Reply With Quote
Can't wait for Lakers, Celtics, Knicks to win top 3 picks for the foreseeable future
The champion should receive the 1st pick, tbh. To the winner goes the spoils, tbh..........
Can't wait for Lakers, Celtics, Knicks to win top 3 picks for the foreseeable future
It's not like some scrub team like Milwaukelol, etc. are going to get anything out of a first round pick, anyways, tbh. They will always suck and sign scrubby chubby chuckers like Gary Neal to fk things up for them.
[QUOTE=baseline bum;7015086]It is still significant revenues for teams even in your worst case scenario. Best case scenario it's much more. That's just for ownership too. Players get financial awards for making the playoffs too.
What do you mean? If you have to win plenty of games to get the draft pick, you have to be somewhat good. Not only that, you have to try and win all year where all teams are trying to win so you are probably pretty good. True contender? No, but that is the point.But you're not that good and probably haven't been pushing that hard when you're a borderline playoff team.
Doing those things when you are winning games and the 9th seed seems highly illogical and you rarely ever see that happening. If you are close to making the playoffs, but decide it's better for you to tank to get a stud young player vs making the playoffs because you can get a number one pick dumping guys and firing coaches who got you close to the playoffs makes 0 sense. You would just set yourself back further for the sake of getting a player who by himself doesnt make you better. You have to add that player to a team already close to being a playoff team for him to matter unless it's a once in a generation player like Duncan/Lebron.You can dump guys at the trade deadline, cut players on expiring deals, fire the coach or force him to play along, things like that.
Tanking is not really a big problem in any year IMO, not even this one. My solution eliminates tanking in every year. And in the random year where a Duncan or Lebron is available and you see tanking, it would only be tanking for 5-10 games vs 82. It's a win-win. Everyone would be pushing to win enough games to not make playoffs which is more enteraining.So your solution eliminates tanking in years where tanking wouldn't be a problem anyways.
The NBA currently operates like a socialist system, trying to create artificial equality. This is complete bullshat. The champions should be rewarded for their success and given the first pick. The second pick should go to the runner-up, etc. Anything else is complete socialist fell-good baloney.
There might be this years(like14), where you rather have that chance of getting great pick, than beeing a 7th or 8th seat. But yeah, most years there would ne no tanking at all.
It's not like teams like the Kicks never get picks or the Lakers have no chance at putting together a great team while not beeing the the playoffs.
[QUOTE=DPG21920;7015108]
Last edited by Killakobe81; 12-18-2013 at 09:15 AM.
I agree, from a purely tanking perspective, this might be the best idea and I would even prefer this to the current system. However, I don't like this idea as much because it doesn't truly incentivize winning. It discourages tanking, but doesn't directly reward winning. Not only that, tanking is just not an issue. There is a reason that TOR/CHA are always in the lottery. It's not that they are tanking. Tanking implies you are good, but purposely do things to lose in order to add talent unfairly. If that were the case, these teams in the lottery would "tank", get their lottery pick and then all of the sudden be good. Since we know that doesn't happen, it points to them not tanking but just being bad teams.
Your idea only encourages winning from the perspective of: "Well, there is no benefit in losing", but it doesn't really make a team push to win. My system does that while still eliminating tanking. The key I guess is what are you trying to accomplish. My system isn't trying to eliminate tanking (although it pretty much takes care of it) - my system is designed to make good teams really good or great which makes the NBA better. The system of making terrible teams slightly less terrible is silly to me.
I would say a mix of handing out even odds for non-playoff teams and also distributing revenue-sharing among non-tax teams based on overall ranking for the past season. What that does is make the lottery actually fair to everyone (tanking makes no sense when you have the same odds if you suck completely or you borderline suck), and there's a monetary incentive to actually strive to win games, even if you're not a contender or playoff team.
IMO
I am assuming you mean distributing revenue-sharing for nontax teams that don't make the playoffs?
Quoting the part the matters. I actually agree with this at least in theory. I don't think it'll work exactly as you think because then the 4th worst gets the best chance? Then teams will just be more careful while tanking then try to turn it on late, or pad their wins a little then tank hard so they can control their destiny a bit better. If you wanna tank, you can practically choose your finishing seed among the bottom dregs.
You can never take away "bad teams getting draft picks" because that's how sports are balanced against the big cities and richest franchises from getting the best players and winning every single year. Those cities will always have an advantage because of that, but when you take away the draft structure, the whole system will fall in on itself besides the top dogs.
I don't really know a good way to fix it, but it's obvious the eastern conference is complete trash and full of tankers. They're worse than the west regardless but gimmie a break. Teams that aren't even in the west playoff picture would be 3rd in the east.
So what incentive does this bring to the players? Whose to say the players will take these games seriously?
The current system is fine IMHO.
Yes. For example, you would split equally the amount among the number of teams involved, and those that made the playoffs would get their share. Those that did not, would be ranked by their position and then you would reward those that did better (for example, you take the top team and add a 10% to their share, which would come out from the worst team share, etc).
The NBA is redistributing the wealth. Spreading it around, tbh.
Idk I don't think this is really something that can ever be really fixed
The idea of having a tournament of all the lottery teams with the winner getting the number 1 pick doesn't exactly work for a couple reasons. Let's say you are the Milwaukee Bucks, a small market with undesirable night life and not the best weather, and you just can't attract talent. If being bad doesn't get them the pick, they are stuck in absolute mediocrity until some no name manages to develop into a star on their team or they get a great coach who can get a lot more out of them
"incentivize winning"....wtf? is there any incentivize of winning for any team but 3-4 contenders then?
winning creates interest...interest creates ticketsales
winning creates playoffs...playoffs creates money
The only bad thing about changing the draft system is that it would preclude comparisons between any teams post-change with pre-change, because it would change the whole system of how teams are constructed.
From a pre-change team's perspective, they would think, "That's not fair - if we have been given the #1 draft choice in 20XX, we would have been le contenders by now" or something like that.
I don't think all sub .500 teams are tanking like OP says. Take the Pistons. Their talent is very young. They have given some great teams some trouble this season and I think they are getting better every week.
No hope as a fan? It is nice seeing your team improve each week even if they have no shot at a le, they will be competing in a couple years.
I cant remember who, but I think last year someone had an idea that I liked.
The idea was to LIMIT the picks a team could have in consecutive years, it was something like this (probably not, but the idea remains):
Picks 1-3: No more than 1 in a 3 year period
Picks 4-10: 3 / 3 years
Picks 11-14: 5 / 5 years
So if a team can gets the 1st pick one year, they cant get a top 3 in the next 2 years. Why not make it a Top 3 pick every 5 years instead of 3?
This is just an example (probably wrong) but, the idea is to LIMIT picks, so tanking doesn't necessary mean better picks.
The best solution is probably a combination of many things, but this idea I like.
This would help eliminate tanking because, jut because
the problem in the East has nothing to do with taking on the draft lottery. The problem is too much revenue for too little production. look at New York for example, they don't have to win a single game to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure that would make a little bit more if they won more games but they're not hurting regardless. I can't say the same for Brooklyn however. it must be profitable for these guys to lose these games else they would not own the team or they would not lose as many games. It seems these people just bring in whomever of the street to coach the teams.
The problem about the solutions to tanking is that it goes against what the league wants to achieve, parity amongst all teams. The league, ultimately, wants to run a socialist approach by equalizing the playing field, essentially rewarding the weak by penalizing the strong. While there is some merits to this by given small market teams a chance and essentially broadens the base market for the league, the side effects are that some teams will purposely do poorly to get the handouts, like the abuse of the social benefits system at the expense of society.
The Clippers did it for a number of years, the Bobcats did it a few times by putting in a minimum waged team and get revenue sharing to make a profit. It extends to tanking to get top picks, because the lottery, in and of itself, is a mechanism to reward the worst of the worst.
To eliminate tanking, the league will have to reward good behaviour in the form of either revenue or top talent, but this creates an issue that is reflected in capitalistic societies, where the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer. The league absolutely do not want this to happen as bankruptcy of weaker teams is not beneficial to the league overall.
The best way to do this has already been mentioned a couple of times, and it is to have a combination of tax sharing for the better teams, best non-playoff team getting the most lottery balls, and also averaging records over a number of years as a ranking to avoid a Lebron or Wiggins sweepstakes.
If DPG is still advocating a lottery (which I believe he is) ...then his plan makes sense. All you are doing is flipping the odds and like he said the teams that are close get help taking the next step if the balls break their way. You increase the odds of a fringe team like the Bulls pre DRose a chance to be great ...
The bottom feeders still have a chance to get lucky ...
I also like the fact that DPG is also placing a incentive on building the best team ...
Sure someone COULD still tank late (just miss the playoffs) by sitting/shutting down a star but that happens right now.
And as DPG said, they still would be playing well for months before the "tank" ...
I also thinks contraction could help elevate play ... sure teams will still screw up ...but there is not enough talent to stock 30 teams tbh ...
If the talent was better distributed ...there would be less incentive to tank.
That's a good thought, but sometimes its more than just tanking. Bad Management, Bad Coaching, Bad Chemistry between players. The lottery was establish to prevent tanking. And getting a top pick year in and year our doesn't ensure success. So tanking isn't a viable option anyway.
Quite honestly the EC team just suck or very marginal outside of the Heat and Pacers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
