NBA play-in games: Good Idea? Bad Idea?

  • After Iowa State won the Big 12, a Cyclone made a wonderful offer to We Will that now increases our match. Now all gifts up to $400,000 between now and the Final 4 will be matched. Please consider giving at We Will Collective.
    This notice can be dismissed using the upper right corner X button.

NBA Play-In Games. Good Idea? Bad Idea?

  • I'm For it

  • I'm Against it

  • Who Gives a **** About the NBA?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Cyinthenorth

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 29, 2013
14,331
10,283
113
35
Dubuque
Pretty clear you care very little: a team with a losing record has made the playoffs in the Eastern Conference for about 15 of the last 20 years.

Regardless of that, I like it because it forces the mega teams to actually play in the regular season to ensure they don't fall into that 7-8 range and have to play a game instead of resting before round 1.
I was going to say I don't like it until I read your post. Had not considered this. I am a big proponent of the shorter season, and even though it hasn't worked this year extremely well, in theory it should prevent stars sitting just to sit. The play-in round kind of holds their feet to the fire in a similar manner. LeBron hating it is all the more reason to love it, too.
 

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
35,685
23,161
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com
If you are hovering on the 8-11 seed for the playoffs, are those teams really tanking? Real question. Has that been a problem? I always thought the bottom of the barrel teams intentionally tanked. Does that strategy go that high up in the pecking order?

Unless NBA has changed something, I think the fringe-playoff teams could be motivated to tank to get into the draft lottery.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Acylum

coolerifyoudid

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2013
16,122
23,837
113
KC
My favorite idea was making the teams that *do not* make the playoffs play a single-elimination tournament for the rights to the top four picks. That would cut down on the tanking pretty quickly there.

Unless players see a #1 or #2 pick that is going to take their place on the roster.

"Hey, go win the game so we can pick up a new starting point guard and kick you to the curb."
 

brett108

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2010
5,172
2,051
113
Tulsa, OK
I think its fine but I echo the statement of many who say their interest has fallen in the NBA. I feel like over my lifetime I have grown out of the NBA. I just cant get interested in elite athletes obviously phoning in 80 % of their performances in a given season. It needs to be shortened, but the almighty dollar rules.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
24,876
36,700
113
Waukee
Unless players see a #1 or #2 pick that is going to take their place on the roster.

"Hey, go win the game so we can pick up a new starting point guard and kick you to the curb."

If you are so worried about your roster spot being up-for-grabs because of an incoming rookie, then you are probably not going to be long for the NBA. A new draft pick is not likely to kick an established starter (even on a bad team) out of the NBA. He would more likely kick off the last guy on the bench barely holding on.

Plus, as guys like Harrison Barnes show, modestly okay or even mediocre players on good teams can often use that perception to cash in elsewhere. Everybody wants to hire the "winners" away from the good teams, even if the role players on many winning teams are nothing special and are carried by the important superstars.

Was Barnes really worth what Sacramento gave him? Or was it just easy to play alongside Steph and Klay?

If I'm a starter on a playoff bubble team who could win that postseason tournament for the #1 pick, then I want that kid coming to join us because he might make the team look better and me by extension.
 

Pat

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2011
2,166
3,080
113
I think they recently did change the lottery odds or something recently

They flattened the lottery odds in 2019 to disincentivize tanking, but it actually increased the potential value of picks 10-14. Given that most drafts have no more than 3 “can’t miss” prospects, I’d suspect the preference is for playoff income and pick 15-18 over tanking for the small chance of getting bumped to the top 5 via incredible lottery luck.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: cyclones500

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
24,876
36,700
113
Waukee
They flattened the lottery odds in 2019 to disincentivize tanking, but it actually increased the potential value of picks 10-14. Given that most drafts have no more than 3 “can’t miss” prospects, I’d suspect the preference is for playoff income and pick 15-18 over tanking for the small chance of getting bumped to the top 5 via incredible lottery luck.

This is why teams with at least a shot of making the playoff tend to push for it.

The value of making the playoffs, even if it usually means an early exit against a superior opponent, is usually higher in value for the players, coaches, front office, and ownership than the low odds of hitting on a premium pick.

If I am a coach trying to keep my job, saying "we made the playoffs" is a much better argument than "we missed the playoffs but then dumb luck handed us the second-overall pick, so it worked out in the end."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pat

Skyh13

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2006
6,941
3,689
113
I've casually followed the Bulls because I was a huge fan growing up in the MJ years so they are still my team but holy crap that roster even after the Vucevic trade that was supposed to be the missing piece to make them a playoff team is still a trainwreck. It's like a roster full of talented pieces that just don't mesh well. LaVine is having a career year and they still stink. Marrkanen has never turned into the player they thought he would and probably the 3rd best player on the team in T Young has to come off the bench. I will give the new GM some credit for trying to shake up the roster but this team really needs either to draft or sign a franchise changing type of player because right now they have some nice pieces but no real upper tier caliber players that you need to compete in the NBA. LaVine is probably a nice sidekick or 3rd player on a contending team but he's not a guy that will carry a team to a championship.

It’s weird, I feel like on paper the Bulls are destined for peak NBA hell right now, being good enough to solidly make the playoffs but nowhere near good enough to win the whole thing, but somehow they’re much worse than that.

Their defense is generally poor and overall extremely inconsistent, and White is not the point guard they need, which just makes everything a little more difficult.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CYdTracked

CYdTracked

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2006
16,956
7,651
113
Grimes, IA
It’s weird, I feel like on paper the Bulls are destined for peak NBA hell right now, being good enough to solidly make the playoffs but nowhere near good enough to win the whole thing, but somehow they’re much worse than that.

Their defense is generally poor and overall extremely inconsistent, and White is not the point guard they need, which just makes everything a little more difficult.

Yeah just seems like they have some decent pieces but they don't mesh well and on top of that they don't have a superstar player that you need to carry a team like most contenders who have at least 1 or 2. LaVine is a nice player but he's not on the same level as guys like Harden, Giannis, Kawhi, etc
 

GrindingAway

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 27, 2006
5,105
2,885
113
It generates an extra six “Playoff” games which means more interest and more TV eyeballs = more revenue. Simple as that for a league that has had financial shortages. I’ll be one of 19 folks in Iowa watching. :)

Count me in the 19 too but I’m not a fan of the play in concept. First even if you aren’t an NBA fan I don’t know how you can’t love the playoffs. Adding six “playoff” games doesn’t really change how great the playoffs are to me much IMO. I also just can’t get past the “fairness” factor of a team potentially having a significantly worse record having one hot game and moving on