Well, there are SOME things the NBA can do to mitigate tanking, since they don't want to actually solve the problem.
"Superstar treatment" is a thing that is great if you want to spotlight certain players for business reasons; not so great if you're trying to build a competitive league, because it directly creates this scenario where teams will do whatever they can to get that next "big thing." Instead of refs allowing certain players special leniency, or asking, "Do we really want to give [x] their [y] foul?" actually strive for even, non-biased officiating and you blunt some of the need for teams to tank for the #1 pick. It won't solve the problem, because with so few players on the court at any given time, it gives outsized influence to the most talented guys to change a game.
The actual solution is to abolish the draft entirely. Teams won't tank if there's no incentive to do so.
"Superstar treatment" is a thing that is great if you want to spotlight certain players for business reasons; not so great if you're trying to build a competitive league, because it directly creates this scenario where teams will do whatever they can to get that next "big thing." Instead of refs allowing certain players special leniency, or asking, "Do we really want to give [x] their [y] foul?" actually strive for even, non-biased officiating and you blunt some of the need for teams to tank for the #1 pick. It won't solve the problem, because with so few players on the court at any given time, it gives outsized influence to the most talented guys to change a game.
The actual solution is to abolish the draft entirely. Teams won't tank if there's no incentive to do so.
Comment