Post by London on Apr 22, 2015 13:44:43 GMT -6
LONDON (AP) -- Seven General Managers who wanted more Participation Point got together to talk over some of the more hot button topics in the league today.
1. What do you think the benefits and drawbacks are of a One Conference system?
Bayi: The benefits are that only the best teams make it to the playoffs, and I guess that’s good enough of a reason to do it, naturally. However, I really like the idea of random ne’er-do-wells making it into the playoffs every once in a while. Let’s not assume that there are such crazy financial ramifications of missing the playoffs like in real life, where missing out on a couple home paydays is a major blow. We’ve had a handful of seasons where worse teams get home court in the first round. Whoopie shit. It’s not like the Rockets are going to make up 2.5 games and get Imhoff into the playoffs over a more deserving team. If you want the guarantee, win your division.
Beijing: I don't think there are any benefits. We will still have the issue of crap division winners making the playoffs. So while this answer may be short, we haven't had these divisions long enough to justify something as broken when the one presented solution fixes almost nothing. The only real "rivalry" we have in this league is the Eurasia America shit talking, one conference kinda tosses that out of the window.
Berlin: The benefits of a one conference system seem simple...the best 16 teams in the league get into the playoffs. There isn't the concern of being in the wrong conference/division and getting left out because only 8 from each side get in. That being said, I think you lose some of the competition/rivalry when you go down to a one conference system. This league was built on America vs Eurasia, and I'd hate to see it go away because we are worried about the 9th best team in America being 1 game better than the 8th best team in Eurasia every 3rd year...
Harlem: There are a few small benefits but for me they’re outweighed by the drawback of weakening the league’s identity. I like the rivalry of the two conferences, and I like rooting for my conference mates in the finals. I’m a traditionalist, and even though the ABCA tradition is pretty short it does exist. I say don’t fix what isn’t broken.
London: I think the obvious benefit is that the best teams make the playoffs regardless of their location on the map. That's great when you have sub-.500 teams making the playoffs, but I'm not sure that's terribly common. My main concern for changing to this system is that we do have pride in the conference we belong to and that does flame the spirits and create a little rivalry. I'm a huge supporter of rivalries but cultivating them seems to be a little bit of a mystery. I definitely hear back and forth between the conferences so maybe it's not a great idea to take that away.
San Francisco: I think the benefits are the best 8 teams by record after the division winners would make the playoffs each year. I think the drawbacks are you could have the 3rd best team in the league record wise end up being an 8 seed and having to face the best team in the league in round two. It isn’t a perfect system but it is worthy of discussion.
Sydney: I personally don’t think there’s any benefit other than the fact that people would stop complaining that Eurasia stinks and America rules and it’s not fair cause it’s harder to make the playoffs. I think there should be 2 conferences with only 2 divisions. I like having two separate conferences and don’t think there’s any reason to switch other then what I mentioned previously. I would like to see 2 divisions combined so that we don’t have sub 500 teams making the playoffs for winning a weak division.
2. Do you support expansion? If so, how many teams and why? If not, why not?
Bayi: I don’t support expansion. There are just enough teams right now. I do, however, support change, and so I’d love to see some relocations every once in a while - no more than one every two or three seasons, voted on by the committee, fitting within the structure of the league. We need New Orleans, just because it’s a cool team that people would love to run. Move the 76ers, who are a historic franchise that’s done nothing throughout its career, to Cincinnati, so Imhoff can return home to the Royals where he once played in real life.
Beijing: Absolutely. 4 teams. Giving each conference 18 teams with three 6 team divisions. This is the best solution to the playoff seeding issues. Since we've had a steady group of GMs, I think we could fill another 4 teams. And with the reorganization of the divisions and only 3 division winners, then all of the deserving teams will make the playoffs. The real question is, can the committee come to agreement on expansion.
Berlin: No, I don't support expansion, as I think the league is currently at its highest sustainable level of teams right now. If anything I think the league would be best suited with a 2 team contraction, going down to a 30 team level. But since that isn't in the stars, I think we are better off staying as is, trying to foster more activity from our current teams than trying to force more teams into a league that has struggled to stay full in the past.
Harlem: I do not support expansion because I don’t think we can find the additional gms. The ones who strike out can’t be counted on to come back into the league the next season. It would be good to see the talent dispersed a little, and teams not being able to stockpile 12 blue/blue players… but on balance I say no expansion.
London: For the record I always support expansion. My main argument is always that more GMs in the league create more activity which means more reason to check in and participate for all. My goal is to get to 40 teams. That being said, adding 2 teams bring you up to 34 (17 per conference) which doesn't break into divisions easily unless you go down to 2 which would leave 8 in one and 9 in the other. At that point 1 more or less doesn't matter. If you add 4 you're up to 36 and can break it into 6 teams 3 divisions per conference. I don't think adding 4 is doable right now. In fact it may be too big a jump at this point and we may need to go with adding 2 twice with a few years in between. So, I suppose, adding 2 (and dropping to 2 divisions) would be my vote if there was expansion on the table. Which there isn't.
San Francisco: I cannot believe I am saying this but given that we are not going to contract to 30 teams I am in favor of expanding by 4 teams to 36 teams and having three, six team divisions in each conference. This would mean less likelihood of a horrible division winner getting a playoff spot and should mean seeding would end up being rewarded more closely to your overall season performance.
Sydney: I wouldn’t be opposed to it as long as it’s announced well over a season in advance and is voted on league wide, not just by the committee. The logistics aren’t as important to me as proper notice.
3. We currently seed the divisional winners 1-4 - do you favor that system and why?
Bayi: Yes. Winning the division should be the first goal of a championship run, and not winning the division should make things a little harder in the playoffs. The division races are fun - as someone who was constantly in a division race with New York, I can appreciate building a team to not only win, but to win against rivals. Maybe if New York still had Imhoff during the dominant Harlem years, he’d have won a few more games.
Beijing: It's not terrible, but it is flawed. I think a three division structure would be much better because the shifting of teams would guarantee that each division winner is actually a playoff worthy team and it makes it that much more critical to win the division. It would also mean that a team with a .600+ winning percentage won't likely end up being screwed out of home court.
Berlin: Division races should mean something...and they should mean more than just getting into the playoffs (since I've seen this as an argument). Division races should be all about rivalries, and winning your division should have a tangible benefit. If you want home court, you should at least be the best team in your own division. You can claim "BUT I HAVE THE 2ND BEST RECORD IN THE CONFERENCE!?!" all you want...if that's the 2nd best record in your own 4 team division, you didn't earn home court. Win more games in the regular season.
Harlem: No, because winning a weak division is easier than winning 50-55 games and the 4 seed always gets pasted in the first round. I got the sixth seed in consecutive years despite having the 5th best record, and felt like I should have had an easier path to the second round.
London: I'm split. It's not the answer anyone wants to read in one of these but there it is. I am asking this question to get more info on the debate. I do 100% support the current format of 8 total divisions and the division winners getting playoff births regardless of their record. I am not as sold on the home court advantage though. I defended the home court side in the Skype room because I feel a champion should take on whoever wherever whenever. If another team beats you then you're not the champion. But.. some teams make for really tough match-ups. Should that not come into affect too? On the fence here folks, sorry I can't be more definitive at this point.
San Francisco: I am not a fan of this at all I think teams should be seeded solely on their record, the entire 82 game season needs to mean something and having bad teams make the playoffs and get a higher seed. Assuming we are keeping a divisional format, the winners of each division should make the playoffs, but that is itself a larger reward. We have had the current divisional format for 5 completed seasons now there have been 6 times in the 10 sets of seeds (5 per conference) that a division winner has been seeded higher than they should have be their record.
Sydney: No, because winning a division doesn’t mean you’re a top 4 team. The best teams get slighted solely due to the fact that they play in a tougher division. I think this issue would be mitigated by going to a 2 conference / 2 division setup.
4. Who is the biggest star that will be dealt before the deadline (sim 11)?
Bayi: If we’re talking hall of fame, former All-Stars that still have all-star level defense skills, it’s Darrall Imhoff, naturally. As far as CURRENT stars, we look to Seattle, who clearly wants to shift a little younger (not rookie young, but star young) possibly dealing English or JoJo to a contender looking to make that final jump, or we look to London, who has dealt for some great stars but has imbalance in the lineup. Pippen for Imhoff. Post it.
Beijing: I think we may have already seen it with the KAJ trade. But if any other big team is gonna trade away a star, I think we will see Seattle trade Alex English. He's been shopped for most of the past two seasons, or so it seems. If any potential young stars get traded, look at Toronto's roster and pick one.
Berlin: A lot of the "big stars" that could move have already moved (Bird/Parish/KAJ/DJ)...with that being said, BA is in the process of getting younger, so Dr. J or Gus Williams is a possibility. But for my money, Grant Hill is the name. I give it one or two more bad sims before Detroit abandons ship and starts selling off everything he traded to get in to the offseason (he already gave up on DEKE), with Hill going to highest bidder before the deadline...
Harlem: he biggest name that will be dealt will be Tracy McGrady, but the biggest star traded will be Vinko.
London: The popular answer will be IMHOFF, amirite, but I will put this out there... Isiah Thomas. The Titans have an elite backcourt with Zeke and the Glove but I wonder if they don't feel that there is a better fit out there. Both guys are killing it for Mexico City right now and the only reason I pick Zeke over Gary is that Zeke wasn't drafted by Aaron Roark. Rumor suggest he is looking for a Small Forward but they'd need to be among the best to even start the conversation. He really wants to win this division and with Buenos Aires trading Kareem to Sydney I think the door has opened a little more. Only two teams from that division are doing to get in and they are all within a half game of each other. My concern would be that team chemistry could get messed up and they've been winning games. Do you wanna roll the dice or let them mature together and come back next year potentially stronger? IMHOFF!!
San Francisco: I am not sure a “star” gets dealt. There have been lots of rumors about big names, but I think the biggest names have already been moved with Kareem, Parish, etc. all moving lately. I think the biggest name that gets moved will be Earl Monroe, because it has been too many sims since he was traded
Sydney: This is a tough question cause I just picked up KAJ but I guess I’ll go out on a limb here and say that no major deals go down before the deadline.
5. What do you think about the landscape of the league following the new anti-tanking rule? What has changed?
Bayi: I like it. I like it a lot, even though it directly affected me and my plan for building a team. There’s a little added strategy required to be the FOURTH best team and get the best chance in the lottery, and it’s added to some of last year’s lottery teams having to add talent despite their desire to lose. If it wasn’t for adding oldsters like Imhoff and Lucas, last year’s top two picks might still be toiling in the shadows of tank-land. (Though, let’s be honest - the Sixers will ALWAYS toil down there.)
Beijing: I think the rule has actually had a positive effect on the bottom half of the league. I understand there was a concern about teams without picks deliberately tanking to "screw" the pick into #4-6 but I'm sorry, thats not much of a punishment. As a matter of fact, it will only hurt the team without their pick in the long run so have fun with that one. But overall, I really do think the bottom teams are putting in some effort to try and not be last which is better for the league as a whole.
Berlin: I think the league is better off with the changes, as no team is actively tanking this season and bottom level teams are making moves (even small ones) to try to stay out of the cellar. Call it the "race for #4" or whatever you like, but teams aren't actively trying to lose games...they aren't IRing their best players...they aren't putting in bad DCs...they might not be trying to win the title, but the activity at the bottom of the league is higher than it has been in previous seasons. I'd call that a rousing success so far.
Harlem: The landscape has become healthier. The shitty teams now need to pay more attention than in the past. Ithink it will lead to better competitive balance, the top teams will get upset slightly more often which gives them new worries as they jockey for seeds. It also gives us a whole new set of discussion points on Skype as the season draws to a conclusion. More discussion, more decisions, more gm challenge… all healthy.
London: Love it. Quality dudes aren't being peddled for 2nds. High end teams are stockpiling the depth they were once able to. I think this will make the league a lot more competetive and will make it easier for rebuilding teams to climb back into the playoffs instead of having to start over from scratch everytime they got a couple of nice draft picks. That's something I've stressed for years. You don't need to bottom out to properly rebuild. You can keep some useful pieces around and be a lot closer to being a winning team again.
San Francisco: I think it has been an overall positive change, I am seeing more activity among the teams at the bottom and more aggression in trying to make moves to stay out of the bottom 3. You can see it in overall records, last year 7 teams finished with a win percentage below .300, this year there are currently 4 and one of those is pushing towards being above that margin.
Sydney: I don’t see a difference. Any “tanking” team should spend during FA to pick-up assets to flip, so whoever didn’t do this previously was missing a way to harbor assets. Separately, a team that was “tanking” already understands that it’s a ridiculously boring process and is tough to sit there and lose. So I feel like if you wish to go that route, you know it’s a long road and shouldn’t have been punished for willing to endure this painful period.
6. Which two teams will meet in the Finals?
Bayi: From the Americas, it’s going to be Imhoff’s former stomping grounds: New York. They are insane. From Eurasia, I still really like London - especially with the recent additions. They are flexible, young, and scary. Their only weakness will be if they run into the Kings. (Sorry, Beermen. I’m still not sold.)
Beijing: Knicks vs San Miguel. I think this is the Knicks year. He has been building up to this run for several seasons and I think its time. But if any team can take them to 7 games with a shot at winning, its the trio of Stockton, Kemp and Ewing.
Berlin: I'm gonna go with the two most consistent teams of the season, the Knicks and the Beermen. NY has been ridiculously solid all year, as Hayes might be in his defensive prime even if his offense isn't what it was in his MVP years. The Beermen have Kemp and Ewing in the post, but it's Stockton who one GM said is "the best player in the whole league." I'm not sure if I agree with that, but he's certainly in the running for the best PG in the league. The only other team I considered putting here was Sydney, but while the KAJ acquisition might be the key to victory, it also might sink the team's chemistry. I'll stick with San Miguel's consistent approach.
Harlem: Sydney and Seattle.
London: New York is playing too well right now to bet against them but how can you count out Hakeem? I think the Lakers will get through the American Conference but who knows. That place is tough. A lot of good teams who could make any series tough. From Eurasia I think that Sydney and Beermen are the two best teams but the trade for Kareem gives Sydney a little edge in my opinion. I like the bold trade and think it could pay off for them. One less medicore team either way in this situation.
San Francisco: San Miquel and NY. Sydney and London are the sexy choices in Eurasia due to their impressive trades of late but the Beermen have quietly had one of the best teams in the league the last few years and have arguably the best player at the two most important positions in my book, Stockton at PG and Ewing at C. NY is the best team so far this year, has very few weaknesses and with Seattle and Buenos Aires aging or making moves I think this is the year the Knicks make the finals.
Sydney: The kings and knicks. Winner here gets to revive john starks with 5000 FREE PP.
7. Which conference will be stronger in 3 seasons and why?
Bayi: Weirdly enough, it might still be the Americas - the simple fact is that while bad teams make the playoffs in Eurasia, that also means that bad teams are getting bumped out of the lottery. There are a lot of teams in the Americas that aren’t getting the picks they need to rise to the top, and teams like Bayi were forced to add talent like Darrall Imhoff that is, unfortunately, making them too good than the expert tankers in the Americas.
Beijing: Even. It may seem like a cop out answer but I think its the right one considering the shifting ages of the talent pool. The Americas are getting older aside from maybe a couple teams. Eurasia has the younger up and coming talent along with stronger mid-aged teams such as the builds of Sydney and new look London. Then younger teams like Bayi (Duncan), Beijing, BCZ should be competing in 3 seasons as well. But the Americas have the better DC/GP GMs in the league that can make even old players still function competitively.
Berlin: Eurasia, as I think the American conference has peaked and in three seasons will be in full decline. Seattle is already at the point where its stars have started to age out, Buenos Aires has started to deal away its aging stars, Harlem is in complete disarray, and Chicago has gone from perennial contender to...not perennial contender. While the conference has several teams that can compete, the time of America being the dominant force is over.
Harlem: The conferences will both have better depth in my opinion, and the quality gap won’t be as apparent as it has been in past seasons, but I think the American will still be slightly stronger just because the gms are more engaged over here. The American has fewer teams drifting along rudderless, and I don’t see that changing rapidly.
London: I forsee the fall of America. A few teams who have been dominant for years are showing their age a little. I also like what Tehran, Beijing, BCZ, and some other Eurasian teams are putting together. San Miguel should have an elite trio for the next 5-7 seasons and while the Kings added Kareem at the cost of some future they are still fairly young overall and will be a playoff team for another half decade at least. America does have some up and coming teams like the Bulls, the Raptors, and a few others who could develop into real powerhouses. I don't think one conference will dominate the other but I think it will even out a bit more than it was the first 7 seasons in Eurasia's favor or the last 7 in America's.
San Francisco: Americas. They have a considerable head start, there are 10 playoff caliber teams in the Americas right now and the teams that are aging are well run so they should remain competitive for the future. Eurasia is on the rise as a conference, but there is a pretty massive gap between the overall quality of the conferences right now and I don’t see that changing in less than 5 seasons. The top tier of each conference is comparable right now to each other, but the depth in the Americas gives them a decided edge for the next several years.
Sydney: Eurasia cause we have finally rid ourselves of the terrible GMs that plagued 2 franchises and have already been trending up, seeing as 2/3 best records reside there now and the reigning champion is from here too.
8. Who is your Rookie of the Year at this point?
Bayi: Darrall Imhoff.
Just kidding. It’s Tim Duncan. Dude’s gotten better every month, and he’s clearly heads and shoulders above the rest of this class. Rookie of the Month for January with all-star level numbers (29.1 points, 9.8 boards, 1.2 steals/1.8 blocks). This is a no brainer.
Beijing: As much as I want to say AI, I can't justify the nepotism. The ROY is Tim Duncan and there should not be any question about that. He is already making an insane impact for his team and while AI may be able to sneak Beijing into the playoffs, it is Duncan who is putting up All-League type numbers in his first season. Basically going 24/9 with already very strong defense... dude's a freak.
Berlin: Duncan, the guy who was just mentioned. #11 in the league in scoring, #15 in the league in rebounding, with blocks and assists to spare...the question isn't who will win RoTY, it's who would be #2. For my money, I like Kobe, who is putting up 18 a game with a nice shooting percentage on a terrible team, but you can't overlook the contribution AI is putting up in Beijing (18 points, 4 boards, 5 assists). Even Jayson Williams is putting up some decent numbers in Philly...
Harlem: Allen Iverson. He’s playing major minutes and contributing not just as a scorer but as the über combo guard he was in real life. His turnovers have been at an acceptable level for his age and bode well for his future.
London: I haven't followed the race super closely so I will blindly bet on the #1 pick who is putting up good numbers on a team by himself. I've heard AI or Kobe could sneak in a few votes but how do you go against a guy averaging almost 24 a game as a rookie? He's also doing it on defense already. Duncan was about the safest pick in the draft and he's showing why. He came in ready to play and he's getting that opportunity. The real question is who will be paired with him in this draft? That will help define the Bayi Rockets new style of play going forward.
San Francisco: Tim Duncan and even though this is a nice rookie class it isn’t really close. Duncan not only has put up the best stats so far 23.9 points, 9.3 boards, 3.1 assists, 1.7 blocks but he has grown on and off the court. It seems like the veteran influence of Darrall Imhoff has had a major influence on Duncan, as his game has matured rapidly.
Sydney: Tim Duncan – 24/10/3 as a rookie – albeit inflated due to the crappy team but that’s going to bring home the award no doubt about it.
1. What do you think the benefits and drawbacks are of a One Conference system?
Bayi: The benefits are that only the best teams make it to the playoffs, and I guess that’s good enough of a reason to do it, naturally. However, I really like the idea of random ne’er-do-wells making it into the playoffs every once in a while. Let’s not assume that there are such crazy financial ramifications of missing the playoffs like in real life, where missing out on a couple home paydays is a major blow. We’ve had a handful of seasons where worse teams get home court in the first round. Whoopie shit. It’s not like the Rockets are going to make up 2.5 games and get Imhoff into the playoffs over a more deserving team. If you want the guarantee, win your division.
Beijing: I don't think there are any benefits. We will still have the issue of crap division winners making the playoffs. So while this answer may be short, we haven't had these divisions long enough to justify something as broken when the one presented solution fixes almost nothing. The only real "rivalry" we have in this league is the Eurasia America shit talking, one conference kinda tosses that out of the window.
Berlin: The benefits of a one conference system seem simple...the best 16 teams in the league get into the playoffs. There isn't the concern of being in the wrong conference/division and getting left out because only 8 from each side get in. That being said, I think you lose some of the competition/rivalry when you go down to a one conference system. This league was built on America vs Eurasia, and I'd hate to see it go away because we are worried about the 9th best team in America being 1 game better than the 8th best team in Eurasia every 3rd year...
Harlem: There are a few small benefits but for me they’re outweighed by the drawback of weakening the league’s identity. I like the rivalry of the two conferences, and I like rooting for my conference mates in the finals. I’m a traditionalist, and even though the ABCA tradition is pretty short it does exist. I say don’t fix what isn’t broken.
London: I think the obvious benefit is that the best teams make the playoffs regardless of their location on the map. That's great when you have sub-.500 teams making the playoffs, but I'm not sure that's terribly common. My main concern for changing to this system is that we do have pride in the conference we belong to and that does flame the spirits and create a little rivalry. I'm a huge supporter of rivalries but cultivating them seems to be a little bit of a mystery. I definitely hear back and forth between the conferences so maybe it's not a great idea to take that away.
San Francisco: I think the benefits are the best 8 teams by record after the division winners would make the playoffs each year. I think the drawbacks are you could have the 3rd best team in the league record wise end up being an 8 seed and having to face the best team in the league in round two. It isn’t a perfect system but it is worthy of discussion.
Sydney: I personally don’t think there’s any benefit other than the fact that people would stop complaining that Eurasia stinks and America rules and it’s not fair cause it’s harder to make the playoffs. I think there should be 2 conferences with only 2 divisions. I like having two separate conferences and don’t think there’s any reason to switch other then what I mentioned previously. I would like to see 2 divisions combined so that we don’t have sub 500 teams making the playoffs for winning a weak division.
2. Do you support expansion? If so, how many teams and why? If not, why not?
Bayi: I don’t support expansion. There are just enough teams right now. I do, however, support change, and so I’d love to see some relocations every once in a while - no more than one every two or three seasons, voted on by the committee, fitting within the structure of the league. We need New Orleans, just because it’s a cool team that people would love to run. Move the 76ers, who are a historic franchise that’s done nothing throughout its career, to Cincinnati, so Imhoff can return home to the Royals where he once played in real life.
Beijing: Absolutely. 4 teams. Giving each conference 18 teams with three 6 team divisions. This is the best solution to the playoff seeding issues. Since we've had a steady group of GMs, I think we could fill another 4 teams. And with the reorganization of the divisions and only 3 division winners, then all of the deserving teams will make the playoffs. The real question is, can the committee come to agreement on expansion.
Berlin: No, I don't support expansion, as I think the league is currently at its highest sustainable level of teams right now. If anything I think the league would be best suited with a 2 team contraction, going down to a 30 team level. But since that isn't in the stars, I think we are better off staying as is, trying to foster more activity from our current teams than trying to force more teams into a league that has struggled to stay full in the past.
Harlem: I do not support expansion because I don’t think we can find the additional gms. The ones who strike out can’t be counted on to come back into the league the next season. It would be good to see the talent dispersed a little, and teams not being able to stockpile 12 blue/blue players… but on balance I say no expansion.
London: For the record I always support expansion. My main argument is always that more GMs in the league create more activity which means more reason to check in and participate for all. My goal is to get to 40 teams. That being said, adding 2 teams bring you up to 34 (17 per conference) which doesn't break into divisions easily unless you go down to 2 which would leave 8 in one and 9 in the other. At that point 1 more or less doesn't matter. If you add 4 you're up to 36 and can break it into 6 teams 3 divisions per conference. I don't think adding 4 is doable right now. In fact it may be too big a jump at this point and we may need to go with adding 2 twice with a few years in between. So, I suppose, adding 2 (and dropping to 2 divisions) would be my vote if there was expansion on the table. Which there isn't.
San Francisco: I cannot believe I am saying this but given that we are not going to contract to 30 teams I am in favor of expanding by 4 teams to 36 teams and having three, six team divisions in each conference. This would mean less likelihood of a horrible division winner getting a playoff spot and should mean seeding would end up being rewarded more closely to your overall season performance.
Sydney: I wouldn’t be opposed to it as long as it’s announced well over a season in advance and is voted on league wide, not just by the committee. The logistics aren’t as important to me as proper notice.
3. We currently seed the divisional winners 1-4 - do you favor that system and why?
Bayi: Yes. Winning the division should be the first goal of a championship run, and not winning the division should make things a little harder in the playoffs. The division races are fun - as someone who was constantly in a division race with New York, I can appreciate building a team to not only win, but to win against rivals. Maybe if New York still had Imhoff during the dominant Harlem years, he’d have won a few more games.
Beijing: It's not terrible, but it is flawed. I think a three division structure would be much better because the shifting of teams would guarantee that each division winner is actually a playoff worthy team and it makes it that much more critical to win the division. It would also mean that a team with a .600+ winning percentage won't likely end up being screwed out of home court.
Berlin: Division races should mean something...and they should mean more than just getting into the playoffs (since I've seen this as an argument). Division races should be all about rivalries, and winning your division should have a tangible benefit. If you want home court, you should at least be the best team in your own division. You can claim "BUT I HAVE THE 2ND BEST RECORD IN THE CONFERENCE!?!" all you want...if that's the 2nd best record in your own 4 team division, you didn't earn home court. Win more games in the regular season.
Harlem: No, because winning a weak division is easier than winning 50-55 games and the 4 seed always gets pasted in the first round. I got the sixth seed in consecutive years despite having the 5th best record, and felt like I should have had an easier path to the second round.
London: I'm split. It's not the answer anyone wants to read in one of these but there it is. I am asking this question to get more info on the debate. I do 100% support the current format of 8 total divisions and the division winners getting playoff births regardless of their record. I am not as sold on the home court advantage though. I defended the home court side in the Skype room because I feel a champion should take on whoever wherever whenever. If another team beats you then you're not the champion. But.. some teams make for really tough match-ups. Should that not come into affect too? On the fence here folks, sorry I can't be more definitive at this point.
San Francisco: I am not a fan of this at all I think teams should be seeded solely on their record, the entire 82 game season needs to mean something and having bad teams make the playoffs and get a higher seed. Assuming we are keeping a divisional format, the winners of each division should make the playoffs, but that is itself a larger reward. We have had the current divisional format for 5 completed seasons now there have been 6 times in the 10 sets of seeds (5 per conference) that a division winner has been seeded higher than they should have be their record.
Sydney: No, because winning a division doesn’t mean you’re a top 4 team. The best teams get slighted solely due to the fact that they play in a tougher division. I think this issue would be mitigated by going to a 2 conference / 2 division setup.
4. Who is the biggest star that will be dealt before the deadline (sim 11)?
Bayi: If we’re talking hall of fame, former All-Stars that still have all-star level defense skills, it’s Darrall Imhoff, naturally. As far as CURRENT stars, we look to Seattle, who clearly wants to shift a little younger (not rookie young, but star young) possibly dealing English or JoJo to a contender looking to make that final jump, or we look to London, who has dealt for some great stars but has imbalance in the lineup. Pippen for Imhoff. Post it.
Beijing: I think we may have already seen it with the KAJ trade. But if any other big team is gonna trade away a star, I think we will see Seattle trade Alex English. He's been shopped for most of the past two seasons, or so it seems. If any potential young stars get traded, look at Toronto's roster and pick one.
Berlin: A lot of the "big stars" that could move have already moved (Bird/Parish/KAJ/DJ)...with that being said, BA is in the process of getting younger, so Dr. J or Gus Williams is a possibility. But for my money, Grant Hill is the name. I give it one or two more bad sims before Detroit abandons ship and starts selling off everything he traded to get in to the offseason (he already gave up on DEKE), with Hill going to highest bidder before the deadline...
Harlem: he biggest name that will be dealt will be Tracy McGrady, but the biggest star traded will be Vinko.
London: The popular answer will be IMHOFF, amirite, but I will put this out there... Isiah Thomas. The Titans have an elite backcourt with Zeke and the Glove but I wonder if they don't feel that there is a better fit out there. Both guys are killing it for Mexico City right now and the only reason I pick Zeke over Gary is that Zeke wasn't drafted by Aaron Roark. Rumor suggest he is looking for a Small Forward but they'd need to be among the best to even start the conversation. He really wants to win this division and with Buenos Aires trading Kareem to Sydney I think the door has opened a little more. Only two teams from that division are doing to get in and they are all within a half game of each other. My concern would be that team chemistry could get messed up and they've been winning games. Do you wanna roll the dice or let them mature together and come back next year potentially stronger? IMHOFF!!
San Francisco: I am not sure a “star” gets dealt. There have been lots of rumors about big names, but I think the biggest names have already been moved with Kareem, Parish, etc. all moving lately. I think the biggest name that gets moved will be Earl Monroe, because it has been too many sims since he was traded
Sydney: This is a tough question cause I just picked up KAJ but I guess I’ll go out on a limb here and say that no major deals go down before the deadline.
5. What do you think about the landscape of the league following the new anti-tanking rule? What has changed?
Bayi: I like it. I like it a lot, even though it directly affected me and my plan for building a team. There’s a little added strategy required to be the FOURTH best team and get the best chance in the lottery, and it’s added to some of last year’s lottery teams having to add talent despite their desire to lose. If it wasn’t for adding oldsters like Imhoff and Lucas, last year’s top two picks might still be toiling in the shadows of tank-land. (Though, let’s be honest - the Sixers will ALWAYS toil down there.)
Beijing: I think the rule has actually had a positive effect on the bottom half of the league. I understand there was a concern about teams without picks deliberately tanking to "screw" the pick into #4-6 but I'm sorry, thats not much of a punishment. As a matter of fact, it will only hurt the team without their pick in the long run so have fun with that one. But overall, I really do think the bottom teams are putting in some effort to try and not be last which is better for the league as a whole.
Berlin: I think the league is better off with the changes, as no team is actively tanking this season and bottom level teams are making moves (even small ones) to try to stay out of the cellar. Call it the "race for #4" or whatever you like, but teams aren't actively trying to lose games...they aren't IRing their best players...they aren't putting in bad DCs...they might not be trying to win the title, but the activity at the bottom of the league is higher than it has been in previous seasons. I'd call that a rousing success so far.
Harlem: The landscape has become healthier. The shitty teams now need to pay more attention than in the past. Ithink it will lead to better competitive balance, the top teams will get upset slightly more often which gives them new worries as they jockey for seeds. It also gives us a whole new set of discussion points on Skype as the season draws to a conclusion. More discussion, more decisions, more gm challenge… all healthy.
London: Love it. Quality dudes aren't being peddled for 2nds. High end teams are stockpiling the depth they were once able to. I think this will make the league a lot more competetive and will make it easier for rebuilding teams to climb back into the playoffs instead of having to start over from scratch everytime they got a couple of nice draft picks. That's something I've stressed for years. You don't need to bottom out to properly rebuild. You can keep some useful pieces around and be a lot closer to being a winning team again.
San Francisco: I think it has been an overall positive change, I am seeing more activity among the teams at the bottom and more aggression in trying to make moves to stay out of the bottom 3. You can see it in overall records, last year 7 teams finished with a win percentage below .300, this year there are currently 4 and one of those is pushing towards being above that margin.
Sydney: I don’t see a difference. Any “tanking” team should spend during FA to pick-up assets to flip, so whoever didn’t do this previously was missing a way to harbor assets. Separately, a team that was “tanking” already understands that it’s a ridiculously boring process and is tough to sit there and lose. So I feel like if you wish to go that route, you know it’s a long road and shouldn’t have been punished for willing to endure this painful period.
6. Which two teams will meet in the Finals?
Bayi: From the Americas, it’s going to be Imhoff’s former stomping grounds: New York. They are insane. From Eurasia, I still really like London - especially with the recent additions. They are flexible, young, and scary. Their only weakness will be if they run into the Kings. (Sorry, Beermen. I’m still not sold.)
Beijing: Knicks vs San Miguel. I think this is the Knicks year. He has been building up to this run for several seasons and I think its time. But if any team can take them to 7 games with a shot at winning, its the trio of Stockton, Kemp and Ewing.
Berlin: I'm gonna go with the two most consistent teams of the season, the Knicks and the Beermen. NY has been ridiculously solid all year, as Hayes might be in his defensive prime even if his offense isn't what it was in his MVP years. The Beermen have Kemp and Ewing in the post, but it's Stockton who one GM said is "the best player in the whole league." I'm not sure if I agree with that, but he's certainly in the running for the best PG in the league. The only other team I considered putting here was Sydney, but while the KAJ acquisition might be the key to victory, it also might sink the team's chemistry. I'll stick with San Miguel's consistent approach.
Harlem: Sydney and Seattle.
London: New York is playing too well right now to bet against them but how can you count out Hakeem? I think the Lakers will get through the American Conference but who knows. That place is tough. A lot of good teams who could make any series tough. From Eurasia I think that Sydney and Beermen are the two best teams but the trade for Kareem gives Sydney a little edge in my opinion. I like the bold trade and think it could pay off for them. One less medicore team either way in this situation.
San Francisco: San Miquel and NY. Sydney and London are the sexy choices in Eurasia due to their impressive trades of late but the Beermen have quietly had one of the best teams in the league the last few years and have arguably the best player at the two most important positions in my book, Stockton at PG and Ewing at C. NY is the best team so far this year, has very few weaknesses and with Seattle and Buenos Aires aging or making moves I think this is the year the Knicks make the finals.
Sydney: The kings and knicks. Winner here gets to revive john starks with 5000 FREE PP.
7. Which conference will be stronger in 3 seasons and why?
Bayi: Weirdly enough, it might still be the Americas - the simple fact is that while bad teams make the playoffs in Eurasia, that also means that bad teams are getting bumped out of the lottery. There are a lot of teams in the Americas that aren’t getting the picks they need to rise to the top, and teams like Bayi were forced to add talent like Darrall Imhoff that is, unfortunately, making them too good than the expert tankers in the Americas.
Beijing: Even. It may seem like a cop out answer but I think its the right one considering the shifting ages of the talent pool. The Americas are getting older aside from maybe a couple teams. Eurasia has the younger up and coming talent along with stronger mid-aged teams such as the builds of Sydney and new look London. Then younger teams like Bayi (Duncan), Beijing, BCZ should be competing in 3 seasons as well. But the Americas have the better DC/GP GMs in the league that can make even old players still function competitively.
Berlin: Eurasia, as I think the American conference has peaked and in three seasons will be in full decline. Seattle is already at the point where its stars have started to age out, Buenos Aires has started to deal away its aging stars, Harlem is in complete disarray, and Chicago has gone from perennial contender to...not perennial contender. While the conference has several teams that can compete, the time of America being the dominant force is over.
Harlem: The conferences will both have better depth in my opinion, and the quality gap won’t be as apparent as it has been in past seasons, but I think the American will still be slightly stronger just because the gms are more engaged over here. The American has fewer teams drifting along rudderless, and I don’t see that changing rapidly.
London: I forsee the fall of America. A few teams who have been dominant for years are showing their age a little. I also like what Tehran, Beijing, BCZ, and some other Eurasian teams are putting together. San Miguel should have an elite trio for the next 5-7 seasons and while the Kings added Kareem at the cost of some future they are still fairly young overall and will be a playoff team for another half decade at least. America does have some up and coming teams like the Bulls, the Raptors, and a few others who could develop into real powerhouses. I don't think one conference will dominate the other but I think it will even out a bit more than it was the first 7 seasons in Eurasia's favor or the last 7 in America's.
San Francisco: Americas. They have a considerable head start, there are 10 playoff caliber teams in the Americas right now and the teams that are aging are well run so they should remain competitive for the future. Eurasia is on the rise as a conference, but there is a pretty massive gap between the overall quality of the conferences right now and I don’t see that changing in less than 5 seasons. The top tier of each conference is comparable right now to each other, but the depth in the Americas gives them a decided edge for the next several years.
Sydney: Eurasia cause we have finally rid ourselves of the terrible GMs that plagued 2 franchises and have already been trending up, seeing as 2/3 best records reside there now and the reigning champion is from here too.
8. Who is your Rookie of the Year at this point?
Bayi: Darrall Imhoff.
Just kidding. It’s Tim Duncan. Dude’s gotten better every month, and he’s clearly heads and shoulders above the rest of this class. Rookie of the Month for January with all-star level numbers (29.1 points, 9.8 boards, 1.2 steals/1.8 blocks). This is a no brainer.
Beijing: As much as I want to say AI, I can't justify the nepotism. The ROY is Tim Duncan and there should not be any question about that. He is already making an insane impact for his team and while AI may be able to sneak Beijing into the playoffs, it is Duncan who is putting up All-League type numbers in his first season. Basically going 24/9 with already very strong defense... dude's a freak.
Berlin: Duncan, the guy who was just mentioned. #11 in the league in scoring, #15 in the league in rebounding, with blocks and assists to spare...the question isn't who will win RoTY, it's who would be #2. For my money, I like Kobe, who is putting up 18 a game with a nice shooting percentage on a terrible team, but you can't overlook the contribution AI is putting up in Beijing (18 points, 4 boards, 5 assists). Even Jayson Williams is putting up some decent numbers in Philly...
Harlem: Allen Iverson. He’s playing major minutes and contributing not just as a scorer but as the über combo guard he was in real life. His turnovers have been at an acceptable level for his age and bode well for his future.
London: I haven't followed the race super closely so I will blindly bet on the #1 pick who is putting up good numbers on a team by himself. I've heard AI or Kobe could sneak in a few votes but how do you go against a guy averaging almost 24 a game as a rookie? He's also doing it on defense already. Duncan was about the safest pick in the draft and he's showing why. He came in ready to play and he's getting that opportunity. The real question is who will be paired with him in this draft? That will help define the Bayi Rockets new style of play going forward.
San Francisco: Tim Duncan and even though this is a nice rookie class it isn’t really close. Duncan not only has put up the best stats so far 23.9 points, 9.3 boards, 3.1 assists, 1.7 blocks but he has grown on and off the court. It seems like the veteran influence of Darrall Imhoff has had a major influence on Duncan, as his game has matured rapidly.
Sydney: Tim Duncan – 24/10/3 as a rookie – albeit inflated due to the crappy team but that’s going to bring home the award no doubt about it.
