During the postgame show Barkley just said he wants all teams who don't make the playoffs to have only one ball in the lottery to keep teams from tanking games just to have a better chance at landing the top slots. Should the lottery just be pure luck?
nice to know your up watchin the same channel i am
There should be relegation into a lower league for the team that finishes last. Talk about a slap in the face for the fans that pay to see teams tanking
I like Barkley's idea. Teams in the playoffs should have a very small chance of winning a ball. In fact, I think instead of the first 3 spots picked in the lottery, all of them should be, or maybe just all the non-playoff teams, with chances heavily weighted to the worst of the worst.
Unless he changed the system later on after I stopped watching, his idea is to give each team not in the playoffs a single lottery ball, giving each team the same chance of getting the top pick. Is that right?
If so, I think it's a horrible idea. At the moment, good to decent teams would have to clearly be tanking to have a reasonable chance at a top pick. Under Barkley's system, a team would only have to tank itself out of the playoffs (which is a lot easier to do, and not as obvious) to have the same chance at the top pick as the worst teams in the league.
For example, the Warriors (currently 9th in the West) could just play bad enough to not make the playoffs (which is hardly tanking) and end up with the first pick. , even the Lakers could get away with it and end up with a great pick...all they would have to do is work their way out of the playoffs.
I'd modify it to say the Five teams with the worst record should have an equal shot (20% a piece) at the #1 pick. The reason I picked top 5 is that there have never been more than 5 "sure-fire" future all-stars in any draft. 2003 came close with LeBron, Carmelo, Wade, and Bosh...but in any given draft I would say there are 5 or less "automatic" superstars.
I read it wrong, then. I like Van Gundy's idea better -- teams out of the lottery should have a slight chance of getting in. Teams shouldn't be wholly punished for being good.
I think the top five non-playoff teams should be in a lottery for the top three picks and then the rest of the teams have a lottery for the rest of the picks, equally weighted among all the teams or slightly weighted in favor of the non-playoff teams.
The reason you have five teams for three picks is so that the risk of tanking in order to miss the playoffs is outweighed by the added revenue from the playoff games.
I'm still sticking to my idea from the Van Gundy thread in the NBA forum:
I dont get this, the NFL it is based soley on record, yet you dont ever see bad teams get accused of tanking, why is it that all the NBA teams do? People honestly believe that the NFL players want to win every game but NBA players dont?
I think that the teams that dont make the playoffs get one ball each for the lottery. Then for picks 15-30 are done by season records for the playoff teams. Most wins means a lower pick(example Mavericks would get the 30th pick b/c of there record)
I don't think any team on the playoff bubble is going to tank out of at least two games playoff revenue for a 1 in 14 shot at the #1 pick. I would like the lotto to be for the top 5 picks, and then the rest based on record.
I think changign the sytem is stupid anyway, tanking doesnt guarantee anything.
So then, teams that don't have a chance to win it wall would tank just enough to not make the playoffs. then they'd have a 1 in 15 chance to get #1 pick. I like those chances.
NBA would be full of mediocrity. oh, wait, it already is.
In the NFL, one star player out of 22 doesn't have nearly the impact as one star player out of five. That's why the NFL goes 7 rounds of drafting and the NBA goes only two, and a 2nd or 3rd round pick in the NFL is still considered pretty high.
To wit, the entire success of the Spurs for the past 20 years has been due to two players.
No I get that, I am more curious about the perception that NBA teams tank, while teams in the NFL dont
remember the "Reggie Bush Bowl"
I think the perception is because, depending on the year, one player can actually change your fortunes for years to come.
I can't imagine any college football player with an impact worth tanking a season for.
And last year, nobody thought anyone was tanking for Bargnani. For Durant or Oden, though, maybe somebody would.
And then another part of it is that people like to give the NBA more unfounded than any other league.
I just think its funny, that when a team like the Raiders suck, its because they arent very good, buy when the Celtics suck, they are tanking. Especially because if you are the worst in the NFL, you are guaranteed to get the first pick, but in the NBA, you still might not
The NFL gets a pass on a lot of things the NBA gets slammed on time after time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
