Your solution for tanking

[AzStevenCal]

At micro level, I understand why a team tanks, I understand the incentives that are in place for the teams who are not in the playoff picture to tank and I do not begrudge any team, or fan who is on board with the tanking. At a macro level, I think teams actively not putting a competitive roster together and writing off seasons is bad for those team's fanbases, bad for the league and bad for the sport. I would argue the league's revenues are coming from TV Money, merchandise and ticket sales. I think having a third of the teams in full tank mode leads to less fans at those games, less fans watching on TV and less fans buying merchandise. Maybe some fans are watching to see

I'm sure you're right to an extent but I don't think it's that much of a problem. The vast majority of the revenue comes from the national tv contracts. These networks, especially down the stretch, focus primarily on the important teams. All of us at the bottom are routinely absent from national telecasts so there's no real damage done IMO.

I'd also point out that, right now, tanking is at an all time high due to the Players Association refusing to smooth out the huge cap windfall (opening the door for the Durant signing) and that's a short term problem that's not likely to ever appear again.

 

[Mainstreet]

If it wasn't for the TV money and the sell of merchandise the NBA might be more responsive to the average fan. With the owners and players making money hand over fist there is not much incentive to fix the system. No one wants a strike which is what it would take. It would likely be long strike perhaps a year or more to break the players union. There is no stomach for it. Even the fans wouldn't be happy.

 

[Matt L]

If it wasn't for the TV money and the sell of merchandise the NBA might be more responsive to the average fan. With the owners and players making money hand over fist there is not much incentive to fix the system. No one wants a strike which is what it would take. It would likely be long strike perhaps a year or more to break the players union. There is no stomach for it. Even the fans wouldn't be happy.

I'm not sure I follow. The player's union is the reason for team's tanking? or do you blame the lack of a hard cap on the teams ability to field competitive teams?

 

[AzStevenCal]

I'm not sure I follow. The player's union is the reason for team's tanking? or do you blame the lack of a hard cap on the teams ability to field competitive teams?

No, I don't blame them for tanking in general, just the increase in number of teams willing to go that route. Once Durant was signed in Golden State (prompting a few other teams to try and put together a rival super team), that left out an unusually high number of teams. Those teams knew they couldn't compete at the highest level so a few of them joined the tank group.

Had the Players Association listened to the NBA about smoothing the Cap increase, the Warriors and a few others would have been unable to form their star-laden rosters. And had that happened, we wouldn't have seen quite the increase in teams striving to be their worst.

Tanking has been around for a long time but other than a few times, it's never been as overt as it is currently and I'm not blaming all the increase on the Players Association. The new TV contract, which insured that even empty arena teams would be profitable, enabled some owners to take the lose now to win later approach. The Suns are a perfect example. Sarver wanted instant success so that poor attendance wouldn't kill him but once the big TV money came in, he backed off and climbed onto the timeline bandwagon (for a short while, anyway).

 

[pokerface]

At micro level, I understand why a team tanks, I understand the incentives that are in place for the teams who are not in the playoff picture to tank and I do not begrudge any team, or fan who is on board with the tanking. At a macro level, I think teams actively not putting a competitive roster together and writing off seasons is bad for those team's fanbases, bad for the league and bad for the sport. I would argue the league's revenues are coming from TV Money, merchandise and ticket sales. I think having a third of the teams in full tank mode leads to less fans at those games, less fans watching on TV and less fans buying merchandise. Maybe some fans are watching to see their teams lose but I think more stop watching the games on tv and stop attending the games and stop buying merch after the all-star break.

Well supposedly teams have been tanking for years and this such a "problem" that rule changes have been deamed necessary but guess what... teams are making more money than they ever have and franchises are worth record amounts. Where is the evidence that tanking is wide spread and it's hurting the league? Plus I don't think that good teams are tanking. Some teams are just flat out bad and hedge on it. So if a bad team tanks they are going to have the same attendance problem either way. At least with a high draft pick they can hope to rebound eventually and generate more fan attendance.

 

[pokerface]

I think having a third of the teams in full tank mode leads to less fans at those games, less fans watching on TV and less fans buying merchandise..

A third of the teams are in "full tank mode"? What do you mean by that? Are they purposely sitting stars? Are they not winning games here and there? Or are they just bad teams that need to be punished for being bad?

Every bad team isn't a tanking team...some just suck.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I really feel the issue lies with the super teams.

So absent of a hard cap and an actual franchise designation for a player, then tanking will exist.

We knew at the start of the season there were likely 4 teams that could compete for the title. Cleveland, Boston, Houston, and Golden State.

If you know that, then you are thinking your window is at least a year away.

 

[Western Font]

In addition to flattening the lottery odds, maybe there's a way to further incentivize finishing higher in the standings. Could be slight cap relief so a team that finishes say #9 or #10 in the conference has a slight advantage in free agency or re-signing its players over the teams that tank for top picks? Or maybe it would be simpler as a cap penalty that comes with high lottery picks. You're signing your supposed cornerstone players to rookie deals, maybe there should be a cost if you are tanking to secure that pick.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

In addition to flattening the lottery odds, maybe there's a way to further incentivize finishing higher in the standings. Could be slight cap relief so a team that finishes say #9 or #10 in the conference has a slight advantage in free agency or re-signing its players over the teams that tank for top picks? Or maybe it would be simpler as a cap penalty that comes with high lottery picks. You're signing your supposed cornerstone players to rookie deals, maybe there should be a cost if you are tanking to secure that pick.

Just posting to say I like your avatar.

 

[elindholm]

In addition to flattening the lottery odds, maybe there's a way to further incentivize finishing higher in the standings. Could be slight cap relief so a team that finishes say #9 or #10 in the conference has a slight advantage in free agency or re-signing its players over the teams that tank for top picks? Or maybe it would be simpler as a cap penalty that comes with high lottery picks. You're signing your supposed cornerstone players to rookie deals, maybe there should be a cost if you are tanking to secure that pick.

I think something like that is good, and it also makes sense to reward teams that make a respectable showing in the playoffs, but aren't contenders. If you're a team like Indiana or Portland right now, what are you playing for? They're too good to tank, but not good enough to contend. Most likely, they'll have a run of a few 50-and-fade years, and that will be that. There has to be an incentive to embark on that kind of trajectory, rather than sit on your hands year after year and wait for a generational talent to fall into your lap on draft day.

 

[Mainstreet]

I'm not sure I follow. The player's union is the reason for team's tanking? or do you blame the lack of a hard cap on the teams ability to field competitive teams?

Yes. I am talking about something like a hard cap where it would be harder for elite teams to keep the best players. IMO, it would spread the talent around the league. Too bad NBA owners did not take a hard stand to implement something like this in the past but it would have been a hard sell to the players. Until the players were humbled it might have taken a shutdown perhaps lasting a couple of years for them to cave-in.

 

[Matt L]

I really do not understand everyone's infatuation with hard salary caps.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I really do not understand everyone's infatuation with hard salary caps.

Hard caps make it more difficult to stack too much talent on one team. Less super teams means more teams that have a chance at contending every year. It being more likely to contend as a 3-8 seed in the playoffs makes it less likely that teams would tank so hard in an effort to get better.

It may not all actually work out that way, but that is the basic premise of wanting a hard cap.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Hard caps make it more difficult to stack too much talent on one team. Less super teams means more teams that have a chance at contending every year. It being more likely to contend as a 3-8 seed in the playoffs makes it less likely that teams would tank so hard in an effort to get better.

It may not all actually work out that way, but that is the basic premise of wanting a hard cap.

Hard cap is a fantasy IMO along the lines of putting an end to free agency. As a fan, doing away with free agency or putting a hard cap in place sounds great but it just isn't going to happen. At least not without something dramatic occurring along the way. They could try locking the players out for a few years but that's just killing the golden goose.

IMO it would take something like ESPN and TNT defaulting on the TV contract and the next highest bidder driving the cap back to 1980's money to even open the conversation.

 

[devilalum]

Winning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Raze]

Hard cap is a fantasy IMO along the lines of putting an end to free agency. As a fan, doing away with free agency or putting a hard cap in place sounds great but it just isn't going to happen. At least not without something dramatic occurring along the way. They could try locking the players out for a few years but that's just killing the golden goose.

IMO it would take something like ESPN and TNT defaulting on the TV contract and the next highest bidder driving the cap back to 1980's money to even open the conversation.

And this is exactly what will happen. The way things are going, ESPN will be bankrupt before the deal is done in 2024(?). (TNT appears to be fine, but can't be happy with the lackluster ratings or the plethora of stars sitting out games.) It will be interesting to watch what happens to the mother ship as it's taking on oceans of water every season. While numerous stars are jumping ship at ESPN, the NBA is sitting fat and full grinning like the Cheshire Cat. They are complete fools if they don't see that this spells doom for their league. At the very least, when this deal is over, NO ONE will pay for the NBA. NO ONE. Take a guess what happens to the NBA contracts when they have no sponsors and no fans going to games.

 

[AzStevenCal]

And this is exactly what will happen. The way things are going, ESPN will be bankrupt before the deal is done in 2024(?). (TNT appears to be fine, but can't be happy with the lackluster ratings or the plethora of stars sitting out games.) It will be interesting to watch what happens to the mother ship as it's taking on oceans of water every season. While numerous stars are jumping ship at ESPN, the NBA is sitting fat and full grinning like the Cheshire Cat. They are complete fools if they don't see that this spells doom for their league. At the very least, when this deal is over, NO ONE will pay for the NBA. NO ONE. Take a guess what happens to the NBA contracts when they have no sponsors and no fans going to games.

It's possible. I suggested it might happen when the details first came out about the upcoming new TV deal. But despite that, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Hoop Head]

And this is exactly what will happen. The way things are going, ESPN will be bankrupt before the deal is done in 2024(?). (TNT appears to be fine, but can't be happy with the lackluster ratings or the plethora of stars sitting out games.) It will be interesting to watch what happens to the mother ship as it's taking on oceans of water every season. While numerous stars are jumping ship at ESPN, the NBA is sitting fat and full grinning like the Cheshire Cat. They are complete fools if they don't see that this spells doom for their league. At the very least, when this deal is over, NO ONE will pay for the NBA. NO ONE. Take a guess what happens to the NBA contracts when they have no sponsors and no fans going to games.

That's unlikely. ESPN is owned by Disney, they won't be going under any time soon. Even if they did, what makes you think another network wouldn't swoop in and take the NBA on?

Right now the NBA is expanding it's reach by offering League Pass directly to fans by broadcasting games online and globally their reach is getting bigger every year. There is a reason the NBA has talked about expanding to Europe over the last decade, the demand is there for quality basketball and they're the top basketball league in the world. No one debates that the NBA is home to the best players in the world either. They don't need to worry about folding as a league in the next 15-20 years, or not being able to find a home for their television broadcasts.