Bigs23
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,581
That's a detail to be worked out. Do we think teams would tank the play-in games to get the higher picks?
2025-2026 NBA Thread
- Thread starter duluoz
- Start date
- Replies: 406
- Views: 15K
- Sports
- Messages
- 3,451
Ooh. I have an idea to prevent tanking. It looks like the NBA is going to expand to 32 teams as of the 2028-29 season. Once that happens, have a playoff among the teams that don’t make the playoffs (the bottom 6 teams in each conference + the 2 teams from each conference that don’t advance after the play-in series). Like the regular playoffs, it’s divided up by conference with seeding based on record (i.e., 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc.). Each series is a best-of-3 series with the higher seed getting home court advantage. The further a team goes in the playoff, the better it positions itself in the draft lottery. Thus, tanking is a bad idea if you want to increase chances of getting home court advantage. It’s also way for the NBA to increase revenue and give fans of bad teams something to get excited about.
- Messages
- 6,505
I’d guess so, especially in years where there is a high-level prospect waiting at the top of the draft.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,907
Most proposals to curb tanking end up negating the purpose of the draft.
The ultimate issue is that basketball is unique among major sports in how much value a single star player can provide. Even QBs pale in comparison to the impact a star player can provide.
It's virtually impossible to win a title without having one of the very best players in the league. I suppose you could say the Celtics in 24 didn't have an actual MVP candidate, but I can't remember a "team" winning a title since the Pistons in 04. By "team" I mean no player who stands out as a superstar but the team instead relies on having very good players at all positions.
The ultimate issue is that basketball is unique among major sports in how much value a single star player can provide. Even QBs pale in comparison to the impact a star player can provide.
It's virtually impossible to win a title without having one of the very best players in the league. I suppose you could say the Celtics in 24 didn't have an actual MVP candidate, but I can't remember a "team" winning a title since the Pistons in 04. By "team" I mean no player who stands out as a superstar but the team instead relies on having very good players at all positions.
Bigs23
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,581
And the Celts had 2 top 15 types.
The 2014 spurs with Duncan/Parker/young Kawhi/Manu is in the conversation. Duncan and Parker finished 12th in mvp voting and Duncan was third team all NBA.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,907
I suppose. But Duncan was a superstar by any measure. Same with Kawhi, even young Kawhi -- he didn't necessarily put up huge stats because there were so many great players around him, but he was already a star player and obviously he had star player talent.
It's true that they had the mentality of a team without superstars. It's also true they weren't nearly as top heavy as the Heat or the Celtics before them. But they had a lot of talent.