[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Harsh penalties for tanking
Author Thread
knicks1248
Posts: 37528
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
2/28/2018  11:12 AM
I'm am so glad that ADAM SILVER has made this a serious issue. I think its absolutely the worse thing you can do is to tell your team to tank, and put a product on the floor that has no chance to win.

Its bad for development, its bad for the consumer who shells out thousands of dollars to come to a game, bad for culture, bad for environment, bad for veterans, bad for coaches. All that for a 10% chance at a top 3 pick that may turn out to be a trash of a player.

Its just so much bad in tanking

ES
AUTOADVERT
knicks1248
Posts: 37528
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
2/28/2018  11:34 AM
Mike Stobe / Getty Images Sport / Getty
Report: Silver memo stresses tanking will not be tolerated
John Chick Feb 28, 2018 10:46 AM
On Feb. 21, NBA commissioner Adam Silver sent a memo to all 30 franchises regarding tanking, according to USA TODAY's Sam Amick. The message was apparently clear: Teams not giving their best will not be tolerated.

"If we ever received evidence that players or coaches were attempting to lose or otherwise taking steps to cause any game to result otherwise than on its competitive merits, that conduct would be met with the swiftest and harshest response possible from the league office," Silver said in the letter, according to Amick.

The memo comes on the heels of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban opining that "losing is the best option" for his struggling team. Cuban was promptly fined $600,000 by the NBA, while players like Dirk Nowitzki decried the remarks.

"We have no basis at this time to conclude that the Mavericks team is giving anything less than its best effort on the court, and Mark has assured us that this is not the case," Silver said in the memo. "But even a suggestion that such conduct could be occurring is obviously damaging to our game, as it creates a perception of impropriety."

The league has taken preventative steps over the years to combat the theory that teams out of the playoff hunt will not give 100 percent in games to increase their draft lottery odds. The most egregious example, the Philadelphia 76ers from 2013-16, clearly suited up non-NBA caliber players at times - ultimately leading to former general manager Sam Hinkie's exit.

While it won't start until next year, the three teams with the worst records will share a 14 percent chance of winning the top pick in the draft. Up until and including this season, the NBA's worst team has a 25 percent chance of landing the No. 1 pick through the lottery.

"The integrity of the competition on the playing court is the cornerstone of our league," Silver said. "We must do everything in our power to protect the actual and perceived integrity of the game."

ES
Vmart
Posts: 30733
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
2/28/2018  12:25 PM
I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.
fishmike
Posts: 48816
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/28/2018  12:43 PM
Vmart wrote:I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.
sure... and if the Knicks stink year after year and GS wins the lottery or a playoff team wins the lottery that makes sense?

Totally disagree. The worst teams should get the best picks because that is what they NEED. Its not about rewarding tanking. Its about trying to balance the league. Teams that are losing, tanking or not are doing so because they lack the talent to compete. Awarding that talent to teams that already has it makes sense? I dont think so at all.

newyorknewyork
Posts: 27999
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
2/28/2018  12:50 PM
Vmart wrote:I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.

IMO they need to more so target mediocrity. I believe up 5th seed down should have the best odds at winning the lottery.

Teams will be more willing to sign veteran players to push to be a competitive playoff team. So the player union would probably love the idea.

Teams would no long get stuck in that good enough to make playoffs but never good enough to advance stage. Then decide to tear it down and rebuild which happens about 98% of the time.

Believe it would be easier for teams to become better then it is now. I know the purpose of the lottery rewarding the worse teams are so every team eventually has a chance to be good. But the structure doesn't really create that. But if teams can work on at least getting to mediocre. Then under this system of 5th seed having the best odds. They can then be rewarded and have a better shot at being good. So signing those FAs or making trades in those win now moves wont kill a team as it does today. If you look at the heavy traffic for GMs that's it right there. So if they can actually be rewarded for it then imo would make a more competitive league.

This also should be paired up with the development of the G-league. Which should turn into a true minor league system foe the NBA. They maybe should require one yr mandatory for rookies. This would boost the G-league ratings and stature. Each team should have its own G-league and they should try to emulate baseball as much as they can that makes sense for NBA.

Also heard a great idea on the radio of the NBA eventually taking over AAU. Funding their own facilities. Providing the coaches. And taking control of the future NBA players which in turn is their future product.

Nalod
Posts: 55906
Alba Posts: 151
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
2/28/2018  1:31 PM
NO doubt the Gleague is moving towards a true minor league system. What that does to the NCAA feeder system if the Gleague ups its money I don't know.
Basically we talking about 10 kids max a year that could make an NBA team? 20 after a one and done?
Will the Gleague truly develop kids like they do in College?

The subject at hand is "Tanking" and there is no reality to change a team from doing what knicks are doing. Cuban got cute and opened his mouth. Wrong.
Fact is unless there is a clear no 1 generational pick that year tanking itself is not always a good pay off.
Personally I think a team that tanks or is so awful bad is a drag on attendance at home, but also on the road.
If a team, say avg's 17k a game and the sucky Mav's come in and just 12k show up they should compensate the team and its vendors for the short fall.
What Philly did for a few years was not cool. Perhaps teams with extended winning problems like Philly did should face league financial penalties.
Silver did insist on a change of "Process" as Stern did with dolan when it seemed he insisted Isiah go and Walsh be bought in.

Knicks1248: 1. Dolan should be more involved! 2. Why would any knick fan want pick 8, when that spot has a history of producing marginal NBA taken. (He prefers pick 9th instead)
Jmpasq
Posts: 23439
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/10/2012
Member: #4182

2/28/2018  8:46 PM
Tanking is not the problem the problem is teams like Golden state signing Kevin Durant. Take away the max contract and install a hard cap, talent will spread out
Check out My NFL Draft Prospect Videos at Youtube User Pages Jmpasq,JPdraftjedi,Jmpasqdraftjedi. www.Draftbreakdown.com
Panos
Posts: 27052
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
2/28/2018  8:55 PM
The lottery seeding should just ignore the last 30 games of the season.
BigDaddyG
Posts: 25962
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/22/2010
Member: #3049

2/28/2018  9:07 PM
Nalod wrote:NO doubt the Gleague is moving towards a true minor league system. What that does to the NCAA feeder system if the Gleague ups its money I don't know.
Basically we talking about 10 kids max a year that could make an NBA team? 20 after a one and done?
Will the Gleague truly develop kids
like they do in College?

I remember hearing from a Woj podcast with Jonathan Givony that it was night and day when comparing the lifestyle of a high level D1 prospect and a G-Leaguer. Let's say a guy commits to Kentucky. His nutrition, training routine etc. are already there for him at a high level. Plus, you have a guy like Calipari who knows what it will take to prepare him for the next level. Unless you're a two-way player or draft pick, a G-LEAGUER is dealing with a per diem that might make it hard to eat properly and travel schedule might make it hard for player development. These guys aren't on charter planes, but busses and commercial flights. If you're picking up a player from a team that's not your affiliate, you have no idea what the coach has told them. You might have re-train them. The G-League still needs to be tweaked before it's considered as a real alternative. I think most NBA execs would prefer it if a kid played high level D1.

Always... always remember: Less is less. More is more. More is better and twice as much is good too. Not enough is bad, and too much is never enough except when it's just about right. - The Tick
Nalod
Posts: 55906
Alba Posts: 151
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
2/28/2018  9:55 PM
BigDaddyG wrote:
Nalod wrote:NO doubt the Gleague is moving towards a true minor league system. What that does to the NCAA feeder system if the Gleague ups its money I don't know.
Basically we talking about 10 kids max a year that could make an NBA team? 20 after a one and done?
Will the Gleague truly develop kids
like they do in College?

I remember hearing from a Woj podcast with Jonathan Givony that it was night and day when comparing the lifestyle of a high level D1 prospect and a G-Leaguer. Let's say a guy commits to Kentucky. His nutrition, training routine etc. are already there for him at a high level. Plus, you have a guy like Calipari who knows what it will take to prepare him for the next level. Unless you're a two-way player or draft pick, a G-LEAGUER is dealing with a per diem that might make it hard to eat properly and travel schedule might make it hard for player development. These guys aren't on charter planes, but busses and commercial flights. If you're picking up a player from a team that's not your affiliate, you have no idea what the coach has told them. You might have re-train them. The G-League still needs to be tweaked before it's considered as a real alternative. I think most NBA execs would prefer it if a kid played high level D1.


For years I thought it would be best for an NBA team to draft a kid out of high school and then PAY FOR HIS COLLEGE AND A SET AMOUNT OF MONEY! Maybe have more than two rounds of the draft.
Maybe only allow college teams to have a set amount of kids at that time. Companies pay (reimburse) employees to get masters degree. If players get injured or don’t make it, they get a set amount of money which pays for a degree. Basically in the summer he can do “an internship” and play summer league and train.
I know there are conflicts of interest with coaches, the school, etc, but is there some wa to figure this out?

Knicks1248: 1. Dolan should be more involved! 2. Why would any knick fan want pick 8, when that spot has a history of producing marginal NBA taken. (He prefers pick 9th instead)
BigDaddyG
Posts: 25962
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/22/2010
Member: #3049

2/28/2018  10:31 PM
Nalod wrote:
BigDaddyG wrote:
Nalod wrote:NO doubt the Gleague is moving towards a true minor league system. What that does to the NCAA feeder system if the Gleague ups its money I don't know.
Basically we talking about 10 kids max a year that could make an NBA team? 20 after a one and done?
Will the Gleague truly develop kids
like they do in College?

I remember hearing from a Woj podcast with Jonathan Givony that it was night and day when comparing the lifestyle of a high level D1 prospect and a G-Leaguer. Let's say a guy commits to Kentucky. His nutrition, training routine etc. are already there for him at a high level. Plus, you have a guy like Calipari who knows what it will take to prepare him for the next level. Unless you're a two-way player or draft pick, a G-LEAGUER is dealing with a per diem that might make it hard to eat properly and travel schedule might make it hard for player development. These guys aren't on charter planes, but busses and commercial flights. If you're picking up a player from a team that's not your affiliate, you have no idea what the coach has told them. You might have re-train them. The G-League still needs to be tweaked before it's considered as a real alternative. I think most NBA execs would prefer it if a kid played high level D1.


For years I thought it would be best for an NBA team to draft a kid out of high school and then PAY FOR HIS COLLEGE AND A SET AMOUNT OF MONEY! Maybe have more than two rounds of the draft.
Maybe only allow college teams to have a set amount of kids at that time. Companies pay (reimburse) employees to get masters degree. If players get injured or don’t make it, they get a set amount of money which pays for a degree. Basically in the summer he can do “an internship” and play summer league and train.
I know there are conflicts of interest with coaches, the school, etc, but is there some wa to figure this out?


Good idea. Too bad Adidas got busted for it lol But yeah, you already have somewhat of infrastructure with the AAU and the sneaker companies. The NCAA and it's archaic way of thinking is the problem.
Always... always remember: Less is less. More is more. More is better and twice as much is good too. Not enough is bad, and too much is never enough except when it's just about right. - The Tick
TripleThreat
Posts: 21933
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 2/24/2012
Member: #3997

2/28/2018  11:19 PM
knicks1248 wrote:I'm am so glad that ADAM SILVER has made this a serious issue. I think its absolutely the worse thing you can do is to tell your team to tank, and put a product on the floor that has no chance to win.

Its bad for development, its bad for the consumer who shells out thousands of dollars to come to a game, bad for culture, bad for environment, bad for veterans, bad for coaches. All that for a 10% chance at a top 3 pick that may turn out to be a trash of a player.

Its just so much bad in tanking

He didn't make it a serious issue

1) He pointed out if he had EVIDENCE. Which means it will be nearly impossible to stop a team from tanking

2) He wrote a harshly worded MEMO. That's like writing a Post It and slapping it on the fridge. A MEMO. Are you kidding me? It's NOT A CHANGE TO THE CBA, so it's toothless.

Here's the thing about professional sports that many people just don't get. EVERY PLAYER can be, if you dig hard enough, hurt enough to not play. Every last one of them. If a team wants to "tank" they just have to pull players with minor/phantom injuries. Silver can't force an injured guy to play. He can't even force a guy faking an injury to play.

The lottery odds aren't changing because of tanking, they changed BECAUSE OF MARKET RESALE VALUATION OF NBA FRANCHISES.

Steve Ballmer paid 2 billion plus for the Clippers. In doing so, he spiked the valuation of ALL NBA FRANCHISES. Do you think in the near future, once the Clippers regain their picks again, that they are just going to magically win the lottery very soon? If you spend enough to spike the value of all NBA franchises, well, good chance you'll win the lottery very soon if you have a pick at all.

Raise the odds means it's less eyebrow raising when a team with a low percentage gets a hometown hero to market (Derrick Rose to Chicago)

Nothing actually changed. "Evidence" Do you know how hard it would be to get that and enforce that?

If Silver actually was going to do something, he would have explained what the penalties would be and how to define tanking from all the other years the NBA turned a blind eye to it.

Since you came on this board you have been way off in regards to trade value. - Briggs 7/28/2015
ToddTT
Posts: 21287
Alba Posts: 45
Joined: 8/30/2001
Member: #105
3/1/2018  12:02 AM
Panos wrote:The lottery seeding should just ignore the last 30 games of the season.

This sounds interesting.

Although I think it might just cause some teams to tank harder and earlier.

Jmpasq
Posts: 23439
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/10/2012
Member: #4182

3/1/2018  8:11 AM
Tanking has no effect on competitive balance. Right now 1 bad contract leaves the team screwed for 3 or 4 years without basically anyway to improve. A team will have no chance of making the playoffs for a few years so they might as well be bad. I do believe the percentage of ping pong ball needs to be tied to wins not place in the standings. If a team has 20 wins there should be no difference in ping pong balls with a team that had 25. Is a 30 win team that much better than a 22 win team? Odds should be similar. I don't think it should be even but look at the Knicks right now in the 9th spot 6 games behind the Magic. Should they really have a 60% chance at the top 3 why the Knicks have 6%, thats asinine.
Check out My NFL Draft Prospect Videos at Youtube User Pages Jmpasq,JPdraftjedi,Jmpasqdraftjedi. www.Draftbreakdown.com
Mike1989
Posts: 20094
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 2/21/2018
Member: #8627

3/1/2018  10:36 AM    LAST EDITED: 3/1/2018  11:58 AM
The best way to solve tanking is to put every lottery team's name in the hat and draw their names one by one. That system would prevent teams from tanking because they no longer get better odds and draft position by losing. As such teams would need to be smarter in order to complete their rebuilds.

Take the Denver Nuggets, their highest draft pick in recent history was Mudiay. If you look at their starting line up they have Jamal Murray who went 7th, Gary Harris went in the late teens, Wilson Chandler was picked in the 20s if memory serves, Paul Millsap was originally a second round pick, and so was Nikola Jokic. In fact they actually drafted Donovan Mitchell and traded him to Utah, and they also drafted Rudy Gobert and traded him to Utah as well! Now it is debatable how good this team will be, but they are proof that you can rebuild a team without top picks. Then there is the other example, Golden State, who built a title winning team without tanking to get their key players.

The other day I read an interesting article about the Chicago Bulls and whether they should tank and it kinda confirmed what I've always believed about tanking. Since the lottery was instated in 1985, only two teams have won with their number one pick on the roster: Spurs (David Robinson and Tim Duncan) and Cavs (Kyrie Irving and LeBron James). Another stat is that since 1985, teams have finished with 25 or fewer wins on 137 occasions. Only five teams have gone on to win a championship within five years (Spurs 1997/1999 title, Heat 2003/2006, Celtics 2007/2008, Cavaliers 2011/2016, Warriors 2012/2015). However, you can discount the Celtics because their title was not really draft related since they got theirs mostly because of the trades for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. As such, since 1985 tanking has 4-132-1 record.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/bulls-tanking-nba-history/

I think that article is worth reading for those that wants us to tank because it does prove that rebuilding a team takes more than tanking for top picks. It requires a team be smart in their scouting to best utilize their draft picks. It requires a team to be smart when signing players in free agency, and also what they give up in trades to acquire other players and/or assets. So despite there being a tanking problem in today's NBA, it doesn't actually mean that those teams are going to end up being successful five years from now.

How many years have the Sacramento Kings remained a lottery team since their last play off appearance? This will be their 12th season finishing in the lottery since 2005-06 and they don't look close to ending that run. The Phoenix Suns will be extending their run to eight, Orlando will be extending their run to six seasons, and the Lakers should be joining us by extending their run to five seasons. Arguably ourselves and the Lakers are the closest to breaking those droughts next season, but even that is on the basis that our existing group of players and any additions can get it done.

There seems to be this idea that tanking or losing lots of games because you aren't good enough will solve a team's problems, and in some cases it does because Minnesota will end their thirteen year play off drought this season and the 76ers should end their five year play off drought. But here are two things to consider: one, they haven't won anything yet (the Thunder never did despite having Westbrook, Durant, Harden and Ibaka); and two, despite their success in the players they have gained through tanking, it doesn't mean every team that tanks will gain franchise changing players. Dallas' owner has been pretty clear about tanking, but there is no guarantee they will land a franchise changing player in this year's draft, in fact they are more likely to draft a so-so player than a franchise changing one. So this idea that tanking is "the way" is rather naive and simplistic because more teams fail to rebuild successfully than those that do rebuild successfully, and generally those that do rebuild successfully don't rely on tanking alone to rebuild their teams because the good teams find talent throughout the draft and also in free agency and trades.

HofstraBBall
Posts: 22742
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/21/2015
Member: #6192

3/1/2018  10:53 AM
Vmart wrote:I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.

Isn't that kinda of what they do now with the bottom 10? They just add some more lotto balls to the worst teams.
Dont think putting ALL the teams in a lottery is a good idea. Is it fair to give a top team like GS or Houston the top pick? The the point of the draft was to give smaller markets a chance at a top player and to level off the playing field. Think those are both a good thing. Teams resting their stars at the end of the year takes place in every sport. Baseballs draft does not have as much impact as the NBA yet teams rest all their stars once they are out of playoff run. Think the complaint is over blown.

fishmike Posts: 48006 Alba Posts: 1 Joined: 7/19/2002 Member: #298 USA 6/23/2016 12:35 PM fishmike worte" The dream? Would be Pg Rose SG GPII SF Durant PF Melo C Noah Bench: KP, Langston, KOQ, Clyde Frazier
Nalod
Posts: 55906
Alba Posts: 151
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
3/1/2018  11:42 AM
Mike1989, good job bringing stats to a forgotten concept.
Only twice can I recall two specific tanks: The Celtics when Pitino went all in for Duncan and Cav's with Lebron.
In most Cases league MVP's are not no. 1 picks. Nash? Durant was taken after Oden! Westbook? Harden? Etc.
Few generational players are apparent early on. By that the best prospects go in a one and done. Timmy was a 4 year player. Lebron was something else entirely.
Even the GOAT, Mr Jordan was not taken first. Sure he was well thought of, but not like what he became!!!
Dr J was nobody out of UMASS. NBA has a long history of non no. 1's becoming greats.
Knicks1248: 1. Dolan should be more involved! 2. Why would any knick fan want pick 8, when that spot has a history of producing marginal NBA taken. (He prefers pick 9th instead)
TripleThreat
Posts: 21933
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 2/24/2012
Member: #3997

3/1/2018  1:20 PM
Mike1989 wrote:The best way to solve tanking is to....


.... change the dynamic of the entire talent pool.

No matter how you change the odds, there is a real and consistent talent scarcity at the NBA level.

1) The league talent pool is HEIGHT DEPENDENT. How many American males are even 6 feet tall or over? ( 12 percent) Eliminate all those out of the baseline need age range. Eliminate those with health issues, people in jail, mentally ill, etc.

2) The league talent pool is ATHLETICISM DEPENDENT AGAINST A HARD FLOOR. So take the pool from Category 1, which is narrow, less than 1 percent. Then wipe out anyone who cannot function athletically at the NBA level.

Changing the odds doesn't change the fact that maybe 1-2 impact players show up every draft. Maybe. Most teams don't have access to those players.

You cannot make people grow taller or faster , not at the rate needed by the NBA.

Here's a social problem no one wants to talk about. The core of the talent in the NBA, look at the demographic. When they marry or have children, are they picking the most athletically gifted woman they can find? No, like all men, they want a chick who is young, fit and hot and isn't too much of a pain in the @ss. Sorry, guys, a 6'7 super male athlete who marries and has kids with a 5'6 chick ( probably white) who looks good in a bikini, that's not producing the next super athlete. JaVale McGee is an example of what happens when you have two super athletes having kids. Well most of the time.

You must structure the game to be more efficient with the current structure of the talent available.

That means a Landry Fields, a Adam Morrison, a Jimmer Fredette. These guys would do better if

A) There was a 4 point shot. Then a 5 point shot for half court shots
B) There were 7 man starting lineups
C) The rim was raised
D) The floor was longer and wider
E) The shot clock was reduced
F) The officiating crews had 8 man teams
G) Hand checking to return
H) Widespread use of non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap
I) Expanded rosters
J) A compensation system for lost free agents

You need functional ways for teams to build and win with MULTIPLE AVENUES of approach.

The current system is busted. It has no market inefficiencies. It's too punitive to GMs and coaches.

Changing the lottery odds does nothing. You need to change the structure of the game to fit a wider use of the potential talent pool. You need to drive out the 7 foot plodder and much functional heights by positional value lower. The NFL and MLB function because they can fit different physical types on their rosters. The NBA is super limited into only a very few archtypes for their talent pool.

Since you came on this board you have been way off in regards to trade value. - Briggs 7/28/2015
Nalod
Posts: 55906
Alba Posts: 151
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
3/1/2018  1:40 PM
Triple, super impressed with your rant but you need a better thesis ending.
The game is the game, the 7foot plodder is extinct and the rules of the game have evolved them out.
With better outside shooting and zone defense permissive the mammoth center is now gone.
we are also approaching one third of players are not from this country.
China has a large population with basketball being super popular but very little to show for it.
Lin was American born and Yao ming was as much a product of genetic breeding (Parents both played ball and marriage produced in "Red" china with large rumors he was given growth hormones from childhood) If you ever saw Ming play in person against shaq, who was a super large human you'd perhaps think "My god, what have they created!!". Yao's head was massive!!! But given the playing population in china its a bit surprising there have not been more NBA quality players.
Knicks1248: 1. Dolan should be more involved! 2. Why would any knick fan want pick 8, when that spot has a history of producing marginal NBA taken. (He prefers pick 9th instead)
arkrud
Posts: 31026
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
3/1/2018  6:45 PM
Tanking may be a factor but small one.
Bad team are losing because they are bad at a time of losing.
It can be just because the management and organization suck d..k like Knicks last 20 years.
Or team can lose because organization has a plan to develop young players, collect assets for future trade, balance roster, etc. and winning is not a priority.
Tanking is the name for feelings of the fans who cannot accept losing even as a price for future dominance.
So they call it tanking to be in peace with their shallow mind and over-sized ego.
He can teach them to meditate... but no one can control even his own mind...
Harsh penalties for tanking

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.com All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.