The Boston Celtics

[TheGoofster]

have now lost 18 games in a row!!! I didn't even know that you could lose that many games in a row if you had to. I am so glad that I don't watch the NBA anymore. (I check yahoo news everyday, and catch up on all sports headlines). In fact the last time I watched the NBA regularly was before the original DreamTeam.

I know that they are trying to get the first pick in the draft (Danny Ainge has practically come out and said so), but what does this say to all the fans who have paid money to watch them this year?

 

[Nickunited]

It hurts to hear your team is playing for a draft pick but as a fan of the New York Jets - who have won 1 game in a season i can say that the true fans will be fans. Not matter what.

 

[cardaway]

This is why IMO the NBA draft structure needs to be changed. Teams should not be rewarded for tanking it like this.

IMO they should make it such that every team that does not make the playoffs has an equal chance at the #1 pick. This increased number of balls (in the lottery) system is what drives teams like the Celtics to tank the season.

 

[Virgo10]

This is sad. Waaay back in the early 70's we suffered through a team like this. Then things got better but when they were bad, they were dreadful. We'd buy nose bleed seats and then be allowed to sit just about any where in the Garden. An average game pulled in maybe 5000 people.

But we still went nearly every week. Of course then Larry showed up and watching the Celtics became trendy.

 

[Bob Slydell]

This is why IMO the NBA draft structure needs to be changed. Teams should not be rewarded for tanking it like this.

IMO they should make it such that every team that does not make the playoffs has an equal chance at the #1 pick. This increased number of balls (in the lottery) system is what drives teams like the Celtics to tank the season.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I think the lottery system is fine. It's at least better than any other sports league, where it's simply done by pure record (albeit the NBA is the one league where one player can literally turn around a team).

There's still enough of a gamble in the possibility that the Celtics could have the worst record (still not a foregone conclusion as there are still some other really awful teams out there, e.g. Memphis) and not end up with the #1 pick anyways.

Besides, I don't know if they're necessarily tanking on purpose -- they're just really horrible. Nobody seems to think that Memphis is purposely tanking for some reason, and they have nearly the same record.

 

[cardaway]

But one player is not as likely to turn an entire team around in the other major sports.

And I agree this is hardly exclusive to the Celtics. As we get closer to the end of the season the challenge to lose the most games will be quite the battle, especially the struggle to make it look good in the process.

 

[Bob Slydell]

And I agree this is hardly exclusive to the Celtics. As we get closer to the end of the season the challenge to lose the most games will be quite the battle, especially the struggle to make it look good in the process.

The problem with the change you propose is you then have the probability that a team that's not totally horrible ends up with the #1 pick, thus starting up the whole conspiracy theory (e.g. the Knicks getting Patrick Ewing) folks who like to claim that the whole lottery system is rigged to benefit teams the NBA wants to see do well.

Very often, the worst team doesn't get the #1 pick. I do think, however, that the lottery should be changed so that the worst couple teams aren't guaranteed a certain draft pick. As it stands now, the worst the Celtics could do is what? The 3rd or 4th pick?

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Not that I follow the NBA that closely, but isn't Paul Pierce back from a long injury rest for the Celtics? If so, he should help them win at least a few more games.

 

[TheGoofster]

Besides, I don't know if they're necessarily tanking on purpose -- they're just really horrible. Nobody seems to think that Memphis is purposely tanking for some reason, and they have nearly the same record.

I don't really know just how bad they are (like I said before, I haven't really watched them in a long time), but I did read an article the other day where Danny Ainge basically said that he was shooting for the first pick. It mentioned that he instructed his coach to play more of the second stringers than the first to ensure fewer victories. I really do think that their goal is to tank this season as bad as possible.

 

[JMD]

Besides, I don't know if they're necessarily tanking on purpose -- they're just really horrible. Nobody seems to think that Memphis is purposely tanking for some reason, and they have nearly the same record.

I agree. I don't believe that any of those players or anyone in that organization is purposely trying to lose so they can get the #1 pick.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Not that I follow the NBA that closely, but isn't Paul Pierce back from a long injury rest for the Celtics? If so, he should help them win at least a few more games.

Yep, he just came back a couple days ago. Yesterday was his second game back, I believe.

 

[cardaway]

The problem with the change you propose is you then have the probability that a team that's not totally horrible ends up with the #1 pick, thus starting up the whole conspiracy theory (e.g. the Knicks getting Patrick Ewing) folks who like to claim that the whole lottery system is rigged to benefit teams the NBA wants to see do well.

Very often, the worst team doesn't get the #1 pick. I do think, however, that the lottery should be changed so that the worst couple teams aren't guaranteed a certain draft pick. As it stands now, the worst the Celtics could do is what? The 3rd or 4th pick?

There is another plan out there that gives the team with the best record not making the playoffs the #1 pick. No lottery at all. The idea is it will insure that teams continue to play to win.

The only reason I don't like that plan is that IMO it will create a system where only a few teasm ever get any better and the really bad teams will only get worse. Like I think you do, I want the really bad teams to get a new player, even if it's only somebody for the fans to get excited about.

But the one thing I really like about the plan is the way it would keeps teams looking to win at the end of the season. Don't try and tell me there are not entire teams out there who watch their placement and the bottom of the standings and play accordingly.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Like I think you do, I want the really bad teams to get a new player, even if it's only somebody for the fans to get excited about.

Then again, I maybe a slightly biased Cavalier fan

But the one thing I really like about the plan is the way it would keeps teams looking to win at the end of the season. Don't try and tell me there are not entire teams out there who watch their placement and the bottom of the standings and play accordingly.

But even with that plan, there's still going to be some "gaming" going on. The teams that are close to the #8 spot, but know they stand no chance to go past the first round (e.g. 90% of the Eastern Conference), will lose at the end in order to get that #1 pick.

Heck, even within the playoff teams, there's some of that. Last year, teams were tanking games down the stretch to drop to the #6 or #7 seed, thus pitting them up against the winners of weaker divisions instead of being the #5 seed and playing the second team from a strong division.

I wish there was a way to stop all of that, but no matter what plan someone comes up with, there's ways around it. I'm of the mindset that karma's a you-know-what. Lose intentionally to try to improve your team and you will likely lose out anyways.

 

[TheGoofster]

Here in Mexico they do something a little different with their soccer (futbol) leagues. They actually have three or four different leagues (the top league is for the best teams, next league down for the next best teams, etc..) The way they keep all of their teams playing the best they can is by having the two worst teams at the end of the season drop down to the league below it, and the two best teams go up to the league up above. What this means is much better TV broadcast, better sponsors, etc... It really makes all the teams keep playing their best, regardless of their record to ensure that they don't drop down to the lower league.
It's too bad that the NBA (and perhaps other sports) didn't have some kind of incentive like this. You tank your season and suddenly you are no longer in the NBA the next year. You can work your way back in, but you will lose all major TV rights, and sponsorships for at least one year.

 

[cardaway]

But even with that plan, there's still going to be some "gaming" going on. The teams that are close to the #8 spot, but know they stand no chance to go past the first round (e.g. 90% of the Eastern Conference), will lose at the end in order to get that #1 pick.

Heck, even within the playoff teams, there's some of that. Last year, teams were tanking games down the stretch to drop to the #6 or #7 seed, thus pitting them up against the winners of weaker divisions instead of being the #5 seed and playing the second team from a strong division.

I wish there was a way to stop all of that, but no matter what plan someone comes up with, there's ways around it. I'm of the mindset that karma's a you-know-what. Lose intentionally to try to improve your team and you will likely lose out anyways.

I don't think anybody would deny teams do what they can to get in the right position for the playoffs, but isn't that a totally different situation?

As for purposely losing to get OUT of the playoffs, I really doubt that would ever happen. Even as it stands, the team that loses has a shot at one of the first picks. Do you think anybody has ever done this?

 

[cardaway]

Here in Mexico they do something a little different with their soccer (futbol) leagues. They actually have three or four different leagues (the top league is for the best teams, next league down for the next best teams, etc..) The way they keep all of their teams playing the best they can is by having the two worst teams at the end of the season drop down to the league below it, and the two best teams go up to the league up above. What this means is much better TV broadcast, better sponsors, etc... It really makes all the teams keep playing their best, regardless of their record to ensure that they don't drop down to the lower league.
It's too bad that the NBA (and perhaps other sports) didn't have some kind of incentive like this. You tank your season and suddenly you are no longer in the NBA the next year. You can work your way back in, but you will lose all major TV rights, and sponsorships for at least one year.

Interesting concept, but not something you can just throw into the supposedly equal franchise situation that exists in every major sport in America.

If this is the way they would have started the leagues, I think it could have worked.

 

[TheGoofster]

Interesting concept, but not something you can just throw into the supposedly equal franchise situation that exists in every major sport in America.

If this is the way they would have started the leagues, I think it could have worked.

Well, how about this for an idea. They cancell all major sports for a year or two. They take that time to reformat all the leagues (perhaps adding the you lose and you're out for a year policy). They put in place salary caps that limit players to much, much small wages (perhaps include more incentive based salaries) AND they insist that owners can only charge a fraction of the price for tickets to the games (they can still make all the profit they want from merchandising).
In fact I think I might write a letter to all the major sports commisioners suggesting this. I'm sure they will love the idea.

 

[cardaway]

Well, how about this for an idea. They cancell all major sports for a year or two. They take that time to reformat all the leagues (perhaps adding the you lose and you're out for a year policy). They put in place salary caps that limit players to much, much small wages (perhaps include more incentive based salaries) AND they insist that owners can only charge a fraction of the price for tickets to the games (they can still make all the profit they want from merchandising).
In fact I think I might write a letter to all the major sports commisioners suggesting this. I'm sure they will love the idea.

I think they are interesting ideas but nothing you can force into existing leagues. These franchises were created and purchased with the idea that each franchise was equal to the rest. You can't just throw somthing into the mix that changes all that on every level. You would be destroying the value of some teams and there would be lawsuits.

 

[TheGoofster]

I think they are interesting ideas but nothing you can force into existing leagues.

You only say that because you don't know me very well. Just you wait and watch. Five years from now I will have all the leagues reformatted to the way I think is best. Once I get going on an idea, nothing can stop me.

Oh wait, what's today? Monday? Never mind. I don't feel like doing anything today.