I don't see how this prevents a team wanting a better pick from simply losing early, then deciding to play good once eliminated; plus I think there is an inequity since teams are judged versus their spot in their respective divisions, not overall.... teams with identical records could be rated very differently depending on whether they are in a strong or weak conference.... Bay City would not support....
1. the tie breaker system is the same we use under the current system 2. the existing rule allows an owner to just lose all season if they want to get the better pick, this proposal prevents that. 3. the rule increases the chances of upsets during the run for the playoffs 4. noncompetitive teams are no longer just playing out the string once eliminated, winning games still matter 5. teams will have incentives to keep top talent to win games
re: Cleveland's concern. Suppose I have a good but not great team. I know I might squeak into the playoffs but I'm not going anywhere after. What's to keep me from tanking until I was eliminated and then put all my effort into winning the shadow playoffs that this proposal presents? At least I think that is what CLE is pointing out.
