There are only 1,230 Wins per season to go around. In this world where there are no real bad teams, that also means that either 1) there will also be no really good teams or 2) there will be a bunch of mediocre teams and a handful of good teams.
So you don't think every game should be competitive? In any scenario you are always going to have teams that will be better than the pack and teams that are just bad. I rather watch competitive ball, even if it means the Spurs lose a few more games. than a one sided snooze fest to be honest. Don't get me wrong I don't mind the occasional blow out win but I think you get my point.
The most purely competitive outcome would be for every team to go 41-41... and to me that is not the most compelling product.
well i think the league should crack down hard on teams gaming the system in-season with unethical benchings
Well it would never obviously be 41-41 across the board. And like I mentioned you will always have dominant and not so dominant teams so you can get your lopsided wins because like you mentioned its not just the players playing but how well the front office constructs the team. I just think purposely tanking and providing a poor product to fans isn't the way to go. And a persons interest in sports varies. Yours is what you stated and others may differ. We're just going to have to agree to disagree bud lol
That's the key. For all its flaws, the current lottery system is purely objective. It is based only on team record and going into the season everyone knows how the lottery combinations will be apportioned. Introducing any subjectivity, like the lottery committee or my idea of assigning combinations based on roster quality rather than record, can easily cause more problems than it solves. That is why I don't like Silver's fine on the Jazz, because it only discourages teams from pulling that exact stunt rather than anything that resembles it.
i think the fine on the jazz was absolutely warranted and i wouldnt be mad if penatlies got more severe. i'd like to think that tanking is a front office decision. you trade away players for picks, clear up cap room, potentially rent out cap room for draft capital.
I'm okay with the distinction you are making - just so long as it's made clear ahead of time. I don't like punishing teams for "unwritten rules". If you want something to be against the rules, make it a rule. (For the record, I'm fine with the $500k fine, because that's relative peanuts for these teams... but hopefully they've communicated clear guidelines for teams going forward and then if they violate them, hammer them).
it doesnt even have anything to do with tanking. if a team is purposely throwing a game midgame by sitting their key players to allow the other team to comeback, how is that anything but point shaving? it completely ruins the integrity of the game
I think it comes down to motive and intent. Is there a difference between an intent to the throw the game because you are (A) tanking versus (B) throwing the game for gambling purposes? I'd argue there is a big difference. I'd also argue that if the intent is to lose games for tanking purposes, then there is actually less difference in doing it (C) before the season starts via roster manipulation than (D) during the game versus rotation manipulation.
Even though the other 18 drivers and 8 teams couldn't compete for the title, they were still competing and doing their best every race because there's a reward for every place in the standings.
You do realize you are one of the very few people that thinks that way, right?
Yes. It doesn't change my opinion though.
The money idea is interesting (and my idea early on in this thread was about putting monetary incentives in place... to me, that's the only real way to "fix" things, though I wouldn't use the term fix... it's most like just re-arranging incentives to align to differing objectives).
this should go without saying. we hear all the time when it comes to things like conflicts of interest that even creating the appearance of impropriety is enough to cross the line. if the players and teams are not both genuinely trying to win a given game, it becomes less competitions and more theater akin to a globetrotters game. theres no place for that
On the other hand, the money idea would be bad for a lot of franchises because we'd have at least 5 more "Bulls" that have no ambition and are content with being a parennial play-in team.
Exactly, there's no perfect set of rules, but there are levels to it.
www.cbssports.com
It might go without saying... but apparently it needs saying to at least one team located in Utah. So let's just say it, and make the punishment clear and known. Let's draw the lines. Because there is a slippery slope. We start with judging the coaches 4th quarter decisions, but why not question his decision to play more young guys as the season goes on? Who is to say that Egor Demin's 25 mpg is better for the team than Day'Ron Sharpe's 18.5 mpg?
I actually don't agree that pick protections need to go. If you eliminate pick protections, I think what mostly happens is that you'll just have a lot of trades not happening, because you've eliminated a vehicle of exchange that matches the value of the other thing. Player X is worth a Top 8 protected pick. By eliminating protections, Player X doesn't suddenly become worth an unprotected pick... he just doesn't get traded.
What about starting to tank before opening night? As in, in the offseason? Because that's what got us Wemby.
