Tank or Scam?

[Clover02011]

I think this is a big scam. The Celtics didn't even try last night. Game 3 looked like the Celtics.Game 4 was an obvious tank for a run at 7 games to make the owners more money. I think it's all rigged.

[Finkelskyhook]

So you think they'll start competing for real in game 7??

[Chris]

So you think they'll start competing for real in game 7??

No no no, they will compete in game 5 (while Detroit lies down), then tank game 6 again (it's detroits turn to try), and then in game 7, they will finally both be trying again.

[celtics2]

Basketball in June just sucks no matter who's playing but the League wants LA and Boston. If the Celts don't improve it will be LA in 6. We may have peaked too early.

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

I think that the players, especially Boston's, secretly realize this though they'd never admit it and that's the reason for the difference in effort for a lot of games like last nights. The Celtics realize it's just easier to win every series in 7 games than to fight the NBA and their officials and the other teams home crowd (except in Game 3 vs. Detroit when they HAD TO win to get homecourt back). This is the laziest 66-16 team I have ever seen. Atlanta's Josh Childress was 100% correct -- they did NOT want to run!

[Finkelskyhook]

So you think they'll start competing for real in game 7??

No no no, they will compete in game 5 (while Detroit lies down), then tank game 6 again (it's detroits turn to try), and then in game 7, they will finally both be trying again.

Thanks for the clarification on that, Chris.  I was wondering how all that worked. 

So did Danny and Joe coordinate to screw up that whole winning at home thing? 

[guava_wrench]

I think this is a big scam. The Celtics didn't even try last night. Game 3 looked like the Celtics.Game 4 was an obvious tank for a run at 7 games to make the owners more money. I think it's all rigged.

Earth to clover... come in clover...

[Roy Hobbs]

This is the second time somebody has had this idea, and it just doesn't make sense.

Yes, if a team plays more home games during the playoffs, it will make more revenue.  Probably between $1 million and $2 million per extra game, from what I've read.  That means by "tanking" and going to Game 7 with both Atlanta and Cleveland, Wyc and Co. made, say, $3 million extra.

However, in doing so they risked advancing to the next round.  There is *a lot* more money to be made by locking up a trip to the Finals, and in winning a championship, than $3.0 million.  The valuation of the franchise on the open market probably jumps at least another $10 million with another championship, and that's at bare minimum.  Does it make sense to risk that -- by tiring out your players, and by putting all your chips down on a "do or die" Game 7 -- just for $3 million in the short term?

[joebianca]

While I don't subscribe to this theory, the Celtics did look very lazy and, dare I say, indifferent in that game.

[Mr October]

i don't buy the tank or scam.... i think the NBA can sometimes certain officiating teams to games - pro home officials, or those with the guts to make calls against the home team. But that's about it.

In the case of the C's and Pistons, they're only as good as the accuracy of their jumpers. These are very streaky jump-shooting teams. I expected a see-saw to game 7.

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

This is the second time somebody has had this idea, and it just doesn't make sense.

Yes, if a team plays more home games during the playoffs, it will make more revenue.  Probably between $1 million and $2 million per extra game, from what I've read.  That means by "tanking" and going to Game 7 with both Atlanta and Cleveland, Wyc and Co. made, say, $3 million extra.

However, in doing so they risked advancing to the next round.  There is *a lot* more money to be made by locking up a trip to the Finals, and in winning a championship, than $3.0 million.  The valuation of the franchise on the open market probably jumps at least another $10 million with another championship, and that's at bare minimum.  Does it make sense to risk that -- by tiring out your players, and by putting all your chips down on a "do or die" Game 7 -- just for $3 million in the short term?

There was no risk in the Atlanta series. Look at the difference in the teams records. That was proven by the Game 7 score but the Cleveland series was definately risky stretching that to 7 and essentially winning on a career game by Paul Pierce. This Detroit series should go 7 whether the NBA/Stern/Wyc&Co. want it to or not especially with a healthy Billups. Cleveland series I thought would be a 5 gamer, 6 max; Atlanta series 4-game sweep, 5 max. Something could have been going on here.

[Roy Hobbs]

This is the second time somebody has had this idea, and it just doesn't make sense.

Yes, if a team plays more home games during the playoffs, it will make more revenue.  Probably between $1 million and $2 million per extra game, from what I've read.  That means by "tanking" and going to Game 7 with both Atlanta and Cleveland, Wyc and Co. made, say, $3 million extra.

However, in doing so they risked advancing to the next round.  There is *a lot* more money to be made by locking up a trip to the Finals, and in winning a championship, than $3.0 million.  The valuation of the franchise on the open market probably jumps at least another $10 million with another championship, and that's at bare minimum.  Does it make sense to risk that -- by tiring out your players, and by putting all your chips down on a "do or die" Game 7 -- just for $3 million in the short term?

There was no risk in the Atlanta series. Look at the difference in the teams records. That was proven by the Game 7 score...

There's always a risk in a "do or die" situation.  What if KG got injured at the beginning of Game 7 against the Hawks?  What if the team didn't have it's shooting touch?

No team would risk getting knocked out the playoffs, expose its players to potential injuries, and purposely play it's players every other night for over a month just for a marginal payout in revenue.  It wouldn't happen.

[Big Ticket]

This is the second time somebody has had this idea, and it just doesn't make sense.

Yes, if a team plays more home games during the playoffs, it will make more revenue.  Probably between $1 million and $2 million per extra game, from what I've read.  That means by "tanking" and going to Game 7 with both Atlanta and Cleveland, Wyc and Co. made, say, $3 million extra.

However, in doing so they risked advancing to the next round.  There is *a lot* more money to be made by locking up a trip to the Finals, and in winning a championship, than $3.0 million.  The valuation of the franchise on the open market probably jumps at least another $10 million with another championship, and that's at bare minimum.  Does it make sense to risk that -- by tiring out your players, and by putting all your chips down on a "do or die" Game 7 -- just for $3 million in the short term?

Gonna play devil's advocate here, just because it's fun every now and then... not in regards to saying, yeah they're losing on purpose, but in regards to my area of "expertise", valuation. 

I actually think it is a definite economic benefit for them to go to game 7s, in both the short and long term.  Short term is obvious because of the extra per game revenue.  Long term is insignificant expect for the future gains that come out of the short term boost.  I don't think a franchise's valuation jumps all that much from a championship.  I suppose there is all that champions merchandise they can sell.  But I think ticket prices, attendance, and all the normal stuff that seems to be correlated with winning are going to end up about the same whether the team wins a ring or wins 66 games and flames out in the postseason.  These things are priced based on expectations, and the expectations for the Celtics in the near future will be roughly the same either way.  When someone like Forbes assigns a value to a team, I don't think past championships play too big of a part in it.  Valuation is all about future cash inflows/outflows and I don't think those change too drastically by winning it all as opposed to losing in the finals. 

But hey, I'm probably wrong.

[rrc589]

Basketball in June just sucks no matter who's playing but the League wants LA and Boston. If the Celts don't improve it will be LA in 6. We may have peaked too early.

I don't buy that "peaked too early" stuff at all.

Once you learn how to play each other, you are who you are. 

There's nowhere to go but up.

[Finkelskyhook]

Well, there's something to be said for striving for more revenue when 3 players make up the salary cap all by their lonesomes.

Having said that, this theory falls under the beam me up concept.