The CSL

SO, first let me point out that I really don't care about tanking. It's a discernible strategy in the NBA, storied teams like the Lakers even employ it. It's not a strategy I would ever care to utilize, but that's my decision.

Still, there is obviously a contingent out there that this really ticks off. So far, this seems to have only impacted me negatively, haha. So instead of simply complaining about it, I wanted to offer a solution to the CSL similar to one I saw (and liked) for the NBA.

Instead of the bottom three teams having the best shot at ping pong balls bouncing their way come lottery night, it's teams 4-7 that have that same chance? We can all discuss the exact probabilities later (assuming they need to change), but I think simply switching 1-3 and 4-6 would be the easiest practically (while keeping the NBA-defined probabilities the same).

1=4, 2=5, 3=6, essentially

The bottom teams would absolutely have to compete for the #4 spot - being that it's the most valuable - and it wouldn't simply be a race to the bottom.

Personally, this approach makes far more sense to me than continuing to restrict what strategies teams can and can not run.

I think before talking about tanking and introducing any rules we need to define what tanking is exactly in CSL.

andrei wrote:I think before talking about tanking and introducing any rules we need to define what tanking is exactly in CSL.

You cant really define it, but the biggest problems are teams that use 1-1-1-1 strategies, like several teams did last year.

I actually like the idea jace brought up and the admins definitely should consider it for next season. However, I think changes only should be made again next offseason.
Im no fan of flip flopping. The rules already changed a lot this offseason.

Still, you arent the only one who used less than 16 points in tactics last season and didnt attempt to tank. Playing DRFL monster like Love I played some 1-1 tactics too.
Nevertheless, I dont think the league should treat teams differently (bottom ones arent allowed to spend below and the top ones are allowed) - but I dont think that's what you are aiming at anyway.

Voted no because there wasnt the option "Yes, for next season a great idea".

Not a fan of the idea. I think if a change really needs to be made than it needs tk be handled more similarly to how the gah handles it. Instead of the worst team know they are guaranteed a top 4 pick they should be able to drop all the way to number 10 or later.

So instead of 3 ping pong spots there are 10+

I am told that we don't want to implement any new changes and its too much work so voting no to be consistent with previous requests

andrei wrote:I am told that we don't want to implement any new changes and its too much work so voting no to be consistent with previous requests

I hate tanking, I think people know it But this systam has also own flaws.
I like that min 16 points thing, and I would more like similar rules, that make tanking harder, than just a new draft system.
You can always find a way to "tank" against a system. So people would just find new ways to aim the 4-5-6, overall, bottom teams would have more wins, but results would be the same.
I think good things have been done now, the 16 minimum thing.
Again, I rather see new similar stuff, and maybe new similar rules, to get teams to aim POs.

4-5-6 just makes team aim that, that would make even PO teams who are 9th after ASG, go into tank mode, have a good chance to get to 5th, so that may even bring more loser teams I am not supporting it, but rather the 1-2 pick go to 8th place teams, so then atleast everyone aim for the PO and then 3-4 pick will go to bottom teams like always. Then they have a chance to still get better, but grand prize for all would be POs.

Wait, teams were using 1-1-1-1 strategies last season?

I think it should go without saying that any anti-tanking rule change would happen for next season, not this one. As much as I dislike the tanking strategy, it would not be fair to implement a rule change midseason. So the "yes" and "no" voting would be for future seasons only.

Tanking rules have been talked about quite a bit by the admins. Unfortunately, it's a tough thing to fight, and we haven't been able to agree upon a good solution yet. I've been pretty vocal about anti-tanking because a lot of GMs have a lot of pride and want to be seen as elite GMs. So calling a spade a spade and wounding one's pride is probably the best anti-tanking strategy currently available right now. I'll never see a tanker as elite because it takes no skill to tank and it's the easy way out, in my opinion. I've been one front court piece from being a contender for a couple seasons now, should I have tanked to get that missing piece too? I could've, but it would've taken the challenge away. Yes, I want to win a championship, but I want to do it the "right way" without making a mockery of the system. Now, the "right way" is subjective and is up for each GM to decide for themselves. I think tanking steals the top picks from teams that truly need it. You can argue that "good not great" teams need to tank in order to become legitimate contenders (and there's certainly some merit there), but the really bad teams need those top picks even more. In this situation, comparing the NBA to the CSL is like comparing apples to oranges. CSL GMs don't have to deal with pressure from fans or ownership. Hinkie tanked to near perfection and still lost his job because he tanked.

I get that different people will have differing opinions on the matter and I tried to be as respectful as I could. If I offend anyone, know that it's not my intention. I think a respectful debate is a good thing.

GreenBear wrote:I think it should go without saying that any anti-tanking rule change would happen for next season, not this one. As much as I dislike the tanking strategy, it would not be fair to implement a rule change midseason. So the "yes" and "no" voting would be for future seasons only.

Tanking rules have been talked about quite a bit by the admins. Unfortunately, it's a tough thing to fight, and we haven't been able to agree upon a good solution yet. I've been pretty vocal about anti-tanking because a lot of GMs have a lot of pride and want to be seen as elite GMs. So calling a spade a spade and wounding one's pride is probably the best anti-tanking strategy currently available right now. I'll never see a tanker as elite because it takes no skill to tank and it's the easy way out, in my opinion. I've been one front court piece from being a contender for a couple seasons now, should I have tanked to get that missing piece too? I could've, but it would've taken the challenge away. Yes, I want to win a championship, but I want to do it the "right way" without making a mockery of the system. Now, the "right way" is subjective and is up for each GM to decide for themselves. I think tanking steals the top picks from teams that truly need it. You can argue that "good not great" teams need to tank in order to become legitimate contenders (and there's certainly some merit there), but the really bad teams need those top picks even more. In this situation, comparing the NBA to the CSL is like comparing apples to oranges. CSL GMs don't have to deal with pressure from fans or ownership. Hinkie tanked to near perfection and still lost his job because he tanked.

I get that different people will have differing opinions on the matter and I tried to be as respectful as I could. If I offend anyone, know that it's not my intention. I think a respectful debate is a good thing.

+1
There's no financial penalty in missing the playoffs in CSL. No financial penalties for not selling out your home games. Nobody's losing dollars because partners who invest in arena advertisement aren't happy cause your team only loses.
So it's HARD to find a way of preventing tanking.
We'll figure it out sooner or later but the main thing for preventing tanking is what Doug pointed, pride. If you have it, if you wanna do the things the right way, improve with your work, not cause you are openly losing games to grab the best prospect available.. You will never tank. If you lose, oh, well, your team wasn't up to winning. But tanking, just ridiculous.

And don't come to me saying: "oh but I don't have a superstar and I'll never find one"!
I built my Bulls with lots of hard work. Turned a 40-45w team into a 60+ win contender. And that was all done via hard work. I'll never forget when I joined the league again, we had Jo, Derrick, Taj and that was it. And we still made the playoffs that season. I'm very proud of what I've accomplished here and I never ever had to tank to do it. Actually I've traded my first more than kept it, even when my team wasn't good enough. And I know multiple teams also worked a lot to be where they are. I appreciate when someone like BKN, who could spend multiple seasons developing young talent, take the risk and grab two great veterans for a shot at competing. Very well done in my mind.
Put in the work and you won't need to tank to be successful.

It's really about removing the incentive for tanking, which would involve redistributing the odds. Perhaps something like slots 1-12 all have an equal chance and slots 13 and 14 have exactly 1 entry?

And it's not really that much work. The way Manu does it in GAH is to create a list of entries, then have a non-lottery pick GM select three numbers. The teams whose numbers match up on the lists get the Top 3 spots.

Only read op so answer based on that.

Has tanking really worked here though?

Several teams fell in the draft consistently every yr here and tanking is going on already as teams aren't playing players many minutes etc already but doesn't guarantee Top pick.

Whatever rule changes there are, I support. But I voted "no" for obvious reasons. Teams who tank will always find a way to bend the rules. I never did the 1-1-1-1 nor do I ever plan to. I currently use 19 out of the 20 points possible. But it's obvious my team sucks and will get a top 5 pick. But if there are rule changes for next season, a team could always overpay for a decent free agent or two and compete while losing tons of games. Then dump the free agent after they perform well while getting a top pick.

wish the real NBA would do this it would make the last couple weeks of the season fun for all teams

Jestor wrote:It's really about removing the incentive for tanking, which would involve redistributing the odds. Perhaps something like slots 1-12 all have an equal chance and slots 13 and 14 have exactly 1 entry?

To remove tanking, it would be the best way, you rather try to get to the POs, as if you are left out, you have random chance at the 1st pick anyway, so no incentive to be in the bottom.

But with that we have a new problem. We see the real low, I mean we still have 2-3 teams that suck ass, and now they may got 11th and 12th pick. SO they are not getting better much.
In FA, they probable have cap, but we have seen FA go to a better team with less money.
We have to have strong minded GM's to have them not quit after being 30th team and getting 14th pick (yeah it would not happen every year, but still, a chance).

OK, we can polish this, by giving last place teams 2-3 special sheets. That gives them chance to pick the best player at their pick and at the same time I don't think people would tank for a special sheet.
But not too much. As teams who see, they will be near bottom should start generating more media, to get more rookie sheets. That would / should make it more popular to write stuff.

and yeah the 13th 14th should have lower chance, so no 8th spot team would fall out, as "I am not winning any games against HOU, I rather have pick luck".

That should take out tanking for at least first half of the season...I write more, part 2 will come...but I am at work...out of time... (I have more problem with this style, it has many holes.)

An idea I've thought of in the past is a system with odds dependent over multiple seasons and multiple scenarios. Bottom two last three seasons, bonus for near playoffs, etc. Then only dire teams get the good odds or teams trying to improve can get improved odds.

Never went into any detail so it might be flawed but over multiple seasons could be an option. Tanking teams over those time spans stick out like sore thumbs.

Of course it depends on how much work anyone would want to put into it. Be formula heavy if someone tried coding it.

bt wrote:An idea I've thought of in the past is a system with odds dependent over multiple seasons and multiple scenarios. Bottom two last three seasons, bonus for near playoffs, etc. Then only dire teams get the good odds or teams trying to improve can get improved odds.

Never went into any detail so it might be flawed but over multiple seasons could be an option. Tanking teams over those time spans stick out like sore thumbs.

I like it. Really

But we must be fair to new GMs also, I would like this to be not true, but there will be 1-2 GM's new every season.

Yeah I don't think the too much work situation is true as the admin team will do whatever is fair for all GMs regardless of the work. If its something that holds a lot of value, it will get done (its the work for little to no return that makes no sense).

I personally am open to any and all ideas, but like Doug and Marcos said, we can't implement anything mid-season as we want to give teams time to adjust.