Tanking a game

[StockedAndGagged]

So its nearly playoff time, and the NBA is still trying to figure out the standings. A very curious situation happened last night, which makes me curious as to what everyone thinks about it.

So the Clippers and Grizzlies played last night. This game was to determine who would be seeded 5th or 6th in the playoffs. Seems simple, right?

Wrong.

Because of the strange rules of pro basketball, the division winners recieve the top 3 seeds in their conference, and then the rest of the seedings go by win-loss record. This meant that the Dallas Mavericks, a team with 60+ wins (which was second in the conference) got the 4th seed, and the Denver Nuggets (44-37 on the season) was seeded third.

This meant that both the Clippers and the Grizzlies stood to gain more if they LOST their game than if they won. Being seeded 5th meant the Mavericks and most likely elimination, whereas a 6 seed gave them the Nuggets and a good chance of making it into the next round.

So the question on most sports announcers minds was "Would one of the two teams intentionally lose the game so that they could get the better playoff seed?"

This was called (on ESPN) tanking the game. My question to y'all is,

Is tanking something that should be done? Should the commissioner of the NBA have taken a stand against either team tanking, or are teams free to play by the rules of the league, no matter how strange they might be?

(Should have posted this yesterday, as the game has already taken place. Both teams kept their best players off the court, and the Clippers mainly played with reserves. Regardless, it was a close, rather competitive game that the Grizzlies won.)

Comments? I'm curious to see how everyone feels

CH

 

[milagros317]

Actually, the fans of the home team can do it for them, so the players are not faced with the ethical dilemma. That is, the fans of the home team merely need to keep throwing garbage onto the court until the referees delcare the game forfeited. 😛

Seriously, when the rules allow for a team to benefit by losing, then the rules need to changed.

 

[Goodieluver]

Milagros, every sports league benefits losing teams cuz they recieve higher draft picks, unless your the cubs where u have several 90+ losing seasons and show jack squat for it

But no team loses intentionally, its unprofessional and unless you dont show up, u cant intentionally lose. It also screws with your future in the sense of stats, how you are viewed, etc etc.

This happened durin the nfl season with houston, if they would delib lose the end of the season so they could guarentee the 1st round pick. Gary sheffield has the image of bein a POS player cuz he "didnt play hard" cuz he wanted out of milwaukee, now look at him, yes hes on the yankees but has no ring to show for it

 

[Mitchell]

Chtkl brings up a good point. I'm not sure any coach would actually tell his club to "tank" a game. The only thing I can see happening in a case like this is the head coach perhaps resting people more than he would, to prepare for the playoffs, placing the playoffs as more importance than winning the final regular season game. Bobby Cox routinely does this with the Braves, and has even in a couple of years, where winning the final game, or series, meant a different playoff opponent, seeding, or opening game venue, as Cox wants to keep everyone rested for the playoffs.
Back to the basketball question. While it seems unfair for Denver to get a better seeding as a 44 win team than does Dallas as a 60 win team, unfortunately, due to the unbalanced division strength, the game rewards division winners, even if they are 50 or less win teams. Where the 60 wins does help, I believe, is in the second round, where if I'm not mistaken, playoff seeding and home court are determined by record, and not division winner.
The whole basketball seeding is strange and sometimes unfair, and can be more so and even more confusing since the league switched to more divisions in each conference. I dont agree with it, but unfortunately, those are the rules.

Mitch

 

[primetime]

actually, the Clippers did in fact "tank" the game. oh, they wont admit it, but they did. they rested their starters. the game was played with their reserves. Elton Brand told the media that other teams (i.e. Detroit, San Antonio, Miami) were resting their starters and they merely did the same thing.

BULLSHIT. those teams he mentioned were resting starters because they had NOTHING to gain or lose by playing the game. they were already "locked" in their playoff positions whether they lost or won. however, the Clippers had something to play for. that is complete bullshit on what they did.

how would you feel if you were the Denver Nuggets. a team PURPOSELY tried to lose a game so they could play YOU? if that doesnt motivate you, nothing ever will. i hope the Clippers lose in the first round. i will laugh my ass off and enjoy their debacle.

what kind of crap is that? losing a game on purpose. true, the NBA rule is stupid, but there is supposed to be a certain ethic when playing sports. you play to WIN. there is a reason why the Clipper organization never won ANYTHING. i wish they move out of Los Angeles because they give the city a bad name.

 

[StockedAndGagged]

While I will justify Brand in that a lot of teams also rested their starters, I will say that its a bit more suspect when the team who stands to gain more by losing does it. I still fault the rules, and hope a change comes along, even if its just threatening fines and suspensions in any future situations of that nature.

The Clippers haven't won in a while though, so if they beat the Nuggets, I'll be happy for them. It's not like they're going to make it past the Suns, Mavs or Spurs anyway

CH

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

this has been a big topic down here in Dallas.If the Spurs & Mavs make it to the 2nd round , they will play each other.This is a big injustice for both teams.I have no problem if teams rest there star players as long as there is nothing to gain or lose.Dirk did not suit up last night, but there was nothing on the line

 

[Mitchell]

Prime brings up a valid point. However, Prime, look at it this way. Brand has to say what he did, to make resting whatever players they did seem legitimate. He can't just go on TV, and say:" Oh, yah, we purposely rested Joe Schmo or whoever because we want to tank this game, and play a different team." With all the money these athletes earn, and the money the fans pay to see these games, a statement like that would be unethical.
If this is in fact a problem, I purpose a rule of compromise. Say, for instance, a team that has nothing to lose or gain in playoff position is playing the last couple of games of the regular season, and there are other teams still affected by positions that havent been settled, say 7th or 8th place in the conference, whether or not a team will make the playoffs, or jockeying for other positions, the commissioner of whatever sport should set a rule that teams who have already clinched playoff spots or positions, if other teams havent, would be required to play their starters, say, half the game, maybe 20 or 24 minutes total out of 48, say 10 to 12 minutes a half. This way, at least there would be a half hearted effort that the team is trying to win, the team not affected by playoff position, tunes up their starters for the playoffs, and the other teams that havent clinched or might be affected, will at least have the benefit of having the best players in there for half the game. It would be like a starting pitcher on a team that has already clinched playoff spots, going five innings, or a certain number of pitches, the last weekend of the regular season. The Braves, again have done this. I saw the case in 1995, where, in the regular season finale at Shea Stadium in NY, that I happened to have been at, with the division clinched long before, John Smoltz pitched five shutout innings, and then Cox took him out.
I think my compromise may work. This way, it is fair. No "tanking", the starters play part of the time, with a chance to win the game, and the other teams that havent clinched, dont feel like they are cheated. What do people think of my idea? Any thoughts?

Mitch

 

[primetime]

they really should "seed" the teams according to records. the sad thing is, the 8th place Sacramento Kings would have been #5 in the Eastern Conference. i say, get the best 16 teams and let them go at it.

the Clippers might regret "tanking" that game. if the Nuggets decide to play basketball, they can beat the Clippers. the Clippers have improved a lot, but they are still.......the Clippers. i wouldnt be surprised if they did lose.

an intriguing matchup would be a possible Lakers-Clippers matchup in the 2nd round. it isnt that far fetched. the Lakers have been playing extremely well as of late and with Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant, an upset of the Suns is possible.

i still think the Clippers should be fined or something because tanking that game was complete bullshit. i really hope they lose....

 

[Mitchell]

Prime, you make another very interesting suggestion about the best 16 teams according to record. The problem I see is this:. Usually, the Western Conference has been much stronger than the East, at least in recent years, since the end of the Bulls reign, with all the Lakers and Spurs titles lately. It would seem to me that under a system like that, you might well have 10 or 11 Western Conference teams, and only five Eastern ones. If you had two Western Conference teams meeting in the NBA Finals, they would likely be much more familar with each other, having met four or five times a season, then the two that opposing conferences meet now.
I'm thinking something else might work. This might cheat the fans a bit, but what if, they shrink the teams that make the playoffs from eight teams to the best six teams. This way, you dont have sub 500 teams making the playoffs in the Eastern Conference, and, to make it more intriguing, do it like football, where the most top teams, say the top two in each conference, get a first round bye . Football has done it that way for years. You could even shrink the playoffs to a best of four teams in each conference, get rid of the first round, and just have conference semi finals, conference finals, and NBA finals. This way, only the top eight teams in the NBA are playing in May, and you dont have these mediocre teams playing in the playoffs.
None of this will probably ever happen. Think of it, basketball has expanded the playoffs lately, by making the first round series seven games instead of the five game series it was for so many years. You make great points, but unfortunately, I dont see the NBA Gods being logical, or implementing any of this.

Mitch