PDA

View Full Version : Lottery reform falls short of passing



lamzoka
10-22-2014, 12:19 PM
According to Woj 13 teams voted NO: PHX, PHL, OKC,NO, DET, MIA, MIL, SA, UTAH, WASH, ATL, CHA and CHI.

NBA needed 23 votes to pass it.

Corey
10-22-2014, 12:21 PM
According to Woj 13 teams voted NO: PHX, PHL, OKC,NO, DET, MIA, MIL, SA, UTAH, WASH, ATL, CHA and CHI.

NBA needed 27 votes to pass it.

No, they needed 23 votes to pass it.

It received 17 votes. It was 6 votes short.

lamzoka
10-22-2014, 12:23 PM
No, they needed 23 votes to pass it.

It received 17 votes. It was 6 votes short.

You're right.

Corey
10-22-2014, 12:25 PM
You're right.

Its no biggie. Its funny though, everyone with league sources expected them to have enough push to get it passed.

lamzoka
10-22-2014, 12:30 PM
Its no biggie. Its funny though, everyone with league sources expected them to have enough push to get it passed.

I thought it was a no brainer.
I dont understand how teams like Chicago, Washington, Miami voted No. while teams like Cavs and Grizz voted for it.

Chazm
10-22-2014, 12:34 PM
What was the proposal? Sorry, been out of the nba game.

Sadds The Gr8
10-22-2014, 12:41 PM
What was the proposal? Sorry, been out of the nba game.
I could be way off, but i think it's something like the top 6 lottery teams can be jumbled instead of only the top 4.

So say Philly gets the #1 odds, they have the possibility to fall to #6 in the lottery instead of only dropping to #4. Also the odds between the top 6 teams to get the number 1 pick will be more even

IndyRealist
10-22-2014, 12:42 PM
What was the proposal? Sorry, been out of the nba game.

Changing the odds so the worst few teams (5 or 6 or so) basically have the same chance.

goingfor28
10-22-2014, 12:46 PM
Good. The new proposal was stupid

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-22-2014, 01:02 PM
Was a bad idea like the lottery wheel.

2-ONE-5
10-22-2014, 01:22 PM
this change would have been a disaster and its also ridiculous for teams/the league to try and punish the Sixers for rebuilding within the current rules just bcuz they never had the balls to bottom out and start over.

now lets us tank in peace!

mike_noodles
10-22-2014, 01:27 PM
Its no biggie. Its funny though, everyone with league sources expected them to have enough push to get it passed.

Not just enough, but they expected it to be 29-1 or 28-2. Sports journalism has no accountability according to my sources.

InRoseWeTrust
10-22-2014, 01:59 PM
Sounds like most of the owners voting against want more time to consider it from all angles. I wouldn't be surprised if it passed later this year.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-22-2014, 02:08 PM
LOL how is this going to discourage tanking? Teams are still going to push for the worst record regardless to guarantee themselves 1 of the 4 worst records to get the best odds.

Also, lol OMG when a big market team that has the 6th worst record wins the lottery and the small market team falls from 1st to like 6th, everyone calls rigged.

:rolleyes:

2-ONE-5
10-22-2014, 02:18 PM
on the flip side i discourages team from trying to sneak into the 8th seed. I mean why go bounced in 4 or 5 games when the lotto odds increase for you to move up significantly in the draft.

beasted86
10-22-2014, 02:26 PM
Good. The new proposal was stupid
This.

Just seems like a ploy for the league to rig the draft even further with the 5th jumping up when they feel like basically.

hugepatsfan
10-22-2014, 02:26 PM
LOL how is this going to discourage tanking? Teams are still going to push for the worst record regardless to guarantee themselves 1 of the 4 worst records to get the best odds.

Also, lol OMG when a big market team that has the 6th worst record wins the lottery and the small market team falls from 1st to like 6th, everyone calls rigged.

:rolleyes:

That's the thing though, they wouldn't have to push for the worst record. Just one of the worst 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever. It would prevent the extremes of tanking like PHI is doing now because there would be no benefit to being the worst team as opposed to the 3rd or 4th.

But on the other end of that, it would encourage more tanking in the mid lottery. I don't think it would really affect teams tanking out of the 8 seed like someone else said though because if you're a borderline 8th seed it's still a pretty steep drop to get down to one of the worst 5 teams int he league.

TylerSL
10-22-2014, 02:37 PM
The proposal was stupid anyway. NBA needs to just do what MLB and NFL do and just allow the teams with the worst record the #1 pick. The lottery gives teams who do not need the #1 pick a chance to get it and contributes to the silly notion that league is rigged. While it may not be fair to a particular fan base, if a team wants to tank they should be allowed to do so as it generally works out in the long run. If the league wants to discourage tanking, owners should change their revenue sharing so that owners of teams that tank get less of the pot.

Sadds The Gr8
10-22-2014, 02:43 PM
Almost everyone of these new ideas suck. Can we just put every team in the lottery and put the odds in order from worst team to best? I can't fathom why they don't do that already. Easily the best solution.....

also for the conspiracy ppl, air the whole lottery draw or maybe the top 15 since that's all everyone cares about, then show the last 15 lottery draws online or something.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-22-2014, 03:06 PM
That's the thing though, they wouldn't have to push for the worst record. Just one of the worst 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever. It would prevent the extremes of tanking like PHI is doing now because there would be no benefit to being the worst team as opposed to the 3rd or 4th.

But on the other end of that, it would encourage more tanking in the mid lottery. I don't think it would really affect teams tanking out of the 8 seed like someone else said though because if you're a borderline 8th seed it's still a pretty steep drop to get down to one of the worst 5 teams int he league.

You don't have to push for the worst record, but you're still going to want it to at least guarantee yourself one of the 4 spots. Either way, it doesn't stop tanking by any means.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-22-2014, 03:08 PM
Almost everyone of these new ideas suck. Can we just put every team in the lottery and put the odds in order from worst team to best? I can't fathom why they don't do that already. Easily the best solution.....

also for the conspiracy ppl, air the whole lottery draw or maybe the top 15 since that's all everyone cares about, then show the last 15 lottery draws online or something.

The idea is to give the teams that don't make the playoffs something to look forward to.

Tony_Starks
10-22-2014, 03:21 PM
Great day for the nba. May the tanking commence!

Sadds The Gr8
10-22-2014, 03:33 PM
The idea is to give the teams that don't make the playoffs something to look forward to.
Obviously, but if everyone is crying about tanking then that's the best way to get rid of it. The worst teams will get the higher lottery %s

Raps18-19 Champ
10-22-2014, 03:40 PM
Obviously, but if everyone is crying about tanking then that's the best way to get rid of it. The worst teams will get the higher lottery %s

Could you imagine the backlash if the NBA champs with like 0.001% odds won the lottery?

TylerSL
10-22-2014, 03:47 PM
Obviously, but if everyone is crying about tanking then that's the best way to get rid of it. The worst teams will get the higher lottery %s

No the best way to get rid of the idea of tanking is not sharing money with the owner of tanking team. His team wouldn't be tanking very long if the other owners were giving him less of the sharing pot. The lottery is a dumb idea because it gives teams who do not need the #1 pick a chance to get it.

Sadds The Gr8
10-22-2014, 04:07 PM
Could you imagine the backlash if the NBA champs with like 0.001% odds won the lottery?
There already is backlash right now the way things are with the Sixers tanking. There would be a lot less backlash about the nba champs gettin the #1 pick than there is with the Sixers tanking 3 straight years.

I don't see why the owners would dislike this idea since they all have a chance at the top pick. There'd be almost no reason to tank.

Sadds The Gr8
10-22-2014, 04:10 PM
No the best way to get rid of the idea of tanking is not sharing money with the owner of tanking team. His team wouldn't be tanking very long if the other owners were giving him less of the sharing pot. The lottery is a dumb idea because it gives teams who do not need the #1 pick a chance to get it.
That's dumb too because there's a grey area. How would you decifer a tanking team from a rebuilding or bad team?

It'd be bull **** if the Sixers somehow end up with a better record than the magic and the owners decide not to share with the Sixers but do share with the magic.

SportsFanatic10
10-22-2014, 04:19 PM
good...i like it better this way

STRIKERC
10-22-2014, 04:49 PM
I will say this again. The NBA needs to adopt European soccer format and relegate the 3 worst teams to the NBADL and promote the 3 best DL teams to the main league. And make the promoted teams get the highest odds at drafting first.
This will make non-playoff teams scramble to win games towards the end of the season.
Until then we tank on in Philly.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-22-2014, 05:44 PM
There already is backlash right now the way things are with the Sixers tanking. There would be a lot less backlash about the nba champs gettin the #1 pick than there is with the Sixers tanking 3 straight years.

I don't see why the owners would dislike this idea since they all have a chance at the top pick. There'd be almost no reason to tank.

Well there will be backlash regardless. If people are screaming rigged now when the odds are a bit more reasonable, imagine the outcry if they found out the big market Lakers or Knicks won despite making it to the ECF or something.

I don't think there's a way to stop or limit rigging. I mean I'll go from like 25% to say 15% if we spread out the odds, but that's not going to encourage me to win that much more games. Before the lottery, it was strictly based on record for the draft order. When the lottery came, that didn't discourage teams from tanking. They still try to tank regardless.

richiesaurus310
10-22-2014, 05:54 PM
I believe the way to fix this is leaving the lottery as is but changing the draft in another way. Teams who make it past the first round of the playoffs should lose their first round pick and instead pick in a third round. This would give the 8 worst teams by record essentially a second first round pick no matter where they fall in the lottery. The eight teams who make it past the first round of the playoffs would then have a third round pick. The NBA has too many teams make the playoffs which can't change since sixteen is a nice number for the playoff format. The first round losers shouldn't lose their first to give them a chance to get better/younger. This would give an advantage in theory to the teams who are perineal losers who can't pick up big time free agents like the teams who are typically bigger market teams who make the second round of the playoffs all the time.

First round- 22 picks
Second round- 30 picks
Third round- 8 picks

2-ONE-5
10-23-2014, 09:00 AM
That's dumb too because there's a grey area. How would you decifer a tanking team from a rebuilding or bad team?

It'd be bull **** if the Sixers somehow end up with a better record than the magic and the owners decide not to share with the Sixers but do share with the magic.

Sixers are not part of the revenue sharing due to the size of our market anyway. but your point is still right

2-ONE-5
10-23-2014, 09:01 AM
I believe the way to fix this is leaving the lottery as is but changing the draft in another way. Teams who make it past the first round of the playoffs should lose their first round pick and instead pick in a third round. This would give the 8 worst teams by record essentially a second first round pick no matter where they fall in the lottery. The eight teams who make it past the first round of the playoffs would then have a third round pick. The NBA has too many teams make the playoffs which can't change since sixteen is a nice number for the playoff format. The first round losers shouldn't lose their first to give them a chance to get better/younger. This would give an advantage in theory to the teams who are perineal losers who can't pick up big time free agents like the teams who are typically bigger market teams who make the second round of the playoffs all the time.

First round- 22 picks
Second round- 30 picks
Third round- 8 picks

you cant penalize teams draft picks for advancing in the playoffs. very little difference between picks 25-35 anyway

jericho
10-23-2014, 10:11 AM
Well there will be backlash regardless. If people are screaming rigged now when the odds are a bit more reasonable, imagine the outcry if they found out the big market Lakers or Knicks won despite making it to the ECF or something.

I don't think there's a way to stop or limit rigging. I mean I'll go from like 25% to say 15% if we spread out the odds, but that's not going to encourage me to win that much more games. Before the lottery, it was strictly based on record for the draft order. When the lottery came, that didn't discourage teams from tanking. They still try to tank regardless.

I think they should just go back to that. Let the team with the worst record get the top pick. That same team that is tanking will not be tanking forever. Once they get the players that they need they will be good. Just look at OKC.

Arch Stanton
10-23-2014, 11:27 AM
I'm glad it didn't go through.

Sadds The Gr8
10-23-2014, 12:50 PM
Sixers are not part of the revenue sharing due to the size of our market anyway. but your point is still right
Yea forgot that I read that somewhere.

richiesaurus310
10-23-2014, 12:54 PM
you cant penalize teams draft picks for advancing in the playoffs. very little difference between picks 25-35 anyway

Yes you can. They already get penalized by having lower picks/not being in the lottery.

There is a difference between picking at 23 and the beginning of the 2nd round. Not only that but the 2nd+ round playoff teams wouldn't be picking there which is a big help to the non-playoff teams. The smaller markets get draft help while the bigger markets keep their free agency advantage.

PhillyFaninLA
10-23-2014, 01:40 PM
Sounds like most of the owners voting against want more time to consider it from all angles. I wouldn't be surprised if it passed later this year.


I agree, wait a year, let things percolate, and in year change the system. No, no, no, this has nothing to do with me being a Sixers fan and this giving us a better chance at a better pick on the last year we are truly tanking.

2-ONE-5
10-23-2014, 01:40 PM
Yes you can. They already get penalized by having lower picks/not being in the lottery.

There is a difference between picking at 23 and the beginning of the 2nd round. Not only that but the 2nd+ round playoff teams wouldn't be picking there which is a big help to the non-playoff teams. The smaller markets get draft help while the bigger markets keep their free agency advantage.

lol for starters not being in the lotto bcuz u made the playoffs isnt being penalized in any way i dont know how you see it that way. There really isnt much difference between these late first/early 2nd picks. for example didnt the Raptors take that Bruno dude at 20 who is said to be 3 years away from being 3 years away? Tehre really is no reason to craete some kind of BS 3rd round for the final 8 teams its not like they are drafting studs with these late first picks, **** half of them trade or sell the pick anyway

PhillyFaninLA
10-23-2014, 01:42 PM
This.

Just seems like a ploy for the league to rig the draft even further with the 5th jumping up when they feel like basically.

If it was rigged Parker and Wiggins would be in Boston and the Lakers

PhillyFaninLA
10-23-2014, 01:44 PM
My plan for 12 months from now is, no lottery, and the number 1 overall pick goes to a team in alphabetical order is not tradable (the pick is not, the player can be traded at some point).

or

Top 5 picks equal lottery chance, you cannot be number 1 overall 2 times in 3 or 5 years, and you can't be top 3 in back to back years.

diu9leilomo
10-23-2014, 01:59 PM
the best idea would be owners play rock paper scissor tournament the winner takes #1 pick

hugepatsfan
10-23-2014, 02:14 PM
The NBA is outsmarting itself trying to get rid of tanking. Just have the teams pick in the order of their record.

Look at PHI. They had the worst record in the NBA last year. Had they have just gotten the #1 pick for that, they'd have Wiggins or Parker on their roster right now. An NBA ready, ROTY caliber player. They're team would be better and it would hurt their tanking. But instead, the lottery system gave them the opportunity to tank even more because they didn't get that franchise talent. Tanking is always going to exist but the lottery system right now is what allows/forces teams to do it over multi-year stretches.

2-ONE-5
10-23-2014, 02:36 PM
well we did get a franchise changing talent, we jsut likely wont see him on the floor for a year

Bruno
10-23-2014, 03:49 PM
i think its funny how all teams get one vote.

the Lakers carry 1/3rd of this league with their revenue sharing, yet they get the same number of votes as franchises who can't even keep themselves prompt up without their money.

if you accept a dollar of revenue sharing money, the impact of your vote should be diminished, by percentage. loser franchises with loser ownership shouldn't dictate the direction of the league, not all teams are equal.

the league treats it like a senate, I think it should be treated like a house. if you really want to see owners spend, build excellent teams and create exciting basketball, allow the weight of each franchises vote to be relative to how much revenue sharing they had to accept to stay in out of the red on that given year (or three year average at the time of voting, etc). league issues should be voted on proportionately. i think it would create better competition and better basketball. the incentive is there because no owner would want a watered down vote when it comes to structuring a new CBA.

lamzoka
10-23-2014, 03:55 PM
I believe the way to fix this is leaving the lottery as is but changing the draft in another way. Teams who make it past the first round of the playoffs should lose their first round pick and instead pick in a third round. This would give the 8 worst teams by record essentially a second first round pick no matter where they fall in the lottery. The eight teams who make it past the first round of the playoffs would then have a third round pick. The NBA has too many teams make the playoffs which can't change since sixteen is a nice number for the playoff format. The first round losers shouldn't lose their first to give them a chance to get better/younger. This would give an advantage in theory to the teams who are perineal losers who can't pick up big time free agents like the teams who are typically bigger market teams who make the second round of the playoffs all the time.

First round- 22 picks
Second round- 30 picks
Third round- 8 picks


Dude what talent can teams get from the 3rd round?

90% of the players selected in 2nd round dont even make their teams.

lamzoka
10-23-2014, 04:07 PM
I say have 5 simple lotteries:

Put the 6 worst teams in pot. Have them pick 1-6 with even odds. Do the same with the next 6, have them pick 7-12... and so on.


All this could be done in a half hour live Tv.

2-ONE-5
10-23-2014, 04:43 PM
i think its funny how all teams get one vote.

the Lakers carry 1/3rd of this league with their revenue sharing, yet they get the same number of votes as franchises who can't even keep themselves prompt up without their money.

if you accept a dollar of revenue sharing money, the impact of your vote should be diminished, by percentage. loser franchises with loser ownership shouldn't dictate the direction of the league, not all teams are equal.

the league treats it like a senate, I think it should be treated like a house. if you really want to see owners spend, build excellent teams and create exciting basketball, allow the weight of each franchises vote to be relative to how much revenue sharing they had to accept to stay in out of the red on that given year (or three year average at the time of voting, etc). league issues should be voted on proportionately. i think it would create better competition and better basketball. the incentive is there because no owner would want a watered down vote when it comes to structuring a new CBA.

lol too funny coming from a laker fan. what a ****ing joke of a post

Vinylman
10-23-2014, 06:30 PM
tanking is a sympton not the disease... the disease is a lack of parity which forces tanking because there is an EXTREMELY limited talent pool in the draft that can make a difference to individual teams...

fixing the league is simple but they don't have the balls to do it

1. Contract 4 teams
2. Implement a hard cap
3. franchise tag

There is a reason the NFL fields the best product year in and year out...

Bruno
10-23-2014, 07:03 PM
lol too funny coming from a laker fan. what a ****ing joke of a post

since the rebuttal is coming from a phili fan, i'd say the same thing to you. the main reason why lottery reform came down to a vote is because of the 76ers franchise. revenue sharing is welfare for the rich, I don't think they need it I think they should be more motivated to spend their own money opposed to rolling out a decades worth of mediocre teams on the back of money earned by other franchises who are more savvy. if san antonio can do it, no one else can complain. SA has crushed the theory (6th highest revenue in the NBA last season), everyone else is just looking for excuses instead of getting their acts together.

the fact that Phili is doing what they're doing despite their market size is an embarrassment. they should be embarrassed. Philis just taking advantage of a system that's build for teams that are truly small market, i don't respect that.

Lloyd Christmas
10-23-2014, 09:43 PM
The lottery system now is fine. Just air it on TV so we know it's not rigged.

2-ONE-5
10-24-2014, 08:58 AM
since the rebuttal is coming from a phili fan, i'd say the same thing to you. the main reason why lottery reform came down to a vote is because of the 76ers franchise. revenue sharing is welfare for the rich, I don't think they need it I think they should be more motivated to spend their own money opposed to rolling out a decades worth of mediocre teams on the back of money earned by other franchises who are more savvy. if san antonio can do it, no one else can complain. SA has crushed the theory (6th highest revenue in the NBA last season), everyone else is just looking for excuses instead of getting their acts together.

the fact that Phili is doing what they're doing despite their market size is an embarrassment. they should be embarrassed. Philis just taking advantage of a system that's build for teams that are truly small market, i don't respect that.

yea first Sixers are not included in the revenue sharing so you are wrong already. The sixers have spent money for a decade and failed to build a contender and took the big splash move with bynum and J-rich and it failed and this is the other side of side, the only way to go from that mess to become relevant again was to rebuild and develop new talent which is off to a good start. But yea lets sign Thad, Hawes, and Turner to 10+ mil deals and get bounced as a 7-8 seed for another decade!

You just sound like a greedy LA snob who wants the ability to lure all the big FA's and draft all the top talent at the same time.

richiesaurus310
10-28-2014, 02:07 PM
Dude what talent can teams get from the 3rd round?

90% of the players selected in 2nd round dont even make their teams.

That's the point. The final 8 teams in the playoffs would lose their 1st and it would become a 3rd. This would be what helps balance out the free agency inbalance there is with big and small market teams.

richiesaurus310
10-28-2014, 02:14 PM
lol for starters not being in the lotto bcuz u made the playoffs isnt being penalized in any way i dont know how you see it that way. There really isnt much difference between these late first/early 2nd picks. for example didnt the Raptors take that Bruno dude at 20 who is said to be 3 years away from being 3 years away? Tehre really is no reason to craete some kind of BS 3rd round for the final 8 teams its not like they are drafting studs with these late first picks, **** half of them trade or sell the pick anyway

What??? How is that not being penalized? The playoff teams don't get to pick the stud prospects in the draft. I don't see how that's not being penalized. I'm just taking it a step further.

And yes having a 2nd first pick would help draft another prospect and/or give more amo for bad teams to trade for higher picks/players. This would help the bottom dwelling small market teams. The bottom teams get a 2nd first AND the top teams lose their first. Over time this would help balance things out in the NBA. A team that's been bottom 8 bad for let's say 2-3 years in a row would have 4-6 firsts in that time. A top 8 dominant team won't have a first during that time which should help cycle teams in and out of the playoffs.

2-ONE-5
10-28-2014, 03:00 PM
the draft alone isnt balancing anything out. there are very few high impact player per draft and almost none come from teh 2nd round most years.

WSU Tony
10-28-2014, 03:06 PM
Want to make the league more balanced? This isn't a good move to do so.

Lets not allow a FA to sign for 40% of their market value to play for "a contender." That's how we'd make the league more balanced.

I'd be fine making the lottery a complete crap shoot from top to bottom but the only way to even things out on the FA market would be a blind bidding system where the FA doesn't actually choose the team/city they'll be playing in next. Something tells me this ISN'T a popular system... lol.