ShastaKingsFan
Hall of Famer
Now that they've been fined and called out, we'll see what picks the NBA allows the Jazz and Pacers to have
[NBA] Comments that don't warrant a thread (FEB)
- Thread starter Mr. S£im Citrus
- Start date
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
You already know the answer...1 and 2.
Padrino
All-Star
While I am more positive on Adam Silver's tenure than many around these parts, I'm not sure I'm on board with "Let's just make a tournament" the solution to every competitive balance problem in the NBA. I'm a huge proponent of reducing the season to 66 games, and even knowing that the NBA will never go for it, it's still crazy to me that they're considering adding yet more games to the slate.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
serbiangoat
Starter
Just give the #1 to the 8th seed (which has the better record) it encourages people to make the playoffs which normally means winning half or more of your games in the West. Bad team should prove themselves before being gifted with the #1 pick.
GWD
Bench
And just how would Silver make a playoff work to determine the worst team or most needy team?
>Winning the tournament would prove that the winner was NOT the worst team and should not get the #1 pick.
>Losing the tournament in order to get the #1 pick would set up a tournament tanking situation of monumental proportions.
It doesn't make sense. Maybe there will be judges, like in figure skating or snowboarding, who will rank the teams on their judged observations. That would set off a storm of controversy.
>Winning the tournament would prove that the winner was NOT the worst team and should not get the #1 pick.
>Losing the tournament in order to get the #1 pick would set up a tournament tanking situation of monumental proportions.
It doesn't make sense. Maybe there will be judges, like in figure skating or snowboarding, who will rank the teams on their judged observations. That would set off a storm of controversy.
Carmichael Dave had an ... interesting proposal to eliminate tanking that will NEVER fly. But it was interesting.
Implement a "mini" version of relegation to the sport, like European soccer. I was driving while listening to this, so I hope I got all the details right:
Assuming two teams get added to the NBA in expansion, have an Eastern (10 teams) and Western (10 teams) conference, but also introduce a "third" conference ("Leastern"?) comprised of the worst 12 teams. Every year, the worst three teams (total) move down from the E and W conferences to the L conference. Teams in the L conference are not eligible for the playoffs. The three best teams in the L conference move up to the E and W conferences and are again playoff eligible.
So far, not a big difference from what we have now (worst teams in each conference are not playoff eligible). Here's where the anti-tank "solution" comes into play:
The team with the best record in the L conference automatically moves up and also gets the #1 pick in the draft. The second-best team also moves up automatically and gets the #2 pick. The rest of the teams have a "playoff" system and the winning team also moves up and gets the #3 pick. The rest of the picks are allocated by record, I think inverse to how bad they are. The "worst" team by record in the L conference would then get the #12 pick, I think. E and W conference picks come after the L conference picks, and are all allocated by record, similar to now.
Definitely anti-tank.
There are a couple issues I see with this, besides team owners never agreeing to it.
Implement a "mini" version of relegation to the sport, like European soccer. I was driving while listening to this, so I hope I got all the details right:
Assuming two teams get added to the NBA in expansion, have an Eastern (10 teams) and Western (10 teams) conference, but also introduce a "third" conference ("Leastern"?) comprised of the worst 12 teams. Every year, the worst three teams (total) move down from the E and W conferences to the L conference. Teams in the L conference are not eligible for the playoffs. The three best teams in the L conference move up to the E and W conferences and are again playoff eligible.
So far, not a big difference from what we have now (worst teams in each conference are not playoff eligible). Here's where the anti-tank "solution" comes into play:
The team with the best record in the L conference automatically moves up and also gets the #1 pick in the draft. The second-best team also moves up automatically and gets the #2 pick. The rest of the teams have a "playoff" system and the winning team also moves up and gets the #3 pick. The rest of the picks are allocated by record, I think inverse to how bad they are. The "worst" team by record in the L conference would then get the #12 pick, I think. E and W conference picks come after the L conference picks, and are all allocated by record, similar to now.
Definitely anti-tank.
There are a couple issues I see with this, besides team owners never agreeing to it.
- How to balance the E and W teams if the L league is "unbalanced" - I would say it would have to be the same number of teams per E and W conference in the L conference so not to change up the teams in the E and W conference each year. So, it may end up that the teams in the L conference are not necessarily the "worst" teams overall, especially at the upper end of the L conference - middling teams in the W now are often more competitive than middling teams in the E, for instance).
- That also means maybe adjusting the number of teams to get relegated each year to 4 instead of 3 - two per E and W conferences.
- Maybe adjust the L conference to 10 teams instead of 12 - this makes the playoffs work well (2 teams from the 10 in the L conference automatically advance as #1 and #2, the remaining 8 have their playoffs. The playoff brackets would also have to be split E and W so the number of teams moving up and down were the same per conference - best E and W teams are #1 and #2 depending on record, and the playoffs will result in a E and W team playing each other for the #3 and #4 spots. Or maybe 6 instead of 10 if you want to tighten it up a bit?