Coaching: Anti-Tanking / Incentive Rules (outdated)

[MagicGM]

This post is outdated, please find the most recent thread regarding coaching for the latest info.

The league has really been improving lately, and we have the best crop of GMs that we've had in a long time.  The trade markets are active and there is a ton of interest in the league - more than I've ever seen, probably.

We have a real problem, though.  We have something like 5 teams really "going for it", and a bunch of tanking/rebuilding going on. The problem is simple - there's really not a significant penalty for tanking, and it's pretty easy to rebuild in FBB3 (especially when other teams are looking to tank and you can pick up vet talent for pretty cheap.  The other problem is that there isn't a real reason to shoot for being a 4th or 5th seed - the game right now is dominated by mega teams and it's hard for a 52 win team to go far in the playoffs, so why bother?  Just tank and try to build your own mega team.  Of course, that only exacerbates the mega team problem - with half the league tanking, it means that valuable talent is pretty cheap on the trade market for the few teams trying to repeat.

So, we need a solution that discourages tanking and encourages winning 50 games, even if it's unlikely you'll win the championship this year.

Here's the proposed solution:

"Coaching" is a statistic that affects your training camps.  There are 5 skills that coaching can improve - Inside, Shooting, Handling, Post D, Perimeter D.  The higher the coaching stat, the more likely your players are to improve in that statistic during training camp.  Right now every GM's coaching is set to the same B rating to make sure that everyone is on the same playing field.

But what if we allowed GMs to improve their coaching statistics through successful seasons, and "punished" them for tanking seasons?  Here's the proposal:

There will be 3 possible values for each coaching stat: B (the standard/starting value), A (the "improved" value), and C (the "weak" value).  And if you are required to improve/decrease a stat, you must first bring any heightened/weakned stats back to "normal" before increasing/decreasing another stat (e.g., if you went +1 in one stat, and then the next year you had to go -1, you have to reverse the +1 stat to make everything "B," and if you went -1 in a stat, you must return that to "B" before improving another stat).

At the end of each season, each GM's coaching stat is adjusted based on performance, as follows:

• 45+ wins = +1 in your lowest stat (or you choose if all stats are the same)
• 35-44 wins = no change
• 20-34 wins = -1 in your highest stat (or you choose if all stats are the same)
• Less than 20 wins: Your two highest stats are decreased by 1 value (or you choose if all stats are the same)

[/list]

I think this will have the desired effect.  It makes making the playoffs, even as a late seed, somewhat valuable, and it gives GMs a reason to shoot for the 4th seed, even though that might not result in a championship.  If you just barely missed out on the playoffs, you shouldn't be punished, and if you're one of the worst teams in the league, you should be punished.  Repeat offenders will be punished harsher (by losing 2 stats). 

What I don't want to do is have this create dynasties (I don't want to make it so the good teams just never get bad or anything like that). The best proposal we have for that is that stat increases and decreases will only last for 3 seasons (maybe it should be 4?), but I'm particularly open to ideas on this issue.  It needs to be a valuable increase for a GM but I don't think it should be permanent because I fear that will create 2 tiers of teams permanently.

New GMs will have their coaching stats reset to B.

I'm proposing that this go into effect beginning with the 2085 season.  That gives everyone two full seasons to prepare, and should help to prevent some of the tanking that will undoubtedly happen before the real draft in 2086 (AS A REMINDER, THE REAL DRAFT WILL BE NO STRONGER OR WEAKER THAN AN AVERAGE DRAFT, but I know people tend to tank for it because they recognize the players' names).

Thoughts/comments are appreciated, but I would very much like to do something largely based on the above proposal.   

[KingsGM]

Would this apply to winning it all in the D-League, too?

[BucksGM]

Stating publicly that I fully support this system.

[KingsGM]

In the WA chat, Ed with the Suns suggested that it be wins based and not playoffs based.  Perhaps having the threshold be 50 wins.  I kind of like that.

Otherwise, I'd propose that there not be a top tier gain of 2 ratings.  Just one for making the playoffs.

[HawksGM]

I support it

[WizardsGM]

Stating publicly that I fully support this system.

[WizardsGM]

To be clear, my opinion isn't that super teams are the problem. Dynasties are good for the league, but super teams are formed (in a big way) because the lack of competition surrounding them. For that, we have a bit of a problem. As of this second, the problem isn't huge, but it could go one of two ways; it could become nothing and nature is just running its course, or it could be the start of a big problem. To me, I don't think the ramifications of these rules are severe enough to cause problems if this is just nature running its course. With that said, it's more important to be proactive and ahead of the curve - try to cut off the tanking problem at the legs before it spreads/gets worse.

It's absolutely correct that there are no benefits from being a perennial 4th-6th seed, which is the problem. In the NBA, purgatory is the 7-10 seed. In the RBSL, it's 4-12, which is a shame. So, GMs then resort to tanking (a lot of the time unsuccessfully - ending up with the 7th pick). This could lead to 10-20 GMs tanking for Markelle Fultz in 2086 (for example - not just because it's a real draft). With that all said, it's a great idea adding the importance of winning, and adding a bit of a caution flag to those teams that have been comfortable with taking shot after shot in the draft when there are other avenues of improving.

[KingsGM]

Suggestion from Chris in the chat:

1. teams can extend rookies that were drafted this year on the existing rule.  rookies that are drafted beginning next year - can be done for TBD, but it's 200% salary for 1 year

2. the new coaching incentive/disincentive, adjusted to be more about wins/losses than seeds, and perhaps tweaks to whether the top4 seeds get 2 stat increases or 1

Discuss.  For the record, I'm on board with both.

[MagicGM]

Suggestion from Chris in the chat:

1. teams can extend rookies that were drafted this year on the existing rule.  rookies that are drafted beginning next year - can be done for TBD, but it's 200% salary for 1 year

2. the new coaching incentive/disincentive, adjusted to be more about wins/losses than seeds, and perhaps tweaks to whether the top4 seeds get 2 stat increases or 1

Discuss.  For the record, I'm on board with both.

Thanks.  This is the fix, I think - that we can tweak a little bit here and there.  But we are going to do something like this. The incentive/disincentive will begin in 2085-86 season.

[RaptorsGM]

I also agree with both points. I think it's gonna be beneficial for the league.

[SonicsGM]

Semi-related -

Discussion of this rule change in the WhatsApp Group (Seriously, Mavs. We miss you, baby. Come join us!) segued into a discussion of revamping the rookie TBD extension system as follows.

Current groupthink, though other people may want to chime in, is that rookie tbd extensions, as-is, are too good. So we are proposing changing the TBD extension rules so that:

1) Rookie Contracts which are TBD extended past their 4th year are extended for a 5th year whose cap value is 200% the cap value of their fourth year.

2) Only multi-year deals are eligible for TBD extensions.

With regards to on-topic, I think most people are on board with adopting Suns' proposed edit to make coaching points accrue based on win totals rather than seeds.

[MagicGM]

As a reminder, this is going to be put in place for the 2085 season.  I'll finalize a few of the nits/nats (we made some minor changes to the way the points work that I think everyone agrees are positive) and post up the final rules at some point this offseason.

[MagicGM]

Here are the win totals;

60 or more wins +2 attributes,
45-59 wins, +1 attribute
35-45 wins, no change
20-35 wins, -1 attribute
Less than 20 wins, -2 attributes

[Gasper]

Here are the win totals;

60 or more wins +2 attributes,
45-59 wins, +1 attribute
35-45 wins, no change
20-35 wins, -1 attribute
Less than 20 wins, -2 attributes

I like the idea, but I think it would be better to keep it +1 even for 60+ wins since the goal is to prevent tanking and not to reward best teams. Just my opinion.

[RecentPacersGM]

Here are the win totals;

60 or more wins +2 attributes,
45-59 wins, +1 attribute
35-45 wins, no change
20-35 wins, -1 attribute
Less than 20 wins, -2 attributes

I like the idea, but I think it would be better to keep it +1 even for 60+ wins since the goal is to prevent tanking and not to reward best teams. Just my opinion.

I agree with the Celtics on this.