I’m not talking about Shoeless Joe/conspiracy type situations in which bribery is involved, I’m wondering if it’s ever happened for seeding or drafting purposes. I can understand an NFL team not wanting to throw games at the end of a season for pride purposes, not to mention some of the players may not be back next season when that #1 pick would start paying off. But how about teams going into the playoffs, when losing games will result in playing an easier team? From what I’ve seen of those types of situations, the team may sit their superstars or show them less playing time simply to better prevent injury, but they still don’t seem to try to play badly…
I can’t remember the details, I will search later, but IIRC there was a football (soccer) qualifier for some official tournament involving Carribbean teams in which, for seeding purposes, both were trying to score against themselves, each protecting the opponent’s goal.
Or did I dream that?
Generally, the better you play the better seed you become and the worse seed you’d have to play in the playoffs. (#1 plays #8, #2 plays #7, etc.) It wouldn’t be to your advantage to drop down a notch in the standings, since you would then get a better opponent in the playoffs. If anything, teams already out of the playoffs might not try as hard to win at the end to enable a higher draft pick. Even that doesn’t happen- the players don’t like to lose, even if it’s for a cause.
No, you didn’t (the link is to the snopes story about the Grenada/Barbados football(soccer) game during the 1994 Shell Caribbean Cup)
It’s generally accepted that the Pittsburgh Penguins threw several games towards the end of the 83-84 season in order to land the first overall pick, Mario Lemieux.
It’s widely suspected that the Boston Celtics front office threw the entire 96-97 season in an attempt to draft Tim Duncan. They did so by hiring a fool, ML Carr, as head coach and by what’s called “giving the younger talent some playing time to develop”. In 2001, a few key players admitted trying to lose games just to get then-coach Rick Pitino fired.
But it has to be true that very few good players would willingly go along. Not only do major-sport athletes now make so much money that they’re unbribable, but the ones good enough to be able to get out of a bad team want to market themselves with their hustle and performance.
Formula 1 racers consistently “throw” a race by letting a teammate finish ahead of them, usually for points reasons.
And by “consistently” I mean “ocassionally”. Whoops!
Funny you should mention the Celtics. If what I have understood what I have been reading lately, Danny Ainge wanted the team to tank in order to improve their draft standing, but the team has had the nerve to actually have some pride and clinch a playoff spot, much to Ainges chagrin.
That’s the scuttlebutt, alright. Even trading Antoine Walker hasn’t kept the team out of the playoffs, though - they were too good, much closer to the top than the bottom. Remember that they were in the Final Four just 2 years ago. To get a chance at a franchise player, you have to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams.
Now, though, Pierce will be over the hill before they even can be competitive, and they may have to trade him too. That wouldn’t be that bad if Ainge had any clearer a strategy for the team than Bush does for Iraq, but he doesn’t, and the empty seats are starting to show up. “We’re title-driven” my sweet patootie, Danny.
I’m not in a position to look up cites and my memory is a little hazy, but that’s never stopped me before.
It’s my understanding that the NBA was at least concerned that teams who had been eliminated from the playoffs would “play down” in order to get a higher draft pick. That’s why the league introduced a lottery where the first few draft picks would be determined by drawing, rather than automatically go to the team with the worst record, then 2nd worst, etc.
True, the players don’t want to lose, but there are other ways of playing below your level. “Resting” your regulars, dubious coaching decisions, etc.
Maybe. What if during the regular season you were 0-4 against the #2 seed and 3-1 against the #1 seed? You might match up better against a certain team.
has more detail on the Carribean Cup match mentioned above, and also detail of another match in the Asian Cup between Indonesia & Thailand which exactly fits the OP’s question, two teams trying to lose to avoid a specific team in the next round.
and in regards to "the better you play, they better your seeded, The top seeds (2 in NBA basketball, 3 in NHL hockey) go to the division winners automatically, it is quite possible to finish second in one division with a better record than the winner of another division.
This is the rationalization for the “wild crd” in both the NFL & MLB.
That’s basically what I was referring to in the OP, but I didn’t make myself clear. Take my beloved Hornets, who have a pretty good seed in the East. Last I checked, Jamal Mashburn was definitely out for the playoffs and Baron Davis is questionable, whereas the Heat (who started off horribly) have been playing very well lately. I’m not sure if it’s possible, but it would probably be beneficial for the Heat or Pistons to throw games to play the Hornets in the first round as opposed to each other.
Experience and statistics would suggest that small sample sizes like that mean nothing. I am reminded of the year the Ottawa Senators were 5-0 against the Maple Leafs during the regular season. They faced each other in the first round of the playoffs. Toronto swept in four. I still remember the year the Dodgers were 11-1 against the Phillies during the regular season and got killed by them in the NLCS. There’s little evidence to suggest head-to-head records predict playoff results.
Generally speaking I’ll bet pro athletes know this. You do often hear them say “well, the playoffs are a whole new season” or some such thing.
I firmly believe that the Dallas Mavericks have thrown their last two games (against Seattle and Golden State; both teams are 14 games back of Dallas right now) in order to avoid playing the Lakers in the first round of the playoffs. Not a bad strategy, if you ask me.
Well, almost everybody believed the Houston Rockets were throwing games down the stretch in 1984, to get the #1 draft pick. And they succeeded- they finished with the worst record in the NBA, and took local hero Hakeem Olajuwon with the first pick (of course, as it turned out, the team with the #3 pick got a better deal!).
Anyway, fans and reporters were outraged by the way the Rockets tanked, and that led to the introduction of the draft lottery the following season. THe lottery exists precidely to remove incentive for teams to go in the tank, once they’re out of playoff contention.
Interestingly enought, the 50-30 Mavericks play the 50-30 Memphis Grizzlies tonight. And the way the tiebreakers work out, the winner of this game gets the fifth seed and probably goes to L.A. to start the playoffs, while the loser gets the sixth seed and probably goes to San Antonio. Craig Miller on the Ticket this morning theorized that both teams will be trying to throw the game tonight. I think he picked the Mavs to win by a score of 8 to 6. 