share

NBA lottery idea

Celtics3178
Registered User
Joined: 05/19/2016
Posts: 182
Points: 56
Offline
NBA lottery idea

The NBA is talking about changing the lottery so teams outside have a better chance at the 1 I think they should keep the odds as is but have a little twist that I think will bring more parody to the league. If a team X gets the 1 pick Y the 2 pick and Z the 3 pick. The next year those teams no matter where they finish can't have better odds then 6th best odds. So if team X Y and Z all finish with the worst three records the following year team Z would get the 6th best odds team Y would get the 7th and team X the 8th. So if one or more of them finish in the bottom the next year it's reversed order from the worst pick the year before. It will allow more teams to get rookies and stop teams from tanking in the long run. It will never stop a team from throwing a season but it would less appealing to teams and put more young talent around the league. The teams could still pick in the top of the draft consecutive years If the balls fall right but there odds would be much less likely.


BeastMode716
Registered User
Joined: 12/02/2015
Posts: 332
Points: 871
Offline
Just give the Worst team the Top pick

Stop allowing the TV execs tell you (Commish Silver) what do

And give the worst team the top pick, 2nd worst gets the next pick, 3rd worst gets......

You get the Idea

They are over blowing the Tanking but it's nothing new

I would say that the fact that 2 weeks before training camp even starts & we Already know which team is a mortal Lock to win the 2017/18' Championship is a Much bigger problem

Memphis Madness
Registered User
Joined: 03/30/2011
Posts: 4929
Points: -1665
Offline
I know it would mess up

I know it would mess up parity, but why not open up the number one pick to EVERY TEAM? Each team would have a 3.3% chance to win the top pick.

That might help discourage tanking...

Then you can do the next 4 picks based off of lotto balls.

So, the 1-5 picks would be determined by lotto balls.

6th pick down would then go to the worst team who has not yet picked...

So, why would a team tank IF it could fall all the way to 6, not to mention that a tanking team would have as good as odds at getting the top pick as a good/great team?

Giving a super bad team the best pick in the draft just rewards mediocrity (or worse). Also encourages generational tanking (Philly cough cough Sixers).

BeastMode716
Registered User
Joined: 12/02/2015
Posts: 332
Points: 871
Offline
There were Dozens of Tanking is an Epidemic articles in 2012

While Hinkie was still the hottest ast GM in the NBA while working for Houston

Doesn't everyone remember the 'OKC is not a blue print for success" articles"

Phila tanked b/c the Bynum trade legite wiped that Franchise out - that trade was More damaging than the Nets / Celtics trade b/c they gave up 2 starters & 2 - 1st round picks & got Nothing in return

Paul Pierce at least gave the Nets some good basketball

And that's my point, teams Tanking for One year is Not the problem - teams tanking for Multiple years is what we want to avoid - Phila's Tank / Rebuild actually worked really well, really quickly

Look aty Minnesota they've been under .500 for over a decade but they land KAT when they were the Worst team & the perception of the franchise Instantly changes

If they eliminate the Draft or open the Top pick up to All teams that sounds really great in theory but do we Really want to see the Golden State Warriors have a shot at Michael Porter Jr in 2018?

I respect everyone's opinion & I'm certainly no fan of the 76ers (not b/c of Tanking, I'm a Lakers fan) but we're being spoon fed a narrative when Tanking has gone on forever but a Terrible team deciding against signing Vets to Max deal is not tanking - that's Smart - Golden state used Cap space to trade w/ the Nets to take on Troyu Murphy's $11 Million contract for a 2nd round pick that led to Draymond Green

Where was the outrage then??? The Warriors traded Monta Ellis a young 20+ ppg scorer in 2011/12' so they could tank & lose enough games to barely keep their top 7 protected 1st round pick that led to Harrison Barnes???

The Knicks completely cleaned house 2 years ago to post the 2nd worst record in the NBA behind Minnesota in 2015 but the also tanking Lakers jumped up to the #2 spot & us & the Sixers messed up by passing on Porzingus

What's my point??? If a team w/ No talent, starts youngsters to ensure a top pick in a League where 95% of the All Time great Talents are found in the Top 10 why is that wrong? What else are they supposed to do???

VRod305
Registered User
Joined: 06/18/2015
Posts: 183
Points: -22
Offline
Exactly. Sam did the best

Exactly. Sam did the best possible thing you can do in the NBA and bottomed out to get serious, generational talent, but the Kings are awful for a decade and that's no big deal. Silver didn't get rid of the Kings or Lakers GM, but he got rid of Sam because he used the system. It's sad.

Andrew1984
Registered User
Joined: 06/19/2009
Posts: 1048
Points: 2878
Offline
Anyone ever heard of Colin

Anyone ever heard of Colin Cowherd's idea? I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is pretty fascinating. He advocates having the draftees select their team, instead of vice versa.

It's nearly certain that it will never happen, but it is kind of fun to ponder. A panel of experts would rate the players, so the top prospect would have first choice, second-rated prospect would have second choice, and so on. The player would have to weigh the city, coach, roster, depth at his position/opportunity for minutes, and front office philosophies of each team. Every player's approach would be a little different, because they value different things, are from different places, etc. Everyone wants to win a championship, but no rookie wants to sit on the bench.

Under this system, teams would pitch what they can offer, not unlike college recruiting. GMs would be presenting to draftees just like they do to free agents. A team with a losing record could land a big prospect by selling playing time and statistics, but a smart draftee would also be looking for proof that he won't be wasting away in a swamp of franchise whose front office can't turn things around.

The draftees would naturally spread themselves out among the franchises because overcrowding one team would hurt them. There could be some franchises that land zero players, which would be the cold, hard dose of reality they need to realize that they have problems to fix. This forces them to be proactive, instead of perpetuating incompetence, hoping to stumble into a great draft pick.

Of the many cons, one would be that draft choices would no longer represent capital, which would change the trade market dramatically.

dubbmotta
dubbmotta's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/05/2008
Posts: 986
Points: 2862
Offline
Say it's 14 teams in the

Say it's 14 teams in the lottery, should go something like this:

14th team-1 ball

13th team-2 balls

12 team-3 balls..

etc..

worst team gets 14 balls...

Would build better suspense.

Hitster
Hitster's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/17/2010
Posts: 5883
Points: 6653
Offline
The term tanking in the

The term tanking in the Hinkie era has become almost a dodgy word - Hinkie inherited a 76ers team which had been effected by the D12/Bynum/Iggy trade as said above. The team were lottery level and owed picks in the future - so a potential Brooklyn situation. He had offers for Jrue Holiday so he took one of them.

The issue was more where they landed in the draft and the habit of moving prospects on - Turner the jury is still out on but he was given away, MCW was a draft lower, trade higher player, you had Noel and Embiid who were both drafted injured, Saric who was stashed for a year. Noel was then moved on, Okafor drafted and rumours he'll be moved on, Simmons got injured, so you never saw a real potential long term team taking place until last year or so.

To be fair to Hinkie - virtually anyone would have taken Embiid at 3 in 2014 and Parker who went at 2 has had sderious injury issues too. Saric looks a good NBA player so waiting for him made sense too.

A team like Atlanta or Chicago who have gone into rebuild may not have a plan "this will take 3 to 5 years to get back into play offs and be a mid level seed etc". It's more "players have moved on, we won't chase FA's that hard as we cannot compete, we'll give younger guys a go, have cap space, assist in trades, gather assets and whilst we may not win that many games this season, we hope for lottery luck and to improve next year but it may take a couple of lottery visits."

DJR1957
Registered User
Joined: 06/26/2013
Posts: 18
Points: 25
Offline
Like this idea

Worst 8 teams get either the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th pick. Worst four each have 15% chance in Lottery, other four have 10% chance. As they do now, ping pong balls for first three picks. The six teams by record out of playoffs but closest - one gets the 4th pick by Lottery. The eight first round playoff losers - one gets the 5th pick by Lottery. This should slow down tanking.

BallerScript
BallerScript's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/31/2014
Posts: 683
Points: 1561
Offline
This is actually a

This is actually a considerable idea. Now this is a draft fix I applaud.

RSS: Syndicate content