PDA

View Full Version : Should the NBA do away with the lottery system?



Jeffy25
03-11-2014, 01:31 AM
Poll


1. Yes, eliminate the lottery system, and make it just a simple reverse standings order
2. No, keep it the way it is, potentially modify some potentially simple intricate details, but overall, keep it a lottery system




I think it's silly that a team can rise or fall in the draft based on a lottery pick personally, but that's just my opinion.....yours?

Baller1
03-11-2014, 01:40 AM
I think tanking in basketball is so much easier than in any other sport, and so I think the lottery or something like it is much more necessary than say the MLB or the NFL.

Is it perfect? Far from it. But it serves its purpose.

I say keep it.

sixer04fan
03-11-2014, 01:46 AM
If you eliminate the lottery and just go by reverse standings, wouldn't that make the whole "tanking" issue so much worse? It would take away any variability and just automatically reward the worst record with the first pick.

At least now even with the worst record if you tank, you still only have a 25% chance of the first pick, and even a 36% chance of the 4th pick.

sixer04fan
03-11-2014, 01:53 AM
I would keep it. If you eliminate the lottery altogether, people would freak out about tanking even more than they already do. Personally I would modify the lottery odds to make it slightly harder to shift positions. I don't know. There's no perfect solution. Some years the bottom three - five teams are all equally terrible. And some years there is one team that is significantly worse than the rest. But if you factor in # of wins to the lottery odds, rather than just place in the standings, that'd make tanking even worse too.

Side note - I think the wheel proposal is awful though. Just awful. For a number of reasons.

BenFrank
03-11-2014, 02:06 AM
I kinda liked the idea of a Lottery wheel, where every team eventually get the #1 pick, I just feel like the NBA lottery is Rigged for whoever the NBA feels need a Top Star, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Lakers got the #1 pick this year..

Hellcrooner
03-11-2014, 02:25 AM
yes and no.

It should be changed in the way it Works.

as in

The worst team can offer the MOST bucks to Ncaa players.
second worst team can ofer secund most bucks to ncaa players
and so on.

Playoff teams select what is left after lottery teams sign TWO players

Hellcrooner
03-11-2014, 02:26 AM
I kinda liked the idea of a Lottery wheel, where every team eventually get the #1 pick, I just feel like the NBA lottery is Rigged for whoever the NBA feels need a Top Star, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Lakers got the #1 pick this year..

considering they will have a lot of ping pong balls you can hardly talk that as rigged....

sixer04fan
03-11-2014, 02:27 AM
I kinda liked the idea of a Lottery wheel, where every team eventually get the #1 pick, I just feel like the NBA lottery is Rigged for whoever the NBA feels need a Top Star, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Lakers got the #1 pick this year..

I gotta disagree. I think the lottery wheel would make the NBA the biggest joke in professional sports. And each team gets first pick once every 30 years? Just feels very silly and unnecessary, and yet overly controlling at the same time. Not to mention the concern of prospects holding out by staying in school, or going overseas for multiple seasons to avoid certain teams and wait for a contender or desirable city to pick first. That would only hurt the competitive balance of the league even more.

If you're going to take away the main principle of the draft being based on worst to first league standings, lottery or not, which is exactly what the wheel does, then just eliminate the draft altogether. Get rid of the draft, and let players enter the league as free agents. I'd rather keep the draft as is.

sixer04fan
03-11-2014, 02:32 AM
I think another solution would be to make the draft order (or lottery positions) based on cumulative record of the last 3 years.

This would be more helpful for the teams that have really been struggling for a longer time, and would strongly discriminate against teams tanking for one year, because their record for that one season would be weighted much less.

Baller1
03-11-2014, 02:36 AM
I think another solution would be to make the draft order (or lottery positions) based on cumulative record of the last 3 years.

This would be more helpful for the teams that have really been struggling for a longer time, and would strongly discriminate against teams tanking for one year, because their record for that one season would be weighted much less.

I actually think this is a great idea. No franchise can afford to tank for three straight seasons... This would make ranking virtually nonexistent.

BenFrank
03-11-2014, 03:32 AM
I think another solution would be to make the draft order (or lottery positions) based on cumulative record of the last 3 years.

This would be more helpful for the teams that have really been struggling for a longer time, and would strongly discriminate against teams tanking for one year, because their record for that one season would be weighted much less.

I can live with that, as long as we can eliminate the tanking in some way shape or form.. I'm all for it, but I don't think tanking is going away anytime soon..

Shlumpledink
03-11-2014, 03:37 AM
I think we need to get rid of any system that rewards tanking. What some teams are doing this year is abhorrent, and makes it hard to be a fan.
I feel sorry for the fanbases that have to ride out the tanking, but do the organizations really deserve to be given a marquee player? I don't think so. Especially since teams that tank are paid for by teams that play well, with the revenue sharing, so teams that tank aren't penalized really.

jerellh528
03-11-2014, 03:39 AM
Eh, teams are going to tank anyways. You have the best chances at the #1 pick anyways so teams are going to tank for that best chance, but when you are by far the worst team and get screwed by picking 4th instead of 1st that can really mess up a franchise for a long time. I mean that could be the difference in drafting a Lebron or a bosh. I say just pick in the opposite order of record. It's only fair. If anything I can see this current lottery style having a reverse than desired effect. Now instead of having 1-4 crappy teams trying for the worst record and the number 1 pick, you have like 10 teams tanking hoping to get lucky in the lottery.

goingfor28
03-11-2014, 03:40 AM
I think another solution would be to make the draft order (or lottery positions) based on cumulative record of the last 3 years.

This would be more helpful for the teams that have really been struggling for a longer time, and would strongly discriminate against teams tanking for one year, because their record for that one season would be weighted much less.

Perfect idea

Sssmush
03-11-2014, 03:44 AM
Poll


1. Yes, eliminate the lottery system, and make it just a simple reverse standings order
2. No, keep it the way it is, potentially modify some potentially simple intricate details, but overall, keep it a lottery system




I think it's silly that a team can rise or fall in the draft based on a lottery pick personally, but that's just my opinion.....yours?

That poll is whack, you leave out the most logical and best solution. And *jeez* obviously making it a straight up reverse standings would make the tanking go positively crazy.

Just make it a true lottery. Everyone gets one ping pong ball, then roll the dice. Possibly give every non-playoff team one extra ping pong ball.

That's it, and say goodbye to tanking. Small market owners who fight this idea would essentially be saying that they want the freedom to tank and get rewarded for it.

Sadds The Gr8
03-11-2014, 03:50 AM
I wish they'd just make it so EVERY team got lottery balls and had a chance at the #1 pick instead of just the bottom 14/teams who didn't make the playoffs. The worse the team, the better the odds. That'd force teams to compete, AND give the worst teams a better shot at high picks. Also, they should air it live like Champions league/World Cup draws. That'd be way more exciting and people would care way more about it, instead of just fans of bad teams.

zn23
03-11-2014, 04:23 AM
I think they should get rid of it. Just do what the NFL does, it works. The argument is that it will discourage teams from "tanking", but I don't think they realize how hard it is to tank. You either suck or you don't.

Vikingsfan98229
03-11-2014, 04:43 AM
The nba has a lottery so they can control who gets what picks is it a coincidence N.O got the number 1 pick when they are owned by the league? Seems fishy

goingfor28
03-11-2014, 04:47 AM
The nba has a lottery so they can control who gets what picks is it a coincidence N.O got the number 1 pick when they are owned by the league? Seems fishy

Lakers will get it this year without a doubt. What better way to kick off the Silver era

barreleffact
03-11-2014, 10:17 AM
Yea, I think the OP was misguided to not have a third option saying both suck. IMO the most logical thing is to have a system where the most competitive non playoff teams get the first 3-5 highest odds, then the rest go in reverse order but still odds based. This would mean there is virtually no incentive to tank.

The downside is also the upside. you either tank out of the playoffs and have a top pick, or you make the playoffs and generate extra money. The really bad teams still get compensation, but the fringe teams can now become playoff staples immediately.

cdnsportsfan
03-11-2014, 11:05 AM
I think another solution would be to make the draft order (or lottery positions) based on cumulative record of the last 3 years.

This would be more helpful for the teams that have really been struggling for a longer time, and would strongly discriminate against teams tanking for one year, because their record for that one season would be weighted much less.

What I came here to say, have heard this mentioned numerous times before and I have no idea why it hasn't been instituted yet. Take the records over 3 seasons and it makes it so much more difficult to tank. In an ideal world Silver's final announcement at the upcoming NBA Draft would be that the draft system is changing starting as of next year (in my opinion, anyways).

MrfadeawayJB
03-11-2014, 11:15 AM
Keep the lottery, but show it live so the nba can't fix it

barreleffact
03-11-2014, 11:16 AM
^I don't like the three year approach because a team like CLE had 2 number one picks in a span of 3 years or so. Losing teams will likely still be losing initially, so implementing that would be incredibly difficult. Plus think injuries. I draft Oden or Griffin. They don't play the entire season. Easy tank and the next year get an incredible stud. If that were the case then LAC would have gotten Griffin then John wall back to back. Sound fair?

bleedprple&gold
03-11-2014, 11:32 AM
The nba has a lottery so they can control who gets what picks is it a coincidence N.O got the number 1 pick when they are owned by the league? Seems fishy


Lakers will get it this year without a doubt. What better way to kick off the Silver era

Oh God you conspiracy theorists sounds like a bunch of pathetic whiny little *****es. Let me guess Vikingsfan is a Timberwolves fan too and thinks its rigged because his team has never gotten the number 1 pick.

Did you know that when they pick the ping pong balls they have representatives from EVERY team in the room. That means EVERY team would have to be in on it and agree to let whoever the lottery was rigged for have the number 1 pick. Yea thats likley :rolleyes: Plus if this "secret" got out it would ruin the integrity of the game. NOT WORTH IT for the league.

Also, the Lakers have the 4th worst record in the league right now. The 4th worst team has won the lottery lots of times so if the Lakers win its totally legit because they have a very good chance, and its legit for the reasons I just mentioned.

sixer04fan
03-11-2014, 11:42 AM
Again, if you REALLY want to get rid of tanking, and the whole premise that the draft only rewards teams for being bad, then get rid of the draft. Just have the rookies come in as free agents. That encourages a much more competitive atmosphere. It forces teams to try to remain as competitive as possible so that they're an attractive location for incoming rookies to play. It also forces teams to be smarter with their books so that they can have more money to sign the players they want and outbid other teams.

This idea could just as easily lead to a "rich get richer" scenario where only the elite teams and big market franchises get the best rookies, while the poorer teams just get left by the wayside. I personally think they need to have the draft in some form of what already exists. It's not perfect but it works better than most people give it credit for.

The_Jamal
03-11-2014, 11:44 AM
Absolutely not. NBA is far different from the MLB because 1 pick can instantly change the fortune of your franchise.

Greet
03-11-2014, 12:00 PM
Absolutely not. NBA is far different from the MLB because 1 pick can instantly change the fortune of your franchise.

Well..... In theory the same can happen in any sport. NBA it is just more likely that one player is going to make a bigger impact.

Greet
03-11-2014, 12:01 PM
Again, if you REALLY want to get rid of tanking, and the whole premise that the draft only rewards teams for being bad, then get rid of the draft. Just have the rookies come in as free agents. That encourages a much more competitive atmosphere. It forces teams to try to remain as competitive as possible so that they're an attractive location for incoming rookies to play. It also forces teams to be smarter with their books so that they can have more money to sign the players they want and outbid other teams.

This idea could just as easily lead to a "rich get richer" scenario where only the elite teams and big market franchises get the best rookies, while the poorer teams just get left by the wayside. I personally think they need to have the draft in some form of what already exists. It's not perfect but it works better than most people give it credit for.

You are going to do teams do the same exact thing, except much worse. Teams will start releasing their players, and trying to get as low as possible for a cap #....

Tony_Starks
03-11-2014, 12:05 PM
Make it where out of all the non playoff teams, the teams with best record get the most ping pong balls. So the Memphis Grizzlies of the world would have a better shot at #1 pick than the Sixers.

That would eliminate the blatant tanking because even if you have a horrid team with no chance of making the playoffs you would still try to keep them competitive so youre at least the best of the worst....

Chrisclover
03-11-2014, 12:11 PM
Keep it to avoid the too harsh tanking.

Greet
03-11-2014, 12:23 PM
Make it where out of all the non playoff teams, the teams with best record get the most ping pong balls. So the Memphis Grizzlies of the world would have a better shot at #1 pick than the Sixers.

That would eliminate the blatant tanking because even if you have a horrid team with no chance of making the playoffs you would still try to keep them competitive so youre at least the best of the worst....

So you're going to give a borderline playoff team (A team that would be a playoff team in the East), the best chance at getting the #1 pick? Do you see the flaws in that....

PhillyFaninLA
03-11-2014, 12:36 PM
I don't agree with either poll option.

I think you need to have some time of modified lottery system and you cannot be in the top 3 in back to back years

and/or

Every team gets the 1st overall pick and the rest is a lottery, you would pick a year to start and just go alphabetically.

imagesrdecievin
03-11-2014, 12:40 PM
^I don't like the three year approach because a team like CLE had 2 number one picks in a span of 3 years or so. Losing teams will likely still be losing initially, so implementing that would be incredibly difficult. Plus think injuries. I draft Oden or Griffin. They don't play the entire season. Easy tank and the next year get an incredible stud. If that were the case then LAC would have gotten Griffin then John wall back to back. Sound fair?

Average the three years - but a team couldn't have a top three pick more than once every two or three years.

Tony_Starks
03-11-2014, 12:44 PM
So you're going to give a borderline playoff team (A team that would be a playoff team in the East), the best chance at getting the #1 pick? Do you see the flaws in that....

Not really because I'm of the opinion with this system in place there would be more borderline teams and less 20 win teams.

In the grand scheme of things I can live with the chance of rewarding a decent team over rewarding a team that's throwing a season.

ManRam
03-11-2014, 12:52 PM
It has it's flaws, but the current system does what is needed more so than any replacement system I've seen can do, including the wheel.

There are competitive balance issues in the NBA unlike other American sports because of how much power one player has and the vast difference in market desirability. Giving every team equal prospectuses in every draft, be it equal (or more equal) odds in a lottery or in a more long-term way, like the wheel proposes to do, well...I think would lead to way more competitive imbalance. Way more. You'll have elite prospects maybe waiting a year because Milwaukee is slated for that first pick this year, but LAL is slated for it next year (the wheel system). That's BAD.

"Tanking" sucks, but it's not outrageously out of control and the actual method (which we should just call rebuilding properly) is smart and relatively effective. Teams are smarter. We don't have idiot GMs who decide that instead of rebuilding shoveling out money to Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva is the right move to hopefully keep them afloat. Now we have smarter front offices that know that merely staying afloat is the worst thing for the long term. That realization is a good thing. And if a few teams being bad for a few years is what we have to deal with, so be it. There will be AWFUL teams regardless. That will never change.

If "tanking" is a problem, it's neither on a big enough scale nor detrimental enough to drastically change things to curb it. The only team that is outright "tanking" is Philly. Orlando had to trade their star and are rebuilding the right way. They're letting their awful contracts go off the books, or trading them, before making moves. That's wise. That's not a problem. LAL just happens to suck. They've ****ed up. They don't want to be bad, they just are. Milwaukee made a horrible trade last year to make the playoffs, spent money this offseason to get better, and they just haven't been. Utah has moved on from Jefferson/Millsap in favor of their young guys and they've set themselves up for financially flexibility. They're trying to win games, they just are a year or two away. You're trying to tell me Boston shouldn't have moved KG and Pierce?

There are a lot of bad teams, but they shouldn't be punished merely for that. Bad teams will always exist, and at least most of them are moving in the right direction for the future. No reason to punish them

cdnsportsfan
03-11-2014, 01:12 PM
^I don't like the three year approach because a team like CLE had 2 number one picks in a span of 3 years or so. Losing teams will likely still be losing initially, so implementing that would be incredibly difficult. Plus think injuries. I draft Oden or Griffin. They don't play the entire season. Easy tank and the next year get an incredible stud. If that were the case then LAC would have gotten Griffin then John wall back to back. Sound fair?

In the NBA some small market teams only have the draft to help them out because they can't attract star players any other way. Some of those players leave after their rookie contracts, and that would still happen even in a 3-year draft scenario - players would still leave for LA or NYC. At least in this instance those small market teams wouldn't be totally decimated and back to the drawing board because their all-star leaves as they'll have a base of a few top picks on their rosters. They'll have some strengths to work from so they're not just back to tanking to reach the top of the draft right away, as is turning out to be an actual strategy these days. What's wrong with more parity? A team is bad, lands a couple top picks, gets better and moves out of the lottery. Both the Sonics/Thunder and Blazers have done it recently and it would be great to see more of it!

And injuries would help a team maintain a low draft pick, but the team would have to be very bad to get that #1 spot to begin with - adding two all-stars, if they actually draft two all-stars, is only the start of a rebuild. In terms of injury-aided draft picks though look at the Spurs, who were already a very good team and landed Duncan due to an injury to their all-star Robinson. When Robinson came back the next season the team became incredible. That's borderline unfair, really, and that kind of thing wouldn't happen in 3-year lottery scenarios. The Spurs would've improved their position but not THAT dramatically as it would've only been one season.

Obviously, I'm a fan of this model. I think it solves a lot of the problems right now and virtually eliminates the tank-at-all-costs approach that's running rampant this season.

Cal827
03-11-2014, 01:28 PM
Keep the same one, but with a couple stipulations:

The team that gains 1st overall with their pick in one year, can't get 1st overall with another of their picks in consecutive years (if they have someone else's pick that ends there, then that's fine).... maybe make it a top 3. Force the owners to start building around the #1 pick a little bit rather than keep tanking the next year.

* If a team is well behind the other teams record wise (maybe like .100-.125 on the winning percentage), then they should automatically end up with the #1 pick. For example, the Bobcats who went 7-59 and the Nets who lost 70 games should be automatically 1st overall. Then have a lottery with the other teams for the 2 spot.

This could of made sense in the 2012 NBA draft. Where the Bobcats were 7-59, well behind everybody. They get first overall. For the 2nd overall pick have the draft lottery, and give the other teams odds based on their record (no team gets like a 25% chance, just slightly higher odds if they have less wins than another). In that year, there were 7 teams with 20-23 wins:
Wizards, Nets, Raptors, Warriors, Kings, Hornets and Cavs.

abe_froman
03-11-2014, 01:36 PM
keep it

of all the ideas i've heard its the best,most impartial, possible system.including the standard worst record(like every other draft).its not flawless,but everything else is way to flawed and leads to even bigger problems than what this has.

Shammyguy3
03-11-2014, 04:36 PM
like the wheel proposes to do, well...I think would lead to way more competitive imbalance. Way more. You'll have elite prospects maybe waiting a year because Milwaukee is slated for that first pick this year, but LAL is slated for it next year (the wheel system). That's BAD.

I haven't seen this thought-process before this thread, and it totally sways me away from being in favor of the wheel. I think the greatest, easiest, most realistic way to "fix" the lottery is to go by average record of the past 2 seasons (I think 3 might be too much considering a team that was a contender can realistically have to blow it up, and forcing that team to wait three years to get a worse enough record for just a chance at the top pick seems like a lot)