Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
Losing on purpose https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=83415 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Rod [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Losing on purpose |
Apparently the editorial position of WSCR is that only the two or three teams who appear able to win a championship should try. Everyone else should be tanking for a draft choice. If it actually comes to this, sports will be over. The one silver lining in that case will be that Matt Spiegel will no longer have a job. |
Author: | jimmypasta [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
+1 (as usual!) |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Don't be a drama queen. You're oversimplifying it. |
Author: | FavreFan [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
I agree with JORR and disagree that he's oversimplifying it. Good nomination. |
Author: | Rod [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Kirkwood wrote: Don't be a drama queen. You're oversimplifying it. How's that? The very nature of sport depends on the concept that competitor is actually doing his- or its- best to compete. Do you want to watch a team tank? It's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. |
Author: | Mr. Reason [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Kirkwood wrote: Don't be a drama queen. You're oversimplifying it. Yes, Rodney. It's my understanding, you must first monetize it. |
Author: | Rod [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Mr. Reason wrote: Kirkwood wrote: Don't be a drama queen. You're oversimplifying it. Yes, Rodney. It's my understanding, you must first monetize it. It will be very difficult to monetize a sport in which 80% of the teams are tanking. Or do Matt Spiegel and dan bernstein believe that the only teams that should hold such a philosophy are the ones they root for? |
Author: | Don Tiny [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Mr. Reason wrote: Kirkwood wrote: Don't be a drama queen. You're oversimplifying it. Yes, Rodney. It's my understanding, you must first monetize it. It will be very difficult to monetize a sport in which 80% of the teams are tanking. Or do Matt Spiegel and dan bernstein believe that the only teams that should hold such a philosophy are the ones they root for? So what you're saying is that we should get them both some Milwaukee Bucks gear? |
Author: | jimmypasta [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:58 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Kirkwood wrote: Don't be a drama queen. You're oversimplifying it. How's that? The very nature of sport depends on the concept that competitor is actually doing his- or its- best to compete. Do you want to watch a team tank? It's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. |
Author: | pittmike [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
This is my view of the NBA sort of. Not that they tank it but like 4 out of how many teams even have a chance. |
Author: | jimmypasta [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
pittmike wrote: This is my view of the NBA sort of. Not that they tank it but like 4 out of how many teams even have a chance. Exactly! That's why the NBA will never be a threat to the NFL or MLB. There is just no hope for "Cinderella" teams. |
Author: | Hatchetman [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Problem is so many teams have essentially zero chance. Stupid leagues (not Ligues) is the problem. |
Author: | FavreFan [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:14 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Hatchetman wrote: Problem is so many teams have essentially zero chance. Stupid leagues (not Ligues) is the problem. It's not the league being stupid. It's a flaw(if you wish to call it that) inherent to 5 on 5 basketball. I'm not sure what the league can do about it short of making the courts twice as big and playing 12 on 12. What would you do to fix it? |
Author: | Nas [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
FavreFan wrote: I agree with JORR and disagree that he's oversimplifying it. Good nomination. Agreed |
Author: | Mr. Reason [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Hatchetman wrote: Problem is so many teams have essentially zero chance. Stupid leagues (not Ligues) is the problem. Isn't that the case in all professional team sports? |
Author: | Hatchetman [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Mr. Reason wrote: Hatchetman wrote: Problem is so many teams have essentially zero chance. Stupid leagues (not Ligues) is the problem. Isn't that the case in all professional team sports? No. somebody just showed showed the data here - since 1980, only 10 franchises have won an NBA title vs 18 in baseball. that's a pretty big difference. Obviously, they could alter the rules to make it more a team game and less reliant on 1-2 guys. |
Author: | FavreFan [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Hatchetman wrote: Mr. Reason wrote: Hatchetman wrote: Problem is so many teams have essentially zero chance. Stupid leagues (not Ligues) is the problem. Isn't that the case in all professional team sports? No. somebody just showed showed the data here - since 1980, only 10 franchises have won an NBA title vs 18 in baseball. that's a pretty big difference. Obviously, they could alter the rules to make it more a team game and less reliant on 1-2 guys. What rules? |
Author: | pittmike [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Hatchetman wrote: Mr. Reason wrote: Hatchetman wrote: Problem is so many teams have essentially zero chance. Stupid leagues (not Ligues) is the problem. Isn't that the case in all professional team sports? No. somebody just showed showed the data here - since 1980, only 10 franchises have won an NBA title vs 18 in baseball. that's a pretty big difference. Obviously, they could alter the rules to make it more a team game and less reliant on 1-2 guys. College basketball does fine as a team game and not every champ is the one with the one and done guy. Obviously, this is what NBA wants big stars for tv money. Screw the fans in the assorted cities? |
Author: | pittmike [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
I would guess NHL has the most random chance of any team winning followed by MLB and the NFL. |
Author: | Mr. Reason [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Hatchetman wrote: Mr. Reason wrote: Hatchetman wrote: Problem is so many teams have essentially zero chance. Stupid leagues (not Ligues) is the problem. Isn't that the case in all professional team sports? No. somebody just showed showed the data here - since 1980, only 10 franchises have won an NBA title vs 18 in baseball. that's a pretty big difference. Obviously, they could alter the rules to make it more a team game and less reliant on 1-2 guys. I'm basketball one player can make a difference. Not so much in baseball. I stand by my statement. |
Author: | pittmike [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
FavreFan wrote: Hatchetman wrote: Mr. Reason wrote: Hatchetman wrote: Problem is so many teams have essentially zero chance. Stupid leagues (not Ligues) is the problem. Isn't that the case in all professional team sports? No. somebody just showed showed the data here - since 1980, only 10 franchises have won an NBA title vs 18 in baseball. that's a pretty big difference. Obviously, they could alter the rules to make it more a team game and less reliant on 1-2 guys. What rules? Allow true zone defense? Maybe actually call double dribble, traveling and offensive fouls on the "stars? |
Author: | Hatchetman [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
you could make all kinds of minor changes. 5 fouls, closer 3 point line, hand checking, defensive 3 seconds, I could go on all day. |
Author: | FavreFan [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Hatchetman wrote: you could make all kinds of minor changes. 5 fouls, closer 3 point line, hand checking, defensive 3 seconds, I could go on all day. Except for the 5 fouls thing(which wouldn't really make a difference since star players are rarely in foul trouble), the rest of your list has already been tinkered with in the NBA with the same results. As I said, it's a problem inherent to basketball. You can't negate the impact of a single player through rule changes. |
Author: | Hatchetman [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
FavreFan wrote: Hatchetman wrote: you could make all kinds of minor changes. 5 fouls, closer 3 point line, hand checking, defensive 3 seconds, I could go on all day. Except for the 5 fouls thing(which wouldn't really make a difference since star players are rarely in foul trouble), the rest of your list has already been tinkered with in the NBA with the same results. As I said, it's a problem inherent to basketball. You can't negate the impact of a single player through rule changes. The rules have always been further modified to FAVOR the stars, which the NBA figured would make them more money. When the Pistons won with a bunch of "nobodys" the league got pissed and made all sorts of new rules to prevent that from happening again. |
Author: | pittmike [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
In watching my kids play basketball I noticed a rule I either forgot about or never knew. A ball handler cannot possess the ball for more than 5 seconds without passing or shooting it. Is there that rule in the NBA? Is it enforced? |
Author: | FavreFan [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
Hatchetman wrote: FavreFan wrote: Hatchetman wrote: you could make all kinds of minor changes. 5 fouls, closer 3 point line, hand checking, defensive 3 seconds, I could go on all day. Except for the 5 fouls thing(which wouldn't really make a difference since star players are rarely in foul trouble), the rest of your list has already been tinkered with in the NBA with the same results. As I said, it's a problem inherent to basketball. You can't negate the impact of a single player through rule changes. The rules have always been further modified to FAVOR the stars, which the NBA figured would make them more money. When the Pistons won with a bunch of "nobodys" the league got pissed and made all sorts of new rules to prevent that from happening again. No. The rules were changed in favor of offense because defenses were getting too good and nobody wants to watch a 70-68 NBA game, stars or no stars. When the league had lower scoring, uglier games there wasn't some magical equalizing effect. It was still a top heavy league that just wasn't as aesthetically pleasing. |
Author: | FavreFan [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
pittmike wrote: In watching my kids play basketball I noticed a rule I either forgot about or never knew. A ball handler cannot possess the ball for more than 5 seconds without passing or shooting it. Is there that rule in the NBA? Is it enforced? That's not an NBA rule. Hinrich would be out of the league tomorrow if it was adopted. |
Author: | pittmike [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
I don't know if the score matters. You can watch Charlotte and Toronto play a 120-118 game and neither has any chance to really compete in the playoffs. It is probably more the cap and other things that really prevent trades and player movement from year to year. What other league do you have to trade for a guy just for expiring contract or cut him 8 hours after you get him because it made the trade work for the cap? |
Author: | Hatchetman [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
I disconcur with the FarveFan but i'm not going to go back and forth BRick style. All I know is Kobe and Shaq LOST so they changed the rules. |
Author: | Nas [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Losing on purpose |
The new CBA is an attempt by the NBA to create parity. Not allowing star players to leave so easily and really penalizing teams that go over the salary cap. It may make a difference in 3 to 5 years. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |