Could the NBA Playoffs go "Mad"?

The always solid Josh Robbins of the Orlando Sentinel lays out one NBA executives idea about shaking up the NBA playoffs.

Apparently a pregame conversation between Denver's vice president of basketball operations Mark Warkentien and a couple of the Clippers video coordinators Raman Sposato and Seth Cooper led to the idea of sort of a pre-playoff between the bottom eight teams in each conference.

Robbins writes:

Sposato and Cooper offered an idea: What if each conference held a single-elimination tournament for its bottom eight teams after the regular season to determine its final playoff seed?

Warkentien found the idea so interesting that he submitted it last fall to his fellow members on the NBA competition committee. The proposal addresses an issue that has bedeviled the league for years: How do you make the last month of the regular season worthwhile for fans whose favorite teams only will end up in the draft lottery?

"It would give guys a reason to come back [from injury]," Warkentien said of his proposal. "It gives the guys something to play for. It gives the fans a reason to come to the game rather than watch it on TV. I'm not saying it's the end-all, be-all in the form we proposed. But that seemed to be a good place to start."

The NBA playoffs doesn't need much fixing, if any. The intensity is great but the refereeing usually sucks.
82 games is long enough to determine who should be in the playoffs.
They don't need a gimmicky NCAA play-in format.

The dumbest thing is the lottery itself. The worst team should have the best pick, etc. Almost every year the team with the worst record does not get the #1 pick. Was it fair to Sacramento to get the #4 pick when they had the worst record last year? Not at all. The same might be true of NJ this year. If they get the #3 or 4 pick, it will be a disgrace.

tjmakz wrote:The dumbest thing is the lottery itself. The worst team should have the best pick, etc. Almost every year the team with the worst record does not get the #1 pick. Was it fair to Sacramento to get the #4 pick when they had the worst record last year? Not at all. The same might be true of NJ this year. If they get the #3 or 4 pick, it will be a disgrace.

But if that were the case, Tjmakz, teams trying to get the #1 pick just wouldn't try winning games once they know they aren't making it to the playoffs.

The way it is now, teams at the bottom of conference can give up on trying to win games in hope of getting a good number come lottery time, but it isn't a for sure thing that they will get that certain drafting number. You don't see a lot of teams doing this, but I think if the lottery was done your way, teams at the bottom of the conference each year would start to do this.

tjmakz wrote:The NBA playoffs doesn't need much fixing, if any. The intensity is great but the refereeing usually sucks.
82 games is long enough to determine who should be in the playoffs.
They don't need a gimmicky NCAA play-in format.

I agree with you on this, however.

BrandonBanks$$$ wrote:

tjmakz wrote:The dumbest thing is the lottery itself. The worst team should have the best pick, etc. Almost every year the team with the worst record does not get the #1 pick. Was it fair to Sacramento to get the #4 pick when they had the worst record last year? Not at all. The same might be true of NJ this year. If they get the #3 or 4 pick, it will be a disgrace.

But if that were the case, Tjmakz, teams trying to get the #1 pick just wouldn't try winning games once they know they aren't making it to the playoffs.

The way it is now, teams at the bottom of conference can give up on trying to win games in hope of getting a good number come lottery time, but it isn't a for sure thing that they will get that certain drafting number. You don't see a lot of teams doing this, but I think if the lottery was done your way, teams at the bottom of the conference each year would start to do this.

All 3 of the other major sports give the #1 pick to the worst team. MLB, NHL and the NFL aren't worried that teams are tanking it at the end of the year.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers started this year off 1-12 then won at Seattle and at New Orleans. Do you think they contemplated losing to get a higher draft pick? No, it doesn't happen.
More then half of the NJ Nets probably won't be on the team next year. Do you really think they will stop trying to win to secure the #1 pick?

The idea of the lottery is so that the worst teams in the league wouldn't just roll over and lose every game just so they could get the worst record and the #1 pick. You still see teams tanking towards the end, but it'd be worse if they had no chance at the #1 pick if they didn't finish dead last. By giving them a mathematical possibility of getting the #1 pick even if they finish 7th from the bottom, it makes them continue to play hard right to the end. Where you see more gamesmanship is around the 1st through 4th pick (the lottery sets the order of picks 1-3, and after that the teams pick in their order of previous season's regi;ar season record).

At least, that's the theory behind it.

bob

.

bobheckler wrote:The idea of the lottery is so that the worst teams in the league wouldn't just roll over and lose every game just so they could get the worst record and the #1 pick. You still see teams tanking towards the end, but it'd be worse if they had no chance at the #1 pick if they didn't finish dead last. By giving them a mathematical possibility of getting the #1 pick even if they finish 7th from the bottom, it makes them continue to play hard right to the end. Where you see more gamesmanship is around the 1st through 4th pick (the lottery sets the order of picks 1-3, and after that the teams pick in their order of previous season's regi;ar season record).

At least, that's the theory behind it.

bob

.

bob,

See my last comment about this. No other pro sport makes a mockery out of their draft like the NBA does.

TJ, I agree that the teams should pick in inverse order of their W/L percentages. I wish the Celtics could do it retroactively in the case of Tim Duncan. lol.

Do you have any ideas how to deal with the perceptions (if not the fact) that selected teams would then "tank" in order to upgrade their picks?

Sam

Sam wrote:TJ, I agree that the teams should pick in inverse order of their W/L percentages. I wish the Celtics could do it retroactively in the case of Tim Duncan. lol.

Do you have any ideas how to deal with the perceptions (if not the fact) that selected teams would then "tank" in order to upgrade their picks?

Sam

Sam,

I think the NBA should make it clear to teams that if they find any evidence of 'tanking' they will lose draft picks and will be fined $1m minimum depending on the severity of what occured.
How would an organized tank job even be orchestrated? Would it be a mandate from the owner/GM/coach? I would think at some point a disgruntled or honest player would spill the beans.

As a Lakers fan, my team has never been burned by the NBA's ping pong ball side show, but I feel bad for the teams that really need and deserve the number 1 pick and get the number 3 or 4. They have a luxury tax in place that helps a few of the lower payroll teams which are usually the ones in the lottery. Take it one step further and let the records dictate the draft order.

TJ,

I don't like conspiracy theories in general, but I guess tanking would involve some collaboration between the front office and the coach. The coach has one important tool at his disposal—the rotation and substitutions. It would not be difficult for a coach of a poor team to give inflated minutes to lesser players or strange player combinations, with the explanation that he's trying to assess their potential and "develop" them.

During the last pre-KG season, Doc was often accused of doing it by fans and media alike. I never bought it because the Celtics had so many kids while losing 300+ player-games to injury, that I didn't think he had much of a choice.

It SOUNDS good to threaten teams with tanking penalties, but the tough part is uncovering irrefutable evidence. Intent is one of the most difficult things to prove. In fact, now that I think about it, the scheme wouldn't have to go any farther than the general manager. He could demand that the coach play certain players or combinations for the stated purposes mentioned above or to showcase players for summer trades. Perfectly legitimate requests. The players might actually contribute unintentionally by developing negative attitudes due to the frustration of continually losing.

The lack of knowledge we fans have of what's really going on behind the scenes can be staggering.

Sam

Hell have a lottery for the BAD err (non playoff) teams (oh yeah they do that) but giving them ping pong balls for the number of wins they have. With a minimum # of say the average of the worst five teams. Better teams will have slightly better chance and there is nother wrong with that.

no need to tank then and all will still have a chance at #1.

Makes all wins important.

beat

beat,

So you think the better teams should have more ping pong balls and a better chance of getting a better draft pick?