whitechocolate
Bench
Maybe the bigger the fine, the better the team actually is. A million dollar fine might net us some credibility.
Race to the Bottom thread
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
Good thing about the Kings is they had a bottom 5 record when playing the vets heavy minutes so it's not like the league can jump in and say they're tanking because the vets are playing less minutes. The Kings could easily just say that the vets weren't winning so they're going another route in order to try and win.
The same could be said for Utah and Indiana though right? (well, bottom 6 record in Utah's case) Of course the big difference there is that the Kings have not traded a pick with protections this year which they are now trying to avoid having to give away as Utah and Indiana both have.
That Indiana trade giving the Clippers their pick if it's between 5 and 9 almost looks as bad as the Pelicans trading away an unprotected pick last summer. Regardless of where they finish in the bottom 5 teams there's going to be a 48-58% chance they'll have to give this year's pick away. And they also gave up their 2029 first round pick and Bennedict Mathurin in the deal. Hard to see why they wanted two years worth of Ivica Zubac that badly.
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
Given how badly OKC tanked year after year such BS
Caccia
Starter
A great way to race to the bottom is to trade away or release all your players, creating instant instability. There are only three Kings remaining from the winning season of 2023-24: Sabonis, Murray, and Monk. The current front office has explored trading away two of those guys, and they may yet succeed.
Sure seems this way especially with San Antonio. OKC’s star player SGA was an an eleventh pick takin well after everybody’s crush Luka. However they did a masterful job accumulating picks and did get Chet before really turning the corner.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
SGA is a manufactured star player courtesy of the NBA officiating and rules where defenders can't hand check but offensive players can throw your shoulder into you for separation
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
The got Chet by doing things like sitting Al Horford for half a season and SGA for multiple games
Sorry, originally posted this in the wrong thread. Reposting it here.
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.
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.
- 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?
I don't mind the idea but in English football relegation seems to have contributed to substantial inequality. I think the playoffs are the NBA's form of relegation. So perhaps you could shorten the regular season (e.g., everyone plays each other twice) and have an extended post season in some way.
eleventy
G-League
warhawk said:
Assuming two teams get added to the NBA in expansion
I see we are talking about inevitable expansion. In fact, i don't follow these things but i wonder if there is a bet to be made on whether or not the Commissioner mentions "expansion" either in an "it's coming - soon" type of way or outright, "At the end of the 26-27 season, there will be realignment and an expansion draft, with 32 teams beginning in 2027-28"
At any rate, it's coming and with it, a more manageable scheduling situation (and if they don't use AI to make their schedules, they should.).
No more "all four games with Denver/OKC before ANY games with NO/SAS" - instead, you simply tell the AI device that will prepare the season schedule, "no two teams play each other more than once in a five week period" and boom, the schedule comes out that way.
I don't think a "relegation" situation is neccessary, but if it were (neccessary), the fair thing would be to group teams by how much money they spent (rewarding teams that did not exceed the cap).
First, what is the "regular season schedule" likely to look like?
One idea would be four teams in each division, four divisions in each conference.
16 teams in each conference - each west team plays an east team once a season (alternating home/away games): Total_ 16 (reduced from "twice")
Each team plays the other three teams in their division 6 times annually - Total : 18
Each team plays other non-division conference teams 4 times annually - Total: 48
Total: 82 game schedule, very balanced.
If we regroup teams putting weaker, lower spending teams in the same division(s) and grouping higher spending teams together, it should equal things out a bit.
For instance, Western Conference
Pacific Division:
Warriors
Lakers
Clippers
Suns
Northwest Division:
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento
Las Vegas
Southwest Division:
Spurs
Rockets
Mavericks
Thunder
Midwest Division:
Utah
Denver
Minnesota
Milwaukee
and
Eastern Confertence, North Division:
Boston
New York
Brooklyn
Philly
South Division:
Miami
Orlando
Memphis
New Orleans
Mid-South Division:
Atlanta
Charlotte
Washington
Indiana
Rust Belt Division:
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Toronto
Less travelling, so, theoretically, not as much need to "rest" players
It's VERY doable to have a system where no team is ever "disadvantaged" in a matchup (no more "rested home team versus road team on second of a back to back" - it NEVER HAS TO HAPPEN AGAIN).
but that's a whole other story..
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
Will never work as the owners won’t risk the financial lost of Relegation. The lottery has been a problem since it was instituted in 1985.
If you really want to end tanking dump the lottery as it has never worked. Your best bet is to create a commision that seeds the lottery teams in the draft.
The big thing is the penalty for not submitting a ballot "Which, I could see being a problem with petty org/owners" has to be substantial. Like "If your ballot is not submitted to the league office by May 10th (or whatever), you forfeit your next available FRP." Something along those lines
I said multiple times it would never move forward. I just thought it was an interesting idea. Not that it was feasible or better than others. Just...different. Never hurts to banter thoughts around!
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
4 teams/division only works when the regular season is short (NFL). An 82-game season, in my honest opinion, requires 5+ team divisions across the board.
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
Interesting grouping. Here was what I was thinking. Does show how Mexico City might fit better than Vegas.
Pacific Division:
Vegas (Utah)
Lakers
Clippers
Pheonix
Northwest Division:
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento
Warriors
Southwest Division:
Spurs
Rockets
New Orleans
Memphis (Mexico City)
Midwest Division:
Utah (Memphis )
Denver
Dallas
OKC
and
Eastern Confertence, Mid Atlantic Division:
Washington
New York
Brooklyn
Philly
South Division:
Miami
Orlando
Atlanta
Charlotte
Great Lake Division:
Minnesota
Milwaukee
Indiana
Chicago
Rust Belt Division:
Washington
Cleveland
Detroit
Toronto
Wait, who gets to be on this commission?
American soccer fans, of which I count myself a member, have this truly bizarre fetish of introducing promotion and relegation to our leagues which will never, ever happen. Beyond the economics of owners spending billions to enter the league, American leagues have prioritized geography for team locations. There are 7 clubs in the Premier League based in London. There's also two teams in Liverpool and two in Manchester who aren't in danger of relegation soon. That's half the league in 3 cities.
Good. I hate tanking.Adam Silver stated the league is considering revoking draft picks as a deterrent
Expect to see miraculous recoveries or season ending sore big toes vanish overnight.
View attachment 14815
If you want to lose games then trade, cut, or somewhat limit the minutes (say, the 20 minutes minimum to match the requirement for being eligible for individual season awards?) of your "star" players that aren't a part of your plan. If waiving/cutting a player causes you financial hardship, well, that's tough - you signed the contract or traded for it. But outright tanking is horrible for the league.
This fake injury crap (and sometimes rest/"load management") is BS for both fans and overall league competition.
My fix:
Flat lotto odds for a top 5 pick every non-playoff team. Cannot receive top 5 picks in consecutive seasons. 6-14 is based on record.
Completely removes the incentive to lose games at any point of the season and still gives the truly bad teams some protection by keeping them in the 6-8 range of the draft. Also effectively distributes the elite young talent around the league where SA cant come away with Wemby/Castle/Harper in a 3 year span.
Flat lotto odds for a top 5 pick every non-playoff team. Cannot receive top 5 picks in consecutive seasons. 6-14 is based on record.
Completely removes the incentive to lose games at any point of the season and still gives the truly bad teams some protection by keeping them in the 6-8 range of the draft. Also effectively distributes the elite young talent around the league where SA cant come away with Wemby/Castle/Harper in a 3 year span.
eleventy
G-League
i see that you are assuming that the ChatGPT mode, beginning with a team in mexico city, then adding teams in europe and africa may take place sooner rather than later.
i think those additions will come later.
it seems like a done deal that the two expansion teams will be in vegas and seattle, which means at least one team moves from west to east (conference).
that could be Minnesota moves east, or it could be Memphis.
i selected two teams moving east (memphis and new orleans - NO is still owned by the league, i think, making moving more easily accepted) and one team (Milwaukee) moving west. That creates a Minnesota/Milwaukee rivalry and moving a "good" team (Milwaukee) west, makes up for adding two expansion teams there (which will struggle for awhile).
remember, in my scenario, divisional play occurs six games per year (changing from four divisional games), so i stacked the divisions knowing that they would each face each other six times annually, as an equalizer.
for example, you place the warriors with seattle, portland and sacramento, while i place the warriors with the other "high spenders" (LAL, LAC, Phoenix) figuring that if they play six times, each team will have more losses (to each other). otherwise, a team like the warriors could build a "better record" playing in a division with weaker foes.
I sacrificed a second annual game against the other conference to even up the in-conference (non-divisional) pairings (no more playing some teams three times and other teams four times per season). It also means "less travel" (which is a way to eliminate some of the "rest games").
I also have a plan to eliminate ALL back to back games (which is usually where "rest" comes in), but the Emirates Cup makes that scheduling more difficult - that "tournament" should probably be part of the All-Star break.
As for the playoffs, first you take the top two finishers in each division and go by record. The two best records get first round byes. The four "third place divisional finishers play off and the two winners join the other six divisional advancers in the first round of eight. Not sure when or how to bring in the two "byes", but this gets more teams involved.
or something like that.
Last edited:
