An NBA executive has come out with a new plan intended to prevent lottery teams from tanking at the end of the regular season, SI.com has learned.
The proposal by Nuggets VP Mark Warkentien, which was recently mailed to fellow team executives as well as to NBA headquarters, calls for a mini single-elimination postseason tournament in which the Nos. 8-15 teams in each conference would play up to three games in pursuit of the No. 8 spot in the playoffs.
Under the proposal, nothing would change for the playoff teams that earn playoff spots Nos. 1-7. The No. 8 spot, however, would be up for grabs.
No. 8 would play a home game against No. 15, No. 9 would play at home against No. 14 and so on. The loser of each game would be eliminated, while each winner would advance to the next round.
At the conclusion of the mini-tournament, the playoffs would revert to the traditional format, with the winner of the No. 8 seed opposing the team with the best record in the conference.
The results of the postseason tournament would not alter the rankings of teams heading into the lottery. Even if the No. 15 team with the league's worst record went on to win the mini-tournament, and thereby qualify for the playoffs, that team would still enter the lottery with the most ping-pong balls and the best chance at the No. 1 pick in the draft.
It's the kind of proposal that is sure to generate discussion across the Internet and talk radio as the season wears on, especially in markets that are out of playoff contention.
The league acknowledged it received Warkentien's plan in response to an open query asking franchise executives for ideas to help maintain enthusiasm from lottery teams over the closing weeks of the season. Warkentien's proposal is clearly intended to prevent those teams from tanking. "Make every game count," is the theme of his proposal, the sources say.
Even if a majority of the league should come around to support the proposal and it is enacted, the reality is that lottery teams would continue to insidiously improve their draft position -- especially in those years when an elite talent (LeBron James, for example) is slotted as the No. 1 pick. But this proposal could encourage losing teams to keep their veteran players active in hope of creating extra gate receipts, whether from the mini-tournament or the playoffs.
"I kind of like the idea," said an Eastern conference GM. "Conceptually it's very interesting -- as long as I'm not the No. 8 team. But then again, No. 8 should be able to beat No. 15 in a one-game playoff."
The one-and-done mini-tournament -- similar to a college conference postseason tournament -- would extend the season by a week (perhaps at the expense of a shortened exhibition season). Even if other executives and league officials share his interest, the GM noted, it would take a lot of negotiating to install the proposal amid labor negotiations between the owners and union to avert a lockout in 2011-12.
"There would be collective bargaining issues involved in something like this," the GM went on. "There would have to be give-and-take with the players association to make this work."
An executive with another Eastern team doubted the proposal would get off the ground because it could diminish the integrity of the regular season. "I don't think anyone wants to see a team win 11 games and then make the playoffs over an 82-game season," he said. "It will be interesting because it can give somebody a boxer's chance. But if you're one of the top seven or eight teams, you're going to be thinking why should Sacramento have a chance to make the playoffs?''
If nothing else, the proposal provides the league with new perspective on a difficult issue.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/10/28/tanking/index.html#ixzz0VFTEtuQv
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription
Interesting...I'd be for it...at least for one or two trial years
starman9000
10-28-09, 12:34 PM
I hate it. I don't see it really preventing tanking either.
mgbfan
10-28-09, 12:40 PM
Maybe instead they should base the lottery on teams' record at the end of February. The worst teams will still get help, but they won't be penalized for actually trying down the stretch.
As of February 28, the lottery is set (of course, teams can rise in and out of it, but the balls are set by the bottom seven teams at the end of the season, based on their February 28 record). You take all the teams that missed the playoffs and give them lotto balls based on their record as of that date.
awil1026
10-28-09, 12:46 PM
I hate it. I don't see it really preventing tanking either.
Right. With this, you could tank and still possibly get into the playoffs! You'd get the best of both worlds.
Jeremy517
10-28-09, 12:50 PM
The results of the postseason tournament would not alter the rankings of teams heading into the lottery. Even if the No. 15 team with the league's worst record went on to win the mini-tournament, and thereby qualify for the playoffs, that team would still enter the lottery with the most ping-pong balls and the best chance at the No. 1 pick in the draft.
That actually encourages tanking, not discourages it. Terrible.
Aphex Twin
10-28-09, 01:12 PM
If I'm the Lakers, I lose every single game in the regular season. Then when the tourney comes, I'll win it, make it into the playoffs, win the championship, AND get the #1 pick in the draft. Score!
devilshalo
10-28-09, 01:18 PM
Just don't have a weighted system that rewards the worst team with more chances. Just use the 14 balls to represent the 14 teams that did not make the playoffs and in whatever order they are spit out, is the order of the draft.
cdollaz
10-28-09, 01:36 PM
Just don't have a weighted system that rewards the worst team with more chances. Just use the 14 balls to represent the 14 teams that did not make the playoffs and in whatever order they are spit out, is the order of the draft.Or at least do it in tiers. The worst 5 records all get the same # of ping pong balls, the next 5 get the same, and so on.
fumanstan
10-28-09, 02:03 PM
Terrible idea.
Quake1028
10-28-09, 02:07 PM
Yeah, this is a terrible, terrible idea. Why or how does he think this would prevent tanking? Like the lowest seeded team is really going to give a shit about rolling over for 2 extra games if they are in fact tanking.
dvd-4-life
10-28-09, 02:08 PM
There are 10 teams now that don't belong in the NBA,much less the playoffs.
Drexl
10-28-09, 03:11 PM
Yeah, this is a terrible, terrible idea. Why or how does he think this would prevent tanking? Like the lowest seeded team is really going to give a shit about rolling over for 2 extra games if they are in fact tanking.
Isn't it just one game they'd have to lose?
Another problem with this is that it would probably make the postseason take even longer than it does now. If they spread out the games to maximize TV revenue, it could move part of the Finals into July.
cdollaz
10-28-09, 03:49 PM
Another problem, and they main reason they have playoff series, not one-game playoffs, is that any team can beat any team on a given night. The 15th team might actually be able to pull off a game, but not an entire series. Makes the season worthless.
kenbuzz
10-28-09, 03:50 PM
If only basketball fortunes weren't so closely tied to the talent of individual players, we wouldn't need a lottery, which itself was designed to prevent tanking in the first place. Unfortunately, the nature of the game is that a single player can take a below-average team and transform them into serious contenders. Jordan did it, Shaq did it, Labron James is doing it, Ewing did it, the list goes on.
This isn't an indictment of basketball - far from it - it's just a recognition of the fact that of the major sports it's the one that is most influenced by the skills (or mutant-like size) of a single player.
How do you prevent tanking while simultaneously preventing the "haves" from stocking up on all the new talent at the same time? I haven't a clue. I think one need to decide which is worse for the league and move away from it.
LurkerDan
10-28-09, 04:12 PM
[ ] interesting
[x] proposal
coli
10-28-09, 04:16 PM
I always thought they should go back to the 'pre-weighted ping pong balls' days. Now the worst case scenario that system was the Magic in 1993 missing the playoffs by one game and then winning the lottery and getting Penny Hardaway.
But it prevents teams from just flat out tanking at the end of the season to get the #1 spot, because if your record was 15-67 and 31-51, you both had the same exact chance at the #1 pick. So essentially, even if you know you are out of the playoffs by February, you will still play knowing your fortunes won't change in the lottery.
I don't think there is a way of avoiding this, as someone said, one player can make such a huge difference, the NBA lives and dies by their star power.
Aphex Twin
10-28-09, 05:02 PM
Unfortunately, the nature of the game is that a single player can take a below-average team and transform them into serious contenders. Jordan did it, Shaq did it, Labron James is doing it, Ewing did it, the list goes on.
When were Jordan, Shaq, Lebron, and Ewing ever on "below-average" teams that were "serious contenders"? Lebron has never been on a serious contender and has only taken his teams far due to weak Eastern conferences. Look how he's done in the finals.
El Scorcho
10-28-09, 05:02 PM
[ ] interesting
[x] proposal
you forgot:
[x] NBA
dx23
10-28-09, 05:15 PM
Horrible idea that doesn't solve anything. Still, I don't think there is anything to be solved. The worst record usually doesn't get the top pick, the lottery seems to be pretty fair. What actually made teams mediocre is bad management, like what has happened with the Clippers, Knicks, Warriors and Wolves.
fujishig
10-28-09, 05:20 PM
Seems overly complicated, and I don't see the logic behind it preventing teams from tanking. It would generate extra revenue with the extra games played, and also extend the season even more. Plus the number 8 seed would be exhausted.
Why not rest your veteran players for the mini-playoff-for-the-8th-seed push? If there's no chance of making it to the 7th seed, why not just tank, you'll have a chance to make the playoffs anyway. This seems like the opposite. Also, the whole point of the lottery is to prevent tanking... how many times has the team with the worst record gotten the #1?
Have they ever considered copying the NFL and making the trading deadline much earlier in the season? I remember the nfl experts talking about why the nfl trading deadline is so early, and they said that it was because the nfl doesn't want losing teams dumping players for picks.
LurkerDan
10-28-09, 06:28 PM
you forgot:
[x] NBA
I made an editorial decision.
PopcornTreeCt
10-28-09, 08:11 PM
Teams should be allowed to tank.
The Spurs did, got Duncan, and the rest is history.
devilshalo
10-28-09, 08:19 PM
Teams should be allowed to tank.
The Spurs did, got Duncan, and the rest is history.
And for every Tim Duncan.... there is the Clippers.
dx23
10-28-09, 08:26 PM
Teams should be allowed to tank.
The Spurs did, got Duncan, and the rest is history.
The Celtics had a worst record than the Spurs, who had stars David Robinson and Sean Elliot injured for the entire season. I remember that Dominique Wilkins carried the team that season.
Axeramm
10-28-09, 09:01 PM
I think the NBA should contract to 20 teams. The rest should be placed in a separate league. The teams that finish in the bottom 4 of the NBA league get demoted to the lower league and the top 4 teams in the lower league move up to the NBA.
auto
10-28-09, 09:12 PM
I think the NBA should contract to 20 teams. The rest should be placed in a separate league. The teams that finish in the bottom 4 of the NBA league get demoted to the lower league and the top 4 teams in the lower league move up to the NBA.
Hmmm, that's an interesting NBA proposal.
dx23
10-28-09, 09:32 PM
I think the NBA should contract to 20 teams. The rest should be placed in a separate league. The teams that finish in the bottom 4 of the NBA league get demoted to the lower league and the top 4 teams in the lower league move up to the NBA.
Hmmm, that's an interesting NBA proposal.
I don't see how that would work and how you would even select the first 20 teams. By leaving 10 teams out, you are telling everyone, from fans, college players, investors, sponsors, etc. that their product is inferior and they shouldn't even be considered real teams.
David Stern has been a good to great commissioner during his tenure. Still, the only thing he has lacked is the ability to be able to tell management that their teams need to compete year in and year out. By this, I mean that Stern has been unable to penalize teams that want to be mediocre or that management has mishandled. For example, when the Knicks lost the lawsuit for sexual harassment, everyone involved should have been banned or suspended from the league. Donald Sterling should be have been banned from owning a team after all the years of Clippers mediocrity. The same goes for the Warriors. I find ridiculous that Mark Cuban gets fined for making stupid comments, even though he revitalized a sagging franchise and people like Sterling, Warriors management, Memphis management don't get penalized for being mediocre managers of their franchises. It is in the best interests of the league to see that all teams are well managed and compete. Yes, there are going to be rebuilding years, but those can't last more than a decade like it has happened with all the mediocre franchises I mentioned.
coli
10-29-09, 07:01 AM
I think the NBA should contract to 20 teams. .
I think all 4 sports should contract to this amount of teams, but it just wont happen. The problem is once you have a team it is so hard to contract them, and they will just keep moving them around to a city that wants a team.
I think because of the big money in sports these days, only 20 markets in this country can handle sports franchises and compete. The small markets are just at a disadvantage (unless you have an owner who is filthy rich), and if they don't draw well, they are even at a more disadvantage.
Look at the NHL, they really need to contract, and Bettman would rather keep a bankrupt team in Phoenix then move them or contract them.
fujishig
10-30-09, 08:09 PM
I think the NBA should contract to 20 teams. The rest should be placed in a separate league. The teams that finish in the bottom 4 of the NBA league get demoted to the lower league and the top 4 teams in the lower league move up to the NBA.
The top teams would stockpile the big talent. Why risk signing with a smaller market team if there's a chance you'll be booted down to the minor leagues? How would the minor league teams even be able to afford players?
Oh, wait, that's what we have now, big, over-the-salary-cap teams dominating and a bunch of also-rans.
fumanstan
10-30-09, 08:30 PM
The top teams would stockpile the big talent. Why risk signing with a smaller market team if there's a chance you'll be booted down to the minor leagues? How would the minor league teams even be able to afford players?
Oh, wait, that's what we have now, big, over-the-salary-cap teams dominating and a bunch of also-rans.
I don't think it's that bad now. It's certainly drifted for the worse the last couple years with the economic down turn and the smaller market teams being unable to afford players and dumping big contracts to the bigger teams that don't mind paying the salary tax. But in general it isn't too bad thanks to the nature of basketball, the lottery, and players that still go where the money is. Cleveland and Orlando are up there, but really it's drafting Lebron and Dwight Howard that brought initial success, and then the spending followed.
http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm
You see Portland down there which will go up thanks to extensions to their young players, and Oklahoma City is down at the bottom but they have tons of upside thanks to their young players.
wildcatlh
10-30-09, 09:07 PM
I think the NBA should contract to 20 teams. The rest should be placed in a separate league. The teams that finish in the bottom 4 of the NBA league get demoted to the lower league and the top 4 teams in the lower league move up to the NBA.
A European-style promotion/relegation system would never work in the US with the way that the leagues are structured.
davidh777
10-31-09, 08:34 PM
The Celtics had a worst record than the Spurs, who had stars David Robinson and Sean Elliot injured for the entire season. I remember that Dominique Wilkins carried the team that season.
AND the Celtics had two lottery picks that year
ctyankee
11-01-09, 09:23 AM
Right. With this, you could tank and still possibly get into the playoffs! You'd get the best of both worlds.
Exactly. Let's face it, this proposal is not about stopping teams from tanking it's all about selling more seats ... period.
Or at least do it in tiers. The worst 5 records all get the same # of ping pong balls, the next 5 get the same, and so on.
Yup. This would stop serious tanking as by the time the final 10 games are played, as this would pretty much all be decided.
Now, if teams would actually play defense and refs stopped letting the stars get away with murder out there - heck, I'd even go back to watching the games.
Buy: