The lower you finish, the more chance you have. Apparently it paid off.
But isn’t there a coin flip or something between the bottom 3 teams so there won’t be a race to the bottom of the standings?
The teams in the NFL do it all the time. Not necessarily losing on purpose, but resting their starters in the final game if the outcome doesn’t make a difference.
Any team that prominently featured Ricky Davis wasn’t going to compete anyway.
What happened to the Spurs in 1997? They went from 59-23 in '95-96 to 20-62 in '96-97, and were rewarded with Tim Duncan.
For one thing, David Robinson was hurt in the preseason, and they had a terrible start to the season. He came back for six games, during which they were decent, then he broke his foot and did not return.
[quote=“Mangosteen, post:22, topic:535713”]
But isn’t there a coin flip or something between the bottom 3 teams so there won’t be a race to the bottom of the standings?[/QUOTE
I don’t know, but this was a few years ago. Lucas said they did it. he was the coach.
Besides ,you can not get lucky ,if you don’t get in.
I remember years ago, in the National Football League, due to the tie-breaking system, all the Washington Redskins had to do to get into the playoffs was to either win, or at least not lose their last game by a certain number of points. It was pointed out that technically they could forfeit their last game, which would have gone down as a 1-0 loss, which would still have allowed them to make the play-offs. But the league office made it clear that there would be unstated but VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES if they actually forfeited the game.
It was just pointed out to me recently that there’s a potential situation where NHL team could miss the playoffs if they win in regulation but make the playoffs if they win in overtime.
On a similar note the infamous West_Germany v Austria game
in the 1982 World Cup finals led to a change in the schedules for later tournaments. Due to a quirk in the standings a 1-0 or 2-0 win to Germany would put both teams throught to the next stage. Gemrany scored in the first 10 minutes and then both teams kicked the ball around aimlessly for the rest of the match. Since then the final matches in each group are now played simultaneously to prevent such collusion.
It works the following way:
Recall that the NHL gives 2 points for a win in regulation or overtime, no points for a loss in regulation and 1 point for a loss in overtime (OTL).
Suppose seven teams have clinched playoff berths and teams A B and C are in contention for the 8th and last spot. Team A has finished the season with 35 wins and 10 OTLs for 80 points. Teams B and C are playing each other. B has 34 wins and 10 OTLs for 78 points and team C has 35 wins and 9 OTLs for 79 points.
If B wins in regulation, C will be eliminated, and B will have 35 wins and 10 OTLs for 80 points just like A. The next tie-breaker is greater number of points earned in games played between tied teams A and B. Suppose A holds this tiebreaker, then B cannot get into the playoffs by beating C in regulation.
However if B wins in overtime, A B and C will all have the same number of points and wins. In a three-way time, the next tiebreaker is highest percentage of points earned in games amongst the tied clubs. B could hold this tiebreaker.
(Note I know about the extra home game exclusion, I am ignoring it for simplicity as it could, but need not be relevant.)
Teams have delilberately tanked entire seasons, on the pretext of their young talent needing playing time to develop. The Celtics did it to try to draft Greg Oden, got only the fifth lottery pick despite having the NBA’s worst record, and had to settle for trading for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. Danny Ainge got the GM of the Year award for all that.
Come to think of it, they’d done it a decade earlier too, to get Tim Duncan. All that accomplished was to get Rick Pitino fired as head coach. “Larry Bird’s not walking through that door, fans”. 
I wish they’d gotten ‘lucky’ instead of the Blazers. Oden’s just Sam Bowie, Jr.
…speaking of the Blazers, it now appears that deliberately losing any of their remaining games wouldn’t have the desired effect anyway.
With the current schedule, teams always play an even number of games against conference opponents anyway.
Four issues here.
Firstly, the reason for all the anger and outrage, is GAMBLING. Think of every big tanking scandal you know of; chances are gamblers played a role in all of them. The big danger for basketball isn’t throwing games, but point shaving (deliberately winning by fewer poins than the spread), because it’s less obvious and a more attractive option for players because it doesn’t hurt the team. (This also happens in football but much more rarely because it has far more players and far fewer scoring opportunities.)
The second issue is who gets harmed by it. Obviously, in the case of the NBA (or any other professional league), the paying fans are cheated, the guilty coach’s reputation takes a hit, the team’s management has to answer to it, and the league as a whole doesn’t look too good.
The third issue is one of severity, and here’s where the case against the Trailblazers breaks down. Throwing a championship series is as extreme as it gets, less so throwing an earlier round less so but still serious, and considerably less so extending a series while still winning it (though this is more an officiating issue). But this is one regular season game. It slightly changes the playoff order and nothing else. Furthermore, even if the Trailblazers do coast past the first round (which is far from guaranteed), there are three rounds after that.
Finally, before league officials can do anything, they need PROOF, which is just about impossible in the modern NBA. Between overexpansion, college freshmen making the jump, and an overall breakdown in fundamentals, lots of players really are that awful. Not to mention players who are great most of the time but crumble under playoff pressure (paging Karl Malone!), or who are simply incredibly streaky (John Starks, anyone?).
Had the Trailblazers actually tanked the regular season finale, the most likely outcomes would’ve been a strongly-worded harrumphing from a league mouthpiece, some obligatory RO by any sports commentators that cared, and a couple days of message board snarking by Nuggets fans, and it would be quickly swept away by the playoffs.
That said, there is one sport where losing on purpose is not only permitted, but a frequent occurrence in every tournament: sumo. Going through the issues:
1: Sumo has no sports books, and even if someone were to attempt it, simply coming up with a practical, flexible odds system (especially with the vast differences in skill) is a virtually impossible task. Not to mention what kind of propositions to set up, how to deal with absences, etc.
2: If anything, winning excessively does more harm than anything else, because it boots the sumotori up to a rank where he’s almost certain to bet demolished and sent tumbling back down. Sumotori are beholden to their stablemasters above all else; fans and even senior executives, while they can be vocal, have little personal stake in these athletes. And with dozens of matches every day, one dive doesn’t result in a ripoff.
3: There are 15 matches in a tournament (7 for the lower divisions). There are, at the very most, about 8 men who have a realistic shot of even sniffing 2nd place, much less 1st. If an 8-6 maegashira jobs to a 7-7 maegashira, I defy you to find someone living in Japan who can even fudge up a reason why this should be an issue.
4: The epic letdowns, breakdowns, meltdowns, stumbles, tumbles, flops, whiffs, blunders, bloopers, and plain 'ol screwups in sumo are too numerous to list. Even the mightiest of yokozuna aren’t immune. Who could forget Chiyonofui flailing uselessly against Konishiki or Asashoryu nailed with a hair-pulling foul? A lot of times, the guy simply doesn’t want to put in the effort to win (and if he’s 8-6, can you really blame him?).
It happens, everyone knows it happens, and sumo’s brass decided that it’s not a problem. It’s so accepted, in fact, that there have been instances of sumotori being held back for NOT being willing to take a dive. Google “Asashifuji” for one of the most famous examples.
don’t ask - Cricket’s a pretty weird sport as it is; this (and the other examples in the article) was more an unforseen oversight in the rules than anything unethical, much like the UFC and fence grabbing. When you see a problem, you fix it. I think Somerset out was a terrible decision and set a far worse precedent than any gamesmanship.
AK84 - This sounds, more than anything, like simply an unheralded underdog catching fire and winning the whole shebang. Has any evidence of tanking or even lack of effort come to light?
Jim’s Son - If Baltimore took an intentional safety with a 4 point lead, there’s a good chance they would’ve lost anyway (and if they tried committing delay of game penalties, Detroit could’ve simply declined). In any case, I fail to see what exactly they gained from that loss. Could you clarify this a bit?
whitetho - Now this I can see. You need a damn good reason to forfeit a game. Had Washington abused the system so as to not risk getting blown out, the resulting backlash probably would’ve imploded the entire franchise. In fact, I can’t imagine anyone at any level of an NFL organization seriously considering something this. Is there a transcript of the actual warning or something?
It was stated in the media at the time they might do so and in many histories of then tournament. It has never been officially confirmed. The New Zealanders who had been untouchable before then collapsed spectacularly in the last league game. It would have been perferable to face Pakistan than Australia (the defending champions) or West Indies (two time winners).
Of course nowadays when you look at the lineups 18 years on you would always bet Pakistan to win, there were many players in that team who would go on to become all time greats and the Kiwis were definatly a sub par team which got lucky but in March 1992 there was no way to know that.
So the answer to the OP’s question seems to be that it depends on the league rules, but you may get thrown out of the competition if you try it. Or, you may not.
The real answer, of course, is to design the format of the competition carefully to prevent such a possibility occurring.