A crazy Frank Layden idea from 25 years ago

[ziggy]

I remember reading this and at the time I thought Frank Layden was crazy.  As I have aged, I have begun to see some advantages to this concept.  Thought I would throw it out and see what the rest of you think.  This is from memory, so I could off some as to the specifics.

Instead of the standings based upon wins and losses only you give each team 1/2 standings point for winning a qtr, and 2 standings points for winning a game.  This is somewhat analogous to a tie in hockey and soccer.

So if you win each qtr and then you would get 4 points in the standings.  If you win 3 qtrs, but lose the game then you get 1-1/2 points.

The objective is too push NBA teams to play the full 48 minutes.  Make coaches manage to win every qtr.

Like I said at the time I thought it was crazy, but I am warming to the idea.

[Joe Vancil]

Interesting, but I'm against it.  I think the lottery causes enough teams to go into tank-mode, and this just worsens that entire thing ("I not only need to lose the game, I need to lose each quarter, too").  It also prevents teams from developing players.  Do you want to take a chance on losing that half point to get Eric Maynor some time to develop at point?  Do you pull LeBron James out of Q1 because you've already won it, and you want him more available to help you win Q2?  The days of the crazed comeback - like the Phoenix-Dallas game last night - would be over.

A great idea for pre-season.  Horrible idea for the regular season.  Incredibly horrible idea for the playoffs.

[rickortreat]

Definitely don't like it.  Why by quarter, why not 6 minute segments?  It's silly. The game is the game, and teams will work as hard as they think they have to, in order to win. Coaches should try to win every quarter anyway, but even if they only win one by a big margin and lose three others by one point each, they still win the game and their team deserves all the credit.  Adjustments and strategy are a big part of the game, but they take time as each team adjusts to what the other team is doing.

[marklapinski]

This is the old Continental Basketball League (Eastern League) method of ranking teams. 

"THE 7-POINT SCORING SYSTEM (1981-present) - This rule is undoubtedly the most distinctive rule of the CBA. Instituted in the 1981-82 season, it determined playoff positions not by wins and losses of games, but by wins and losses of games and quarters of games. Two teams fought for control of seven standings points per game - three points to win the game, plus an additional point for each quarter in which they outscored their opponent. Essentially this meant that the teams were playing four mini-games (when asked if this would work in the NBA, one general manager said that the players would think they were playing four games and would want to be paid four times as much). The seven-point scoring system also meant that teams kept their star players in the game during blowout contests (each quarter won determined whether a team could make the playoffs or not), and some squads could earn moral victories by losing a close game - yet taking three of the standings points in the defeat. With this exception of the 1999-2000 season, when the CBA was under the ownership of Isiah Thomas, the seven-point scoring system has remained in use in the CBA to this day. "

http://www.cbamuseum.com/cbarules.html

You could get 3 points if you outscored your opponent in 3 quarters and lose the game because you lost one quarter by a bunch of points.  Your opponent would get 4 points, one for the quarter they won and 3 for winning the game.  This would prevent teams from blowing you out in the first quarter and then resting most of their starters the rest of the game.

[ziggy]

This is the old Continental Basketball League (Eastern League) method of ranking teams. 

"THE 7-POINT SCORING SYSTEM (1981-present) - This rule is undoubtedly the most distinctive rule of the CBA. Instituted in the 1981-82 season, it determined playoff positions not by wins and losses of games, but by wins and losses of games and quarters of games. Two teams fought for control of seven standings points per game - three points to win the game, plus an additional point for each quarter in which they outscored their opponent. Essentially this meant that the teams were playing four mini-games (when asked if this would work in the NBA, one general manager said that the players would think they were playing four games and would want to be paid four times as much). The seven-point scoring system also meant that teams kept their star players in the game during blowout contests (each quarter won determined whether a team could make the playoffs or not), and some squads could earn moral victories by losing a close game - yet taking three of the standings points in the defeat. With this exception of the 1999-2000 season, when the CBA was under the ownership of Isiah Thomas, the seven-point scoring system has remained in use in the CBA to this day. "

http://www.cbamuseum.com/cbarules.html

You could get 3 points if you outscored your opponent in 3 quarters and lose the game because you lost one quarter by a bunch of points.  Your opponent would get 4 points, one for the quarter they won and 3 for winning the game.  This would prevent teams from blowing you out in the first quarter and then resting most of their starters the rest of the game.

Mark, thanks for looking this up, and correcting by faulty memory.
Do you have any info as to how it worked?

[marklapinski]

If you are a good team, you will get at least 4 points for every win.  Where it helped is in seeding the playoffs.  Also high powered offensive teams did well, because they always got points, win or lose.  Probably what it did most was separate the top two teams in each division from the teams middling a little above .500.  I do think it made games higher scoring, you didn't really sit on early leads and kept scoring (or at least tried to). 

The ratio of at least 4:3 equates to the 2:1.5 that you mentioned Layden suggested.  I moved to Arkansas to go to grad school in 1984, so I stopped following the EBL/CBA. I had a coworker of mine play for the Lancaster Red Roses while I was in undergrad.