Instead of giving extra weight to bad teams, give every non-playoff team one entry, AND give every team that loses a first round playoff series one entry. Have a random drawing for the 1st 22 slots in the draft.

Absolutely zero incentive for losing regular season games.

No one will tank a first round playoff series.

Not a fan of this. One of the most unfair moments as a Wiz fan I recall is watching Orlando, with Shaq already in hand, jump from the 12th spot to #1 in in 1993 lottery. Three teams leapfrogged us and we dropped all the way down to 6th and ended up with Calbert. That was a franchise altering lottery. Orlando would have had a dynasty had it not been for the Shaq/Penny breakup. The Wizards were stuck in purgatory and managed to get out only when they made the deal for Webber.

I like the idea of the wheel: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-n ... the-wheel/

Each team knows where they pick leaving no motivation to tank. In actuality, it will probably motivate teams to be better so that prospects are more willing to come out for the draft know who will be selecting (will a prospect want to come out and play for a 15-win team?). Maybe the only adjustment I'd make is removing the top 4-8 teams from the 1st round. This could slightly level the playing field for for teams that aren't "destination" FA cities.

Nivek · Post #20 » by **Nivek** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 3:49 pm

fishercob wrote:As to tanking, what about inverting the lottery process and thus flipping the incentive to lose into an incetive to win. The team with the most lottery balls is the non playoff team with the best record, and so on. You'd have to tweak it somehow -- because you'd have 7 and 8 seeds trying to miss the playoffs.

But this would eliminate tanking. You wouldn't have the sixers trading Hawes and Turner for nothing if their future depended on winning. It would also solve the buyout parade (if you view that as a problem) too.

I think this might change tanking, not end it. Teams on the cusp of the playoffs might tank to just miss, which would give them the best chance of getting a top pick. So, it might create a weird situation where a decent team might try to lose some games to avoid making the playoffs, which no one would want.

As for the Sixers, trading Hawes and not getting much back -- definitely a tanking move. Turner...not so much. He's not good.