PDA

View Full Version : Idea to stop tanking



HandsOnTheWheel
04-10-2018, 06:17 PM
What if there were a way to consistently reward teams with winning without compromising the integrity of the game?

30 teams, fresh season. Teams play/jockey for the first 41 games of the season to determine the top 20 teams that will advance with the best records. The rest of the 10 teams get put into a pool for the rest of the season as their own "league" until regular season is finished. After the conclusion of the 2nd 41 game season (playoff positioning is randomly picked for those 10 teams) they then get their own mini playoffs in which the champion gets the 1st pick, runner up gets the 2nd pick, and so on. All stats in both "leagues" will count towards NBA statistics. The idea is to allow the top 20 teams to get ticket revenue and all profits that come with making the playoffs, thus increasing the appeal for teams to not try to tank into the lower bracket (the teams now winning solely for the pick). Teams in the sub playoffs will also get postseason revenue, but less due to less games. For the 20 teams that made the playoffs, the 7th seed plays the 10th seed and the 8th seed plays the 9th seed in 1 game to determine who advances. For the 2nd round and on, it will just be normal 7 game series the rest of the way, regular formatting. Could use some touching up perhaps, but thoughts on this to avoid the plague that has become tanking?

IndyRealist
04-10-2018, 09:01 PM
Every "reward the best non-playoff team" system has the same flaw: it keeps bad teams from getting better. Every single one of these ideas is more extreme than a flat lottery, and I can't get anyone to agree to a flat lottery.

And are you going to play the losers bracket at the same time as the regular playoffs? That will just confuse casual fans, who make up the bulk of the viewership. If you do it before the playoffs, you're gonna have a month or more layoff before the real playoffs. If you do it after, no one is going to watch outside of their own fanbases.

More-Than-Most
04-10-2018, 09:49 PM
no... just stop... Like i said if you want to fix the tanking first fix the crap super team ******** where a lebron will likely go to only the sixers or the rockets and a durant goes to a warriors and a Bosh goes to a miami or the celtics big 3 or hayward going to the celtics etc etc etc etc... Guys dont wanna put in the work and rather just go build the easy route and thus the mid tier teams now are farther away from even having a shot against the top teams so now mid tier teams are in the worst possible situation and need to rely on lottery picks.

tredigs
04-10-2018, 10:02 PM
There's ONE way to stop tanking. One. End the NBA draft and make it a free market situation for all teams. They took huge steps to mitigate tanking this season, and it was one of the most glorious multi-faceted tanks in memory.

Raps18-19 Champ
04-10-2018, 10:13 PM
Easiest way to stop tanking is to implement a hard cap. Let's see these mother****ers team up knowing they'll take a drastic paycut to do so.

HandsOnTheWheel
04-10-2018, 10:25 PM
Every "reward the best non-playoff team" system has the same flaw: it keeps bad teams from getting better. Every single one of these ideas is more extreme than a flat lottery, and I can't get anyone to agree to a flat lottery.

And are you going to play the losers bracket at the same time as the regular playoffs? That will just confuse casual fans, who make up the bulk of the viewership. If you do it before the playoffs, you're gonna have a month or more layoff before the real playoffs. If you do it after, no one is going to watch outside of their own fanbases.

Flat lottery as in all lottery teams have the same shot at 1st?

HandsOnTheWheel
04-10-2018, 10:29 PM
Probably lots of flaws in the idea itself, loved the idea of incentivizing and rewarding winning instead of losing. I guess a hard cap would have to be in place for this idea, so that talent would flock to even the smallest of markets and worst teams looking for the highest bidder for their services

HandsOnTheWheel
04-10-2018, 10:35 PM
Hard cap in reality would be drastic but possibly necessary. Might work, but one has to wonder how viewership is affected when all the "super teams" dissipate, and the NBA suddenly isn't as appealing/drawing audiences as it once was. League probably wants it like that.

jimboslice15
04-10-2018, 10:40 PM
Here is an idea - get rid of the ridiculous "max" and "supermax" deal limits and let teams pay whatever they feel a player is worth... then maybe smaller market teams will be able to attract max level players, by simply outbidding other teams.

The whole max contract situation is what's really holding the league back... allowing a team to fit both a Curry/KD under the cap COMFORTABLY without either taking a sizeable paycut should be impossible.

tredigs
04-10-2018, 10:55 PM
Here is an idea - get rid of the ridiculous "max" and "supermax" deal limits and let teams pay whatever they feel a player is worth... then maybe smaller market teams will be able to attract max level players, by simply outbidding other teams.

The whole max contract situation is what's really holding the league back... allowing a team to fit both a Curry/KD under the cap COMFORTABLY without either taking a sizeable paycut should be impossible.

Not sure I like that either. Are you keeping the cap? So the Kings are going to offer Giannis 4 years, 300 million and have 25 mil a year for the rest of their **** roster while we watch him waste his best years missing the playoffs every season because he wanted his payday?

Scoots
04-10-2018, 10:56 PM
There's ONE way to stop tanking. One. End the NBA draft and make it a free market situation for all teams. They took huge steps to mitigate tanking this season, and it was one of the most glorious multi-faceted tanks in memory.

There are more ways than one. The wheel, the nominated team both would do it too.

What "huge" steps were taken that were in place for this season?

Scoots
04-10-2018, 11:05 PM
Flat lottery as in all lottery teams have the same shot at 1st?

Yes, that's what he wants. It was done before.

Scoots
04-10-2018, 11:06 PM
Here is an idea - get rid of the ridiculous "max" and "supermax" deal limits and let teams pay whatever they feel a player is worth... then maybe smaller market teams will be able to attract max level players, by simply outbidding other teams.

The whole max contract situation is what's really holding the league back... allowing a team to fit both a Curry/KD under the cap COMFORTABLY without either taking a sizeable paycut should be impossible.

That doesn't protect poorly run teams like the current system does. It's not just the super teams that like the max contracts.

Scoots
04-10-2018, 11:08 PM
Hard cap in reality would be drastic but possibly necessary. Might work, but one has to wonder how viewership is affected when all the "super teams" dissipate, and the NBA suddenly isn't as appealing/drawing audiences as it once was. League probably wants it like that.

Hard cap was done before but the NBA wanted stars to be more likely to stay with one team for marketing purposes.

tredigs
04-10-2018, 11:09 PM
What "huge" steps were taken that were in place for this season?

Ah you know what, the board of governors voted to change the rules last year, but I'm looking at it right now and it does not go into effect until NEXT season. I did not realize that.

Look those up if you're not familiar.

jimboslice15
04-11-2018, 07:34 AM
Not sure I like that either. Are you keeping the cap? So the Kings are going to offer Giannis 4 years, 300 million and have 25 mil a year for the rest of their **** roster while we watch him waste his best years missing the playoffs every season because he wanted his payday?

You would definitely have to keep the cap, maybe raise it a little bit and make it a hard cap like others are suggesting... This would prevent teams from loading up and going way over the "soft cap" to build dynasties...

Look at th NFL & NHL - teams have to make difficult salary decisions every single season because they are subject to a cap.. these decisions create parity.. In the NBA it's literally up to the owners and how much they want to spend in luxury tax to create a winning product.

And honestly, re the Giannis point, if a player wants to accept the $$ over winning than they are 100% entitled to doing so... just like when a player accepts winning over money. It's their decision.


I think the bottom line is that star players contracts shouldn't be "maxed", and there shouldn't be a "soft cap"... you don't see that in the NFL or NHL and they do not have these tanking problems.

IndyRealist
04-11-2018, 09:02 AM
Brief history of the lottery:

Started in 1985, and for 2 years every lottery team had equal chances and every pick was drawn, not just 1-3.

In 1987 they switched to only drawing 1-3, with every team having equal chances.

In 1990 they switched to a weighted lottery, again only drawing the top 3 picks. The weights have changed but this is the system we use now.

So a flat lottery, drawing every pick, was only tried for 2 years. Two trials is not enough data to decide that a random system is ineffective. Bad teams complained that the Knicks got Patrick Ewing, and so they changed the system to reward losing.

As long as a) teams with the worst record have the best odds, and b) the worst team is guaranteed no worse than a top 5 pick, teams will always tank.

warfelg
04-11-2018, 09:09 AM
In a sport where teams can be so dependent and transformed by 1 player, you can't take away the ability for a bad team to get that 1 player.

mike_noodles
04-11-2018, 09:40 AM
In a sport where teams can be so dependent and transformed by 1 player, you can't take away the ability for a bad team to get that 1 player.

I agree.

The thing they really need to do is find a way for greater parity between 1-8 in each conference. That way there's a chance that a #8 can do some damage in the playoffs and teams will actually fight to get in. Right now we all know that seven's and eight's are doing much, so there's no urgency to try to get in those spots. I'm not sure how they achieve this, but they've got to start trying. A hard cap, with no individual player cap may be the only way to do it. If Durant makes $50m, it's a lot harder to build a super team with $108m.

Vinylman
04-11-2018, 09:49 AM
This has been discussed endlessly in other threads..

until there is a significant change to the CBA there is nothing that can be done to stop tanking

jimboslice15
04-11-2018, 09:56 AM
In a sport where teams can be so dependent and transformed by 1 player, you can't take away the ability for a bad team to get that 1 player.

agreed 100%

This is why the Max contract needs to get removed...

Right now, with the way that the league is currently set up, a teams highest probability of attaining a star player is through the draft lottery. So you cannot blame teams for trying to up their odds in order to compete in the future.

However, the reason it's like this is because of the way contracts are set up.

Players have more incentive to stay with their current teams, because these teams are allowed to offer the highest $$ amount due to the max contract system.

So a team that rebuilds correctly, has a lot of solid pieces and is missing that one superstar, doesn't even have a realistic shot at going for a Free Agent star because they can't top the deal that the stars current team can offer.

Player contracts shouldn't be dictated by some ridiculous arbitrary system determined by years of experience, "all star games appearances" & "all nba team votes"... It should be determined based on fair market value of their services provided.

Until they do away with this garbage system nothing will change.

warfelg
04-11-2018, 09:59 AM
I agree.

The thing they really need to do is find a way for greater parity between 1-8 in each conference. That way there's a chance that a #8 can do some damage in the playoffs and teams will actually fight to get in. Right now we all know that seven's and eight's are doing much, so there's no urgency to try to get in those spots. I'm not sure how they achieve this, but they've got to start trying. A hard cap, with no individual player cap may be the only way to do it. If Durant makes $50m, it's a lot harder to build a super team with $108m.

I rather see tiered flat odd, and the 7 and 8 seed from each conference included in the lottery.

18 teams in the lotto
3 pods of even odds (6 teams per pod)
Pull for the top 4, go chalk after that


Now it doesn't matter if your the worse or 4th worse team. The need to sink all the way down is smaller. With the 7 and 8 seeds included, there's little incentive to miss the playoffs for that slim chance.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 10:28 AM
Ah you know what, the board of governors voted to change the rules last year, but I'm looking at it right now and it does not go into effect until NEXT season. I did not realize that.

Look those up if you're not familiar.

Yeah, I'm familiar.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 10:30 AM
You would definitely have to keep the cap, maybe raise it a little bit and make it a hard cap like others are suggesting... This would prevent teams from loading up and going way over the "soft cap" to build dynasties...

Look at th NFL & NHL - teams have to make difficult salary decisions every single season because they are subject to a cap.. these decisions create parity.. In the NBA it's literally up to the owners and how much they want to spend in luxury tax to create a winning product.

And honestly, re the Giannis point, if a player wants to accept the $$ over winning than they are 100% entitled to doing so... just like when a player accepts winning over money. It's their decision.


I think the bottom line is that star players contracts shouldn't be "maxed", and there shouldn't be a "soft cap"... you don't see that in the NFL or NHL and they do not have these tanking problems.

There is tanking in the NFL and NHL it's just not as blatant, and roster sizes in both sports make a single draft pick mean a LOT less.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 10:34 AM
Brief history of the lottery:

Started in 1985, and for 2 years every lottery team had equal chances and every pick was drawn, not just 1-3.

In 1987 they switched to only drawing 1-3, with every team having equal chances.

In 1990 they switched to a weighted lottery, again only drawing the top 3 picks. The weights have changed but this is the system we use now.

So a flat lottery, drawing every pick, was only tried for 2 years. Two trials is not enough data to decide that a random system is ineffective. Bad teams complained that the Knicks got Patrick Ewing, and so they changed the system to reward losing.

As long as a) teams with the worst record have the best odds, and b) the worst team is guaranteed no worse than a top 5 pick, teams will always tank.

Even a flat lottery will not stop tanking. There was tanking in those years too. Add to that a flat lottery would encourage a team to tank out of the playoffs because they'd have an equal chance to get the #1 pick and quickly be contenders.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 10:43 AM
My favorite solution is to have the teams draft other teams finishing spot for the next year, so the team with the worst record gets to pick another team for the next year, then the draft is run straight by finishing record and you get the pick of the team drafted.

There is never a reason to tank since you don't ever get your pick, and winning actually improves your draft position, but at the same time the worst teams will still have the best chance of getting a good pick.

warfelg
04-11-2018, 10:45 AM
My favorite solution is to have the teams draft other teams finishing spot for the next year, so the team with the worst record gets to pick another team for the next year, then the draft is run straight by finishing record and you get the pick of the team drafted.

There is never a reason to tank since you don't ever get your pick, and winning actually improves your draft position, but at the same time the worst teams will still have the best chance of getting a good pick.

That will never happen because of charges of collusion.

jimboslice15
04-11-2018, 11:47 AM
There is tanking in the NFL and NHL it's just not as blatant, and roster sizes in both sports make a single draft pick mean a LOT less.

Provide some specific evidence of tanking in either league please, because I haven't seen it.

Some times teams rebuild but they don't get to the point of resting healthy players in order to lose games.

Last nights Suns/Mavs game was a disgrace to the NBA.

IndyRealist
04-11-2018, 12:17 PM
That will never happen because of charges of collusion.

Collusion was my first though as well. Charlotte and Phoenix could cut a deal to pick each other right as they are blowing up their rosters, and end up with #1 and #2

IndyRealist
04-11-2018, 12:28 PM
Even a flat lottery will not stop tanking. There was tanking in those years too. Add to that a flat lottery would encourage a team to tank out of the playoffs because they'd have an equal chance to get the #1 pick and quickly be contenders.

My actual plan was to give lottery teams 2 balls and teams eliminated in the first round 1 ball. Is there reason to tank out of the playoffs? Yeah, a slightly better odds at moving up, versus the playoff revenue.

Does that mean it'll be hard for bad team to get better through the draft? Yes. Does it mean some marginal playoff team is likely to get a top 10 draft pick? Also yes. But I'd like more contenders, and giving a middling team a star draft pick can do that.

What it also does is lessen the reliance on the lottery for bad teams to get better. Instead of putting their effort into being as bad as possible, they can put it into running a better organization, developing players internally (yay G League!), and making shrewd trades.

Sports success should not be the luck of the draw, it's should be a meritocracy. The best run organizations should succeed, and the poorly run ones should get better.

Heediot
04-11-2018, 12:54 PM
People can continue to tinker with the rules to minimize it, but there is always someone(s) that will find loopholes to gain a competitive advantage short term or long term (tanking). That's just the nature of competition.

mike_noodles
04-11-2018, 02:24 PM
I rather see tiered flat odd, and the 7 and 8 seed from each conference included in the lottery.

18 teams in the lotto
3 pods of even odds (6 teams per pod)
Pull for the top 4, go chalk after that


Now it doesn't matter if your the worse or 4th worse team. The need to sink all the way down is smaller. With the 7 and 8 seeds included, there's little incentive to miss the playoffs for that slim chance.

Tiered flat I'd be okay with assuming the worst teams get the highest percentage for their level, eg, the bottom 5 teams have the same odds, the next 5 have the same odds and the next 8 as you propose would have equal odds.



Provide some specific evidence of tanking in either league please, because I haven't seen it.

Some times teams rebuild but they don't get to the point of resting healthy players in order to lose games.

Last nights Suns/Mavs game was a disgrace to the NBA.

They've changed to a lottery since, but there was blatant tanking for Mario Lemieux in the NHL. The Leafs admittedly did it just two years ago to improve their odds at Auston Matthews.

In the NFL, just in recent memory there was an entire "suck for Luck" campaign. I would say tanking is least in the NFL, but it does happen.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 05:17 PM
That will never happen because of charges of collusion.

You think team A will tank to help team B for something in return? That seems fairly incredibly unlikely.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 05:18 PM
Provide some specific evidence of tanking in either league please, because I haven't seen it.

Some times teams rebuild but they don't get to the point of resting healthy players in order to lose games.

Last nights Suns/Mavs game was a disgrace to the NBA.

Provide some specific evidence of tanking in the NBA. Not just anecdotal, but specific evidence.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 05:22 PM
Collusion was my first though as well. Charlotte and Phoenix could cut a deal to pick each other right as they are blowing up their rosters, and end up with #1 and #2

To do that two teams would have to plan to tank to be the worst 2 teams in the league, at which point those two picks would go elsewhere, then draft each other, then do it again. And if any other team got in front of one of them it could fall apart. I doubt any two teams trust each other enough for a 2 year all out tank for each other.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 05:24 PM
My actual plan was to give lottery teams 2 balls and teams eliminated in the first round 1 ball. Is there reason to tank out of the playoffs? Yeah, a slightly better odds at moving up, versus the playoff revenue.

Does that mean it'll be hard for bad team to get better through the draft? Yes. Does it mean some marginal playoff team is likely to get a top 10 draft pick? Also yes. But I'd like more contenders, and giving a middling team a star draft pick can do that.

What it also does is lessen the reliance on the lottery for bad teams to get better. Instead of putting their effort into being as bad as possible, they can put it into running a better organization, developing players internally (yay G League!), and making shrewd trades.

Sports success should not be the luck of the draw, it's should be a meritocracy. The best run organizations should succeed, and the poorly run ones should get better.

I can get behind that plan. I think I'd expand it by adding another round to the draft and allowing team rosters to grow to 20. Give teams more time and opportunity to develop quality NBA players so if they get a star they are more ready to win.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 05:25 PM
People can continue to tinker with the rules to minimize it, but there is always someone(s) that will find loopholes to gain a competitive advantage short term or long term (tanking). That's just the nature of competition.

True, and the better run (owned) teams tend to head toward the top, and the poorer run (owned) teams head to the middle of the bottom.

jimboslice15
04-11-2018, 05:30 PM
Provide some specific evidence of tanking in the NBA. Not just anecdotal, but specific evidence.

Lol okay, here you go pal!!

https://www.si.com/nba/2018/02/21/mark-cuban-fined-dallas-mavericks-tanking-comments

http://www.12up.com/posts/6028450-injury-report-for-suns-mavericks-season-finale-should-be-a-fireable-offense

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/us-sport/national-basketball-association/nba-chicago-bulls-tanking-robin-lopez-justin-holiday-draft-picks-standings-a8244791.html

https://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/nba-tanking-losing-draft-pick-1.17899744

warfelg
04-11-2018, 06:10 PM
You think team A will tank to help team B for something in return? That seems fairly incredibly unlikely.

Yes. Seems very likely to happen.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 11:15 PM
Lol okay, here you go pal!!

https://www.si.com/nba/2018/02/21/mark-cuban-fined-dallas-mavericks-tanking-comments

http://www.12up.com/posts/6028450-injury-report-for-suns-mavericks-season-finale-should-be-a-fireable-offense

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/us-sport/national-basketball-association/nba-chicago-bulls-tanking-robin-lopez-justin-holiday-draft-picks-standings-a8244791.html

https://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/nba-tanking-losing-draft-pick-1.17899744

The first one is pretty good, but it's still just talk ... I had forgotten about that one.

The second one is speculation.

The third is a league warning, still not specific evidence of tanking.

The fourth is speculation that the league might have words with the Bulls for not playing "injured" players.

We all know teams tank ... but the vast majority of the information is speculation and inference. But yes, NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB teams tank ... it's just that NBA teams do it bigger.

Scoots
04-11-2018, 11:15 PM
Yes. Seems very likely to happen.


To do that two teams would have to plan to tank to be the worst 2 teams in the league, at which point those two picks would go elsewhere, then draft each other, then do it again. And if any other team got in front of one of them it could fall apart. I doubt any two teams trust each other enough for a 2 year all out tank for each other.

Still seems unlikely.

jimboslice15
04-12-2018, 07:21 AM
The first one is pretty good, but it's still just talk ... I had forgotten about that one.

The second one is speculation.

The third is a league warning, still not specific evidence of tanking.

The fourth is speculation that the league might have words with the Bulls for not playing "injured" players.

We all know teams tank ... but the vast majority of the information is speculation and inference. But yes, NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB teams tank ... it's just that NBA teams do it bigger.

I mean yeah I agree that there are certain levels to tanking but don't you think that the product some teams have put out on the floor this year has made some games unwatchable?

You have 8-10 teams all vying to lose as much as possible for hopes of winning in the future.

That's not a sustainable business model. None of the other leagues have that problem.

If capital/assets could flow more freely from team to team, it would most likely alleviate these problems IMO. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

You don't think it would help if small market/rebuilding teams with tons of cap space could actually use that cap space to offer pending star FA's larger deals than their current team?

Scoots
04-12-2018, 10:04 AM
I mean yeah I agree that there are certain levels to tanking but don't you think that the product some teams have put out on the floor this year has made some games unwatchable?

You have 8-10 teams all vying to lose as much as possible for hopes of winning in the future.

That's not a sustainable business model. None of the other leagues have that problem.

If capital/assets could flow more freely from team to team, it would most likely alleviate these problems IMO. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

You don't think it would help if small market/rebuilding teams with tons of cap space could actually use that cap space to offer pending star FA's larger deals than their current team?

I did say that the NBA takes it to a new level, but keep in mind that MLB every year has a "buyers/sellers season" where teams sell off their expensive talent to contenders which is itself tanking, and that is every year a third of the league stops doing what is best for winning games that season looking instead to the future which is the definitition of tanking, it's just that MLB doesn't make a big deal out of it so people don't get upset about it. It's really more of an issue with fans than the NBA.

I think NBA teams should be hard capped with no max deals, no minimum deals, no contract limits at all, and no draft, 20 man rosters with no game inactive lists. I'm in favor of doing away with divisions and conferences and having a balanced schedule using the NFLs format of playing the top teams against each other more often. I'm in favor of having all 30 teams in the playoffs with the first 2 rounds being 3 game series. I'm in favor of radically changing the offensive and defensive rules to clear up ambiguities in the rules. I'm in favor of a totally free market (other than the cap). But I also realize that that's never going to happen so I'm looking for solutions that the current NBA might possibly accept.

warfelg
04-12-2018, 10:10 AM
Still seems unlikely.

I disagree. We have some level of tampering as is. Agents and ex-executives admit to it. Mid-season near the deadline a player may be thinking of joining another team; and that agent might be talking to a GM and say something like "Hey I know a guy that gets 20PPG, 5 ASTPG, 7 REBPG that likes your team, but he doesn't like Player X".

That stuff happens as is.

You don't think that will get even worse where you are picking your draft order based off how another team does?

On top of that there's too much randomness to do that. You aren't exactly letting bad teams get better with that, which is what the draft and RFA is all about.

Tanking will never go away. All you can do is help mitigate it. Flattening draft odds some; putting limitations on how many non-traded for top 3 picks you can have in a given time, I'm for that. But anything that can take away form bad teams getting good picks is something I'm against.

Scoots
04-12-2018, 10:57 AM
I disagree. We have some level of tampering as is. Agents and ex-executives admit to it. Mid-season near the deadline a player may be thinking of joining another team; and that agent might be talking to a GM and say something like "Hey I know a guy that gets 20PPG, 5 ASTPG, 7 REBPG that likes your team, but he doesn't like Player X".

That stuff happens as is.

You don't think that will get even worse where you are picking your draft order based off how another team does?

On top of that there's too much randomness to do that. You aren't exactly letting bad teams get better with that, which is what the draft and RFA is all about.

Tanking will never go away. All you can do is help mitigate it. Flattening draft odds some; putting limitations on how many non-traded for top 3 picks you can have in a given time, I'm for that. But anything that can take away form bad teams getting good picks is something I'm against.

I'm not sure you are getting it ... Team A has the worst record in the NBA which allows them the first pick of teams to pick the one they think will have the worst record the next year. So to collude with another team they will have to be in a position to draft them first, then the other team will have to tank the next year, which will then not necessarily work out how they want. There are just too many variables for it to be a significant issue.

The current lottery is literally random, this proposal actually reduces the randomness. The worst teams get first pick of teams they think will suck. They have the best chance to get it right using skill rather than a roll of the dice.

Or is there a specific scenario you have in mind?

warfelg
04-12-2018, 11:16 AM
Yes thatís exactly what will happen.

MarkieMark48
04-12-2018, 11:29 AM
Easiest way to stop tanking is to implement a hard cap. Let's see these mother****ers team up knowing they'll take a drastic paycut to do so.

BINGO :hi5:

Scoots
04-12-2018, 12:03 PM
BINGO :hi5:

The NBA had a hard cap until Bird ... what I can't remember if that was 1 year of hard cap then Bird or if they were the same year. I remember Boston complaining about the cap and the creation of the Bird rule, and the fact that this last CBA made those rules even stronger I doubt they are going away any time soon.

Scoots
04-12-2018, 12:05 PM
Yes thatís exactly what will happen.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't think 2 teams will combine to try to tank for the #1 and #2 picks for 2 consecutive years for which they will get just one top player each. Too much risk, too many variables, too little return.

warfelg
04-12-2018, 12:12 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't think 2 teams will combine to try to tank for the #1 and #2 picks for 2 consecutive years for which they will get just one top player each. Too much risk, too many variables, too little return.

Thatís not all it has to be relegated to.

Celtics hold the pick tied to the Clippers, Clippers out of the playoffs. Celtics call the Clippers and go ďHey, just say DeAndre, Lou, and Harris are injured. Tank the last 10 days. Well sell you the rights to a player and a second for cash to do that for us.Ē

Also how do you propose to handle traded picks? Protected picks? Do the teams holding rights get multiple times to tie their wagon to? Or does every team pick. Becomes easier for a bad team to keep their pick in that case. Or makes it easier to lose.

I think your plan has more flaws and problems than you think.

Scoots
04-12-2018, 01:08 PM
Thatís not all it has to be relegated to.

Celtics hold the pick tied to the Clippers, Clippers out of the playoffs. Celtics call the Clippers and go ďHey, just say DeAndre, Lou, and Harris are injured. Tank the last 10 days. Well sell you the rights to a player and a second for cash to do that for us.Ē

Also how do you propose to handle traded picks? Protected picks? Do the teams holding rights get multiple times to tie their wagon to? Or does every team pick. Becomes easier for a bad team to keep their pick in that case. Or makes it easier to lose.

I think your plan has more flaws and problems than you think.

A ten game tank is not the issue, it's the 82+ game tank.

Teams can trade their rights to draft teams for the draft. No reason they can't trade them.

I didn't say it was flawless, just the best I've seen.

85BearsDefense
04-12-2018, 02:01 PM
Fix the development of talent at the college level. Teams tank b/c the only way to get top tier talent is to be in the lottery. I understand teams have found guys post lottery but forcing kids to stay 3 years and develop will make drafts deeper and therefore teams won't have to tank to get the top picks.

nastynice
04-12-2018, 06:03 PM
Someone made a suggestion that the highest non playoff teams get the most lotto balls. Obvious drawback being bad teams stay bad, but itís a give and take. I think philly being so blatant with the tank and now looking so good is gonna make teams follow suit, and no one wants to see that. Thatís why everyone tryina figure ways out to nip it in the bud, lol

nastynice
04-12-2018, 06:07 PM
Here is an idea - get rid of the ridiculous "max" and "supermax" deal limits and let teams pay whatever they feel a player is worth... then maybe smaller market teams will be able to attract max level players, by simply outbidding other teams.

The whole max contract situation is what's really holding the league back... allowing a team to fit both a Curry/KD under the cap COMFORTABLY without either taking a sizeable paycut should be impossible.

That would completely change the league. Imagine no Jordan pippin, kobe shaq, penny shaq, lebron wade, etc. I think that would affect things way more than what youíre thinking ...

IndyRealist
04-12-2018, 06:09 PM
Someone made a suggestion that the highest non playoff teams get the most lotto balls. Obvious drawback being bad teams stay bad, but itís a give and take. I think philly being so blatant with the tank and now looking so good is gonna make teams follow suit, and no one wants to see that. Thatís why everyone tryina figure ways out to nip it in the bud, lol

The problem is that it won't eliminate tanking, you just move it from the bottom of the standings to the middle. Teams will tank out of the playoffs to have the best shot at #1, versus being eliminated in the 1st round.

IndyRealist
04-12-2018, 06:15 PM
Can we stop using KD as an example of how the system is broken? It was literally a once in a lifetime fluke that let KD land on the Warriors, coupled with maneuvering by Chris Paul and Lebron James. That kind of jump in salary cap will likely never happen again.

jericho
04-12-2018, 10:12 PM
I've been saying this for a while and even made a thread about it.

Make a round robin tournament for the teams that didn't make the playoffs to determine the draft order. That would stop tanking and would force teams to build a good team for either the playoffs or the draft tournament. Teams that are well build would get the chance to be in a better position by winning the draft tournament and better compete with top tier teams and teams that are not doing well will be force to make better teams (hence ending the tanking). Also for teams that are on the playoffs and have a draft pick on said draft they would have to use their nbdl teams to compete on said tournament. That would give the Dleague players a chance to show what they have against NBA level competition and a potential call up to the big leagues. For draft with protections I haven't thought about that one but I'm open for suggestions.

east fb knicks
04-18-2018, 07:34 AM
Only way to stop the tank is like what dude said throw out the lottery and implement a mini playoffs for the 1st pick

But i wouldn't include all teams who missed the playoffs just bottom 8

Id also expand the playoffs by adding 1 extra team and id do top 18 teams instead of east west

Basically the system needs alot of changes as long as we reward teams for losing ther will be a tank

Scoots
04-18-2018, 10:42 AM
I guess at this point the only total solution to tanking is the wheel.

The flat lottery may have teams tank out of the playoffs. The draft a team one there is some (tiny) chance of two teams colluding. The playoffs for the top pick encourages teams to tank into the bottom then bring their best players back to go for the #1 pick.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 12:10 PM
Tiered lottery including the 7th and 8th seed is the solution no one ever comments on but is the best really.

IndyRealist
04-18-2018, 12:51 PM
Least extreme: changing odds/number of picks drawn. Still gives best chance to worst teams. Does not fix tanking at all. To clarify: as long as there is reason to be worst someone will tank.

Most extreme: loser's bracket. Gives best chance to best non-playoff team, virtually ensures bad teams stay bad. Just moves tanking from the bottom to tanking out of the playoffs.

The middle, reasonable approach: FLAT LOTTERY, with half odds to 1st round losers. Rewards making the playoffs, does not reward losing while also not actively punishing teams for being bad. Not complicated, no chance of collusion.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 01:11 PM
Least extreme: changing odds/number of picks drawn. Still gives best chance to worst teams. Does not fix tanking at all. To clarify: as long as there is reason to be worst someone will tank.

Most extreme: loser's bracket. Gives best chance to best non-playoff team, virtually ensures bad teams stay bad. Just moves tanking from the bottom to tanking out of the playoffs.

The middle, reasonable approach: FLAT LOTTERY, with half odds to 1st round losers. Rewards making the playoffs, does not reward losing while also not actively punishing teams for being bad. Not complicated, no chance of collusion.

Yup. Only reason I argue tiers is to give some hope to the bad of the bad to get help. Including in the last 2 seeds on both sides will encourage teams to not tank out of the playoffs.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 01:17 PM
Also: Any idea that can lead to the slightest bit of collusion or corruption will not go through.

This is why the wheel will never get put in place. #1 2020 recruit goes to Duke. Memphis is the #1 upcoming pick in the 2021 draft, but is 20-62. 2022 Portland is the #1 pick, and at the end of the 2021 season is in the WCF. Why would that recruit come out in 2021 knowing he'll be on a bad team with a slim shot at great help, when he can wait a year and go to a top playoff team the next year?

BKLYNpigeon
04-18-2018, 01:34 PM
Its easy to keep teams from tanking.

You cant have a top 5 draft pick every year.

Say you get the #1 pick this year and you still end up with the worst record.
The best you can do the following year is the #6 pick.

After 5 years your bumped out of the lottery.

IndyRealist
04-18-2018, 02:35 PM
Its easy to keep teams from tanking.

You cant have a top 5 draft pick every year.

Say you get the #1 pick this year and you still end up with the worst record.
The best you can do the following year is the #6 pick.

After 5 years your bumped out of the lottery.

Except teams tank for more than 2 years. #1, #6, and #1 seems like a pretty good 3yr haul to a rebuilding GM. This doesn't eliminate tanking, it just prolongs it.

And what happens when you get #5? Then you have zero shot at #1 the next year, even if your #5 pick is injured all year or legitimately terrible? #5 is a very arbitrary line to draw. #3 makes more sense bc #1-3 are the actual lottery picks.

IndyRealist
04-18-2018, 02:38 PM
Also: Any idea that can lead to the slightest bit of collusion or corruption will not go through.

This is why the wheel will never get put in place. #1 2020 recruit goes to Duke. Memphis is the #1 upcoming pick in the 2021 draft, but is 20-62. 2022 Portland is the #1 pick, and at the end of the 2021 season is in the WCF. Why would that recruit come out in 2021 knowing he'll be on a bad team with a slim shot at great help, when he can wait a year and go to a top playoff team the next year?

+1. predetermined draft order means players will delay coming out to get on better teams.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 02:44 PM
Tiered lottery including the 7th and 8th seed is the solution no one ever comments on but is the best really.

9 teams tanked this year, the incentive is reduced a little to get into the top tier but there is still reason to tank.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 02:46 PM
9 teams tanked this year, the incentive is reduced a little to get into the top tier but there is still reason to tank.

So what. Teams in all sports tank. You'll never fully get rid of it without unraveling some level of competitive balance.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 02:46 PM
Also: Any idea that can lead to the slightest bit of collusion or corruption will not go through.

This is why the wheel will never get put in place. #1 2020 recruit goes to Duke. Memphis is the #1 upcoming pick in the 2021 draft, but is 20-62. 2022 Portland is the #1 pick, and at the end of the 2021 season is in the WCF. Why would that recruit come out in 2021 knowing he'll be on a bad team with a slim shot at great help, when he can wait a year and go to a top playoff team the next year?

But it absolutely solves tanking.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 02:47 PM
+1. predetermined draft order means players will delay coming out to get on better teams.

Yup. Then you could get something like "Hey kid, if you come out this year Nike will give you a $15mil contract since you'll be in Utah, but if you wait til next year we'll give you $50mil for being in NYC."

Scoots
04-18-2018, 02:50 PM
So what. Teams in all sports tank. You'll never fully get rid of it without unraveling some level of competitive balance.

So there has to be some sort of system that encourages tanking right? So it comes down to the least offensive system that reduces tanking and I have yet to see one of those that doesn't also mess with competitive balance in some way. Including "my" team draft order and "your" tiered lottery.

I think "my" draft order team selection gives the worst teams the best chance to get the best pick while also trying to build a team to win.

You think "your" tiered draft does the best job.

I think Indy prefers the flat odds lottery, but I'm not certain.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 02:51 PM
Its easy to keep teams from tanking.

You cant have a top 5 draft pick every year.

Say you get the #1 pick this year and you still end up with the worst record.
The best you can do the following year is the #6 pick.

After 5 years your bumped out of the lottery.


I don't get that part.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 02:53 PM
+1. predetermined draft order means players will delay coming out to get on better teams.

I think that was his point. I agree, but it absolutely "solves" tanking.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 02:59 PM
There is also doing away with the draft entirely, and the "rookie pool" each team has can be sized by their cap and their finishing place the previous year so the teams with the best record have the least money to spend on rookies. Probably have to have some sort of limitation on the quality of the prospects any team can sign too to try to force some semblance of balance.

TheDish87
04-18-2018, 03:29 PM
Also: Any idea that can lead to the slightest bit of collusion or corruption will not go through.

This is why the wheel will never get put in place. #1 2020 recruit goes to Duke. Memphis is the #1 upcoming pick in the 2021 draft, but is 20-62. 2022 Portland is the #1 pick, and at the end of the 2021 season is in the WCF. Why would that recruit come out in 2021 knowing he'll be on a bad team with a slim shot at great help, when he can wait a year and go to a top playoff team the next year?

im not for this idea but said player gets their own team and a chance to shine and develop within the instant pressure of contributing to a contender who a star or 2 in place already. The team can build around the player much easier and will have the money free to give a big extension to when the time comes while a team in the WCF may be maxed out or close by then.

HandsOnTheWheel
04-18-2018, 03:32 PM
I'm liking the idea of flat odds the best so far as proposed by Indy. Easiest way to eliminate tanking without getting too extreme and encourages even the bottom 14 who missed the playoffs to attempt to win throughout the year, avoiding the horrible "tank race" that was so prevelant this year

HandsOnTheWheel
04-18-2018, 03:38 PM
Only gripe I ave with it is the possibility of bad teams with small markets getting screwed over a number of years and nothing changing as far as capability of building through the draft because of poor flat lottery luck. There just needs to be some incentive for these teams losing. Tiered lottery sounds OK too, but it should be something like 1-5, 5-10, 11-14 or larger to create more broad positioning to avoid all-out tanking to get to a higher tier

warfelg
04-18-2018, 03:53 PM
So there has to be some sort of system that encourages tanking right? So it comes down to the least offensive system that reduces tanking and I have yet to see one of those that doesn't also mess with competitive balance in some way. Including "my" team draft order and "your" tiered lottery.

I think "my" draft order team selection gives the worst teams the best chance to get the best pick while also trying to build a team to win.

You think "your" tiered draft does the best job.

I think Indy prefers the flat odds lottery, but I'm not certain.

Well that's the problem. You have to decrease the positive factors of tanking, without making it impossible to do so.

Even if you do a tiered program with 3 tiers, that's better than flat odds. Because then with flat odds your saying a team that's just bad, goes to a 20-62 should get the same right to the best player as a 41-41 team that purposely lost their last 5 games to go from 7th seed to 9th seed.

Any lotto that's flat and doesn't include teams in the playoffs suddenly moves the tanking to a different area of the league, doesn't really help the actual bad teams, and can really cause problems.

My idea with tiers is to include the 7 and 8 seed in both conferences. Then you got the 14 teams that missed the playoffs, plus the last 4 in for 18 total lottery teams. 6 teams a tier. If all 18 teams had the same odds they would all have a 5.56% chance at the #1, 2, or 3 pick. So that would be the odds for tier 2. Tier 3 would all get 2.56% odds. Tier 1 would all get the 5.56% + the 3% taken from all the tier 3 teams for a total chance of 8.56%. Pick for 1, 2, 3 using those odds; everyone else goes by their order.

With the tiered system like that the tank to the absolute bottom isn't as strong. The odds jump between tiers isn't that big compared to currently (1 to 2 is a 5.1 drop; 2-3 is a 6.1). The last tier would see a huge jump compared to their current and 2019 odds, the mid level will just see a smoothing (biggest jump 2.5 points, biggest fall 1.5 points), and the first tier would see huge hits to their odds.

Yes is creates mini tanks in the 4-7 and 10-14 range; but isn't that more preferable than everyone trying to race to the bottom. Now if your the 3rd worse team, there's no need to out race the 1st and 2nd worse all the way there. If your a team in the 7-9 range there's no impulse to sink out of the playoffs and lower the odds. And you're still giving some of the worst teams the easiest route to improve themselves.

Even if you wanted to 2 tier it with 2 9 team tiers and make tier 1 have 8.56% odds and tier 2 have 2.56% odds you lower the incentive to tank, while still giving bad teams a chance to improve through the draft.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 03:55 PM
im not for this idea but said player gets their own team and a chance to shine and develop within the instant pressure of contributing to a contender who a star or 2 in place already. The team can build around the player much easier and will have the money free to give a big extension to when the time comes while a team in the WCF may be maxed out or close by then.

Right. But the issue to me still remains that any proposal that could have any hint of collusion will never pass.

Could you imagine if the wheel was in place and we didn't get Ben Simmons because he decided to stay the extra year so he could get picked by San Antonio who had the #1 pick the next year?

warfelg
04-18-2018, 03:57 PM
Only gripe I ave with it is the possibility of bad teams with small markets getting screwed over a number of years and nothing changing as far as capability of building through the draft because of poor flat lottery luck. There just needs to be some incentive for these teams losing. Tiered lottery sounds OK too, but it should be something like 1-5, 5-10, 11-14 or larger to create more broad positioning to avoid all-out tanking to get to a higher tier

And that's why I've tended to always favor adding in the last few playoff teams. It broadens the tiers to move the tanking away from the bottom and doesn't create a league where teams try to miss the playoffs for a pick.

HandsOnTheWheel
04-18-2018, 04:31 PM
And that's why I've tended to always favor adding in the last few playoff teams. It broadens the tiers to move the tanking away from the bottom and doesn't create a league where teams try to miss the playoffs for a pick.

Yup. The question still exists though, can the method eliminate teams purposely tanking? Something like 2 tiers like 1-7, 8-16 (including the last 2 playoff teams) would just not work as you would have teams in the 8-14 desperately trying to get into the 1-7 bracket. Gotta be 3 tiers and probably 1-5 the most in the first tier. Has to be broad, but not necessarily too broad. Otherweise, scrap it and just make flat tiers cause it just wouldn't be worth it

Scoots
04-18-2018, 05:51 PM
Well that's the problem. You have to decrease the positive factors of tanking, without making it impossible to do so.

Even if you do a tiered program with 3 tiers, that's better than flat odds. Because then with flat odds your saying a team that's just bad, goes to a 20-62 should get the same right to the best player as a 41-41 team that purposely lost their last 5 games to go from 7th seed to 9th seed.

Any lotto that's flat and doesn't include teams in the playoffs suddenly moves the tanking to a different area of the league, doesn't really help the actual bad teams, and can really cause problems.

My idea with tiers is to include the 7 and 8 seed in both conferences. Then you got the 14 teams that missed the playoffs, plus the last 4 in for 18 total lottery teams. 6 teams a tier. If all 18 teams had the same odds they would all have a 5.56% chance at the #1, 2, or 3 pick. So that would be the odds for tier 2. Tier 3 would all get 2.56% odds. Tier 1 would all get the 5.56% + the 3% taken from all the tier 3 teams for a total chance of 8.56%. Pick for 1, 2, 3 using those odds; everyone else goes by their order.

With the tiered system like that the tank to the absolute bottom isn't as strong. The odds jump between tiers isn't that big compared to currently (1 to 2 is a 5.1 drop; 2-3 is a 6.1). The last tier would see a huge jump compared to their current and 2019 odds, the mid level will just see a smoothing (biggest jump 2.5 points, biggest fall 1.5 points), and the first tier would see huge hits to their odds.

Yes is creates mini tanks in the 4-7 and 10-14 range; but isn't that more preferable than everyone trying to race to the bottom. Now if your the 3rd worse team, there's no need to out race the 1st and 2nd worse all the way there. If your a team in the 7-9 range there's no impulse to sink out of the playoffs and lower the odds. And you're still giving some of the worst teams the easiest route to improve themselves.

Even if you wanted to 2 tier it with 2 9 team tiers and make tier 1 have 8.56% odds and tier 2 have 2.56% odds you lower the incentive to tank, while still giving bad teams a chance to improve through the draft.

So, the tiers are not for 3 separate lotteries, but just 3 groups of odds and it's still the top 3 picks being chosen? Because you could do it that way too. The worst 5 teams have even odds for the top 5 picks, the next 5 the next 5 picks, etc. So, finish 6th and the best you can pick is 6th.

Every system has some issues. To me the draft a team's draft has the smallest downside even if it is a bit complex.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 05:52 PM
Right. But the issue to me still remains that any proposal that could have any hint of collusion will never pass.

Could you imagine if the wheel was in place and we didn't get Ben Simmons because he decided to stay the extra year so he could get picked by San Antonio who had the #1 pick the next year?

That wouldn't be collusion.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 05:56 PM
Yup. The question still exists though, can the method eliminate teams purposely tanking? Something like 2 tiers like 1-7, 8-16 (including the last 2 playoff teams) would just not work as you would have teams in the 8-14 desperately trying to get into the 1-7 bracket. Gotta be 3 tiers and probably 1-5 the most in the first tier. Has to be broad, but not necessarily too broad. Otherweise, scrap it and just make flat tiers cause it just wouldn't be worth it

The ONLY thing I've seen that would eliminate tanking is to completely divorce record from draft picks. AKA the Wheel.

HandsOnTheWheel
04-18-2018, 06:09 PM
The ONLY thing I've seen that would eliminate tanking is to completely divorce record from draft picks. AKA the Wheel.

The wheel? Explain.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 06:42 PM
So, the tiers are not for 3 separate lotteries, but just 3 groups of odds and it's still the top 3 picks being chosen? Because you could do it that way too. The worst 5 teams have even odds for the top 5 picks, the next 5 the next 5 picks, etc. So, finish 6th and the best you can pick is 6th.

Every system has some issues. To me the draft a team's draft has the smallest downside even if it is a bit complex.

No, not lottery within the tier.

They do it for the top 3 like they currently do. But teams with the 1st-6th worst record have the same odds for a top 3 pick; teams with the 7th-12th worse records have the same odds at a top 3 pick; teams with the 13th-18th worse records have the same odds.

So anyone 1st-18th worse records can have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd pick. The system is exact same system we have now, just instead of different odds for every place you finish, it's even through every so many teams.

If your odds are the same if your the worse team or 5th worse....what's the incentive to be the worse?

And the bolded:
Its complex and absolutely has the biggest downside.

IndyRealist
04-18-2018, 06:43 PM
The wheel? Explain.

Picks are predetermined and rotate through the league. So, you are guaranteed the #1 pick every 30 years. You could be the best team in the league and be slated to get #1 that summer, or you could be the worst team and have 25 years until you can get a #1. Your picks have nothing at all to do with your team record.

The main issue is that the best players will stay in college or overseas until the picks are favorable for them to go to the team they want. It's also excessively complicated and a huge departure from the current system.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 06:44 PM
The wheel? Explain.

The wheel theory is over the course of 30 years, every team has every draft position that rotates based on pod and within pods. Every 6 years you have a top 5 pick. Etc.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 06:45 PM
That wouldn't be collusion.

Could very well be collusion. Doesn't have to come from the FO. This would be league orchestrated collusion. The two sides will never agree on this.

IndyRealist
04-18-2018, 06:46 PM
The ONLY thing I've seen that would eliminate tanking is to completely divorce record from draft picks. AKA the Wheel.

A flat lottery that includes 1st round eliminations does the same thing. Unless you think a team would deliberately get eliminated in the 1st round when they otherwise could have moved on.

HandsOnTheWheel
04-18-2018, 07:02 PM
Wheel sounds complicated lol. Like Tiered or flat lottery a lot better. Still not a perfect remedy brought up yet though

Scoots
04-18-2018, 09:01 PM
No, not lottery within the tier.

They do it for the top 3 like they currently do. But teams with the 1st-6th worst record have the same odds for a top 3 pick; teams with the 7th-12th worse records have the same odds at a top 3 pick; teams with the 13th-18th worse records have the same odds.

So anyone 1st-18th worse records can have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd pick. The system is exact same system we have now, just instead of different odds for every place you finish, it's even through every so many teams.

If your odds are the same if your the worse team or 5th worse....what's the incentive to be the worse?

And the bolded:
Its complex and absolutely has the biggest downside.

Gotcha ... that's what I thought you meant. There is still incentive to tank, just not to tank to #1.

All of the schemes have issues, your collusion idea seems incredibly unlikely and even if it happens the the impact would be so much smaller than the tanking we have now. What I like about it is that the worst teams have an advantage, but the advantage is very small and that it's not random because it a choice that can theoretically be made better by analysis.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 09:04 PM
Could very well be collusion. Doesn't have to come from the FO. This would be league orchestrated collusion. The two sides will never agree on this.

How would the league collude with a player? If the player chooses to wait they choose to wait. If a team asks a player to wait that's still not collusion, teams are allowed to talk to players pre-draft.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 09:06 PM
A flat lottery that includes 1st round eliminations does the same thing. Unless you think a team would deliberately get eliminated in the 1st round when they otherwise could have moved on.

A flat lottery that excludes any team means there is still a reason to lose games to not be excluded from the lottery. The pay back odds are certainly smaller, but the competitive balance really suffers a lot with a flat lottery.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 09:08 PM
None of this really matter since none of our schemes are likely to come about. The league may change the odds here or there but I don't think they really care about actual tanking, they just don't want people to notice the tanking.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 09:13 PM
How would the league collude with a player? If the player chooses to wait they choose to wait. If a team asks a player to wait that's still not collusion, teams are allowed to talk to players pre-draft.

By showing them where they can go ahead of time. And yes that's absolutely collusion to tell a player "Hey wait a year and you can be with a much better team." That's what collusion is.

warfelg
04-18-2018, 09:16 PM
Gotcha ... that's what I thought you meant. There is still incentive to tank, just not to tank to #1.

All of the schemes have issues, your collusion idea seems incredibly unlikely and even if it happens the the impact would be so much smaller than the tanking we have now. What I like about it is that the worst teams have an advantage, but the advantage is very small and that it's not random because it a choice that can theoretically be made better by analysis.

Unlikely? I think it's very very likely to happen.

Let's say Milwaukee own's the pick tied to Atlanta. Atlanta is sitting at 12th. Milwaukee keeps it if it's top 10. They call Atlanta "Hey can you make sure you land in the bottom 10, we'll sell you our second for that." That has the potential to happen almost yearly with that.

IndyRealist
04-18-2018, 10:18 PM
A flat lottery that excludes any team means there is still a reason to lose games to not be excluded from the lottery. The pay back odds are certainly smaller, but the competitive balance really suffers a lot with a flat lottery.

Any system that doesn't reward losing changes the competitive balance, because we currently reward losing. Just like the wheel, the goal is to keep teams from being able to game the draft to rebuild. That necessarily weakens the position of bad teams. I fail to see how the two are different in that regard.

I'd also like to point out that you are essentially saying teams will deliberately lose in the 1st round when they should have advanced, in a flat lottery that includes 1st round eliminations. It's one thing to drop from 8th to 9th when you are just going to get booted in the first round, it's something completely different to say "We're 100% going to advance to the second round, but we'd rather have a 1/22 or 1/36 shot at #1."

Scoots
04-18-2018, 10:44 PM
By showing them where they can go ahead of time. And yes that's absolutely collusion to tell a player "Hey wait a year and you can be with a much better team." That's what collusion is.

The player is an independant, they are the one making the decision and it's their decision alone to make. For their to be collusion it would have to be against the rules for teams to talk to players. That would be a major change.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 10:48 PM
Unlikely? I think it's very very likely to happen.

Let's say Milwaukee own's the pick tied to Atlanta. Atlanta is sitting at 12th. Milwaukee keeps it if it's top 10. They call Atlanta "Hey can you make sure you land in the bottom 10, we'll sell you our second for that." That has the potential to happen almost yearly with that.

1, the conditional trades could be just on the team draft not the player draft and that eliminates that scenario. I think it's incredibly unlikely a team will tank for a 2nd round pick, and if it's against the rules to do so (a requirement for collusion), then how would Milwaukee/Atlanta explain away the trade? Also having Atlanta tank a 2 game record difference is FAR FAR better than teams trying to end up with 18 total wins from game 1 of the season. Teams tanking for a week or two is nowhere near the issue the league is concerned with.

Scoots
04-18-2018, 10:51 PM
Any system that doesn't reward losing changes the competitive balance, because we currently reward losing. Just like the wheel, the goal is to keep teams from being able to game the draft to rebuild. That necessarily weakens the position of bad teams. I fail to see how the two are different in that regard.

I'd also like to point out that you are essentially saying teams will deliberately lose in the 1st round when they should have advanced, in a flat lottery that includes 1st round eliminations. It's one thing to drop from 8th to 9th when you are just going to get booted in the first round, it's something completely different to say "We're 100% going to advance to the second round, but we'd rather have a 1/22 or 1/36 shot at #1."

I'm not saying what teams will do, just pointing out that the flat lottery doesn't eliminate any gains from tanking.

I don't like the flat lottery primarily because of the competitive balance issues with it which is the same issue I have with the wheel.

jericho
04-18-2018, 11:26 PM
I still like my idea better. I mean what the NBA is lacking is competitive balance. And by implementing a round robin playoffs tournament for the teams that didn't make the playoffs you are forcing all team's to build a better roster to either compete for the playoffs if they make it or compete for the tournament for the top draft pick. Creating better competitive balance. Now for team's that rest their players to be able to tank. They should be some sort of fines or wtvr. Just imagine the frenzy that this tourney would be. More revenue and fans would love to watch their young players duking it out against other young stars

jericho
04-18-2018, 11:40 PM
17 vs 30 18 vs 29
19 vs 28 20 vs 27
21 vs 26 22 vs 25
23 vs 24

Next round let's say all the top team's win
17 vs 19 18 vs 20
21 vs 22 23 (still trying to figure out the odd team out)
Then
17 vs 18
21 vs 23
And finally 17 vs 23

The rest of the sitting could be determined by regular season tie breakers or a point system.
They could have this tournament go on the week before the finals since they have a lil break before it. (If they added 2 more team's the bracket would look a lot better)

I know this would bring tanking from playoffs teams but even at that point wtvr team makes the playoff could potentially give a good series to any top team.

warfelg
04-19-2018, 08:33 AM
The player is an independant, they are the one making the decision and it's their decision alone to make. For their to be collusion it would have to be against the rules for teams to talk to players. That would be a major change.

If they went this route of the wheel they would have to really change up those rules. Players would be easily able to dictate where they go by waiting or coming out based on where they know the draft is going.


1, the conditional trades could be just on the team draft not the player draft and that eliminates that scenario. I think it's incredibly unlikely a team will tank for a 2nd round pick, and if it's against the rules to do so (a requirement for collusion), then how would Milwaukee/Atlanta explain away the trade? Also having Atlanta tank a 2 game record difference is FAR FAR better than teams trying to end up with 18 total wins from game 1 of the season. Teams tanking for a week or two is nowhere near the issue the league is concerned with.

I rather have tanking than anything that can even have the smallest hint of collusion. And I think the NBA and most fans would rather have that too. And they will have a very tough time explaining away that trade. You're also going to get what's now mid-lotto teams about halfway through the season agree to sit better and vet players to help each other get better picks.

And you might not only have collusion in that direction, you can have it in the other way too! Milwaukee holds Atlanta's pick, Charlotte needs their pick to be better, so they agree to trade Atlanta a player that can help them win a few more games so that Atlanta has a better pick; and Atlanta agrees to play said player for a certain number of minutes for a conditional 2nd.


Here's the dirty little secret:
You're never going to get rid of tanking in the NBA (or any sport for that matter). And to eliminate tanking you end up taking away competitive balance by potentially hurting the bad team. The best you will be able to do is find a way to minimize the incentive for being at the absolute bottom, but at the same time you have to keep giving them the chance to have the best picks. That's a fundamental aspect of keeping the competitive balance in the league.

Hence why I like the tiered odds approach. There's no more incentive to sink all the way down because it doesn't matter where in that pod of 6 teams you are, you have the same odds.

So using this year as an example:
Phx, Mem, Atl, Dal, Orl, Chi would all be tier 1 with 8.56% chance at a top 3 pick. 6 wins separate them.

Sac, Bkn, NYK, LAL, Cha, Det would all be in tier 2 with a 5.56% chance at a top 3 pick. This is a tier where 12 wins separate the top and bottom. So now the tanking is negated some because there isn't the need for the NYK, LAL, Cha to tank the way they did. They can't get to tier 1 all that easily, and they aren't increasing their odds by losing, so it lessens the late season tank.

LAC, Wsh, Mil, Den, Min, SA would be all in tier 3 with a 2.56% chance at a top 3 pick. Now it didn't happen this year, but some years teams that are making the playoffs at about .500 are trying to since some so they miss the playoffs and have that ever so slim chance at a better pick.

That's really what needs to happen. That's why they went to flattening the odds for the 3 worse teams next year. They just want to take away the incentive for a team to be the absolute worse. This tiered plan is just taking the small measure the NBA took and built it up to a bigger scale.

Scoots
04-19-2018, 08:57 AM
If they went this route of the wheel they would have to really change up those rules. Players would be easily able to dictate where they go by waiting or coming out based on where they know the draft is going.



I rather have tanking than anything that can even have the smallest hint of collusion. And I think the NBA and most fans would rather have that too. And they will have a very tough time explaining away that trade. You're also going to get what's now mid-lotto teams about halfway through the season agree to sit better and vet players to help each other get better picks.

And you might not only have collusion in that direction, you can have it in the other way too! Milwaukee holds Atlanta's pick, Charlotte needs their pick to be better, so they agree to trade Atlanta a player that can help them win a few more games so that Atlanta has a better pick; and Atlanta agrees to play said player for a certain number of minutes for a conditional 2nd.


Here's the dirty little secret:
You're never going to get rid of tanking in the NBA (or any sport for that matter). And to eliminate tanking you end up taking away competitive balance by potentially hurting the bad team. The best you will be able to do is find a way to minimize the incentive for being at the absolute bottom, but at the same time you have to keep giving them the chance to have the best picks. That's a fundamental aspect of keeping the competitive balance in the league.

Hence why I like the tiered odds approach. There's no more incentive to sink all the way down because it doesn't matter where in that pod of 6 teams you are, you have the same odds.

So using this year as an example:
Phx, Mem, Atl, Dal, Orl, Chi would all be tier 1 with 8.56% chance at a top 3 pick. 6 wins separate them.

Sac, Bkn, NYK, LAL, Cha, Det would all be in tier 2 with a 5.56% chance at a top 3 pick. This is a tier where 12 wins separate the top and bottom. So now the tanking is negated some because there isn't the need for the NYK, LAL, Cha to tank the way they did. They can't get to tier 1 all that easily, and they aren't increasing their odds by losing, so it lessens the late season tank.

LAC, Wsh, Mil, Den, Min, SA would be all in tier 3 with a 2.56% chance at a top 3 pick. Now it didn't happen this year, but some years teams that are making the playoffs at about .500 are trying to since some so they miss the playoffs and have that ever so slim chance at a better pick.

That's really what needs to happen. That's why they went to flattening the odds for the 3 worse teams next year. They just want to take away the incentive for a team to be the absolute worse. This tiered plan is just taking the small measure the NBA took and built it up to a bigger scale.

I just don't buy that teams will be willing to make those deals, but okay.

The tiered lottery still encourages tanking, it's just a little less than it is now. 9 teams tanked this year, they all knew they couldn't all be the worst record, with the tiered lottery the team that finishes 5th has an equal chance at the first pick as the teams with a worse record. It may end up looking better to casual viewers which is all the NBA really cares about, but when 9 teams are tanking a 5 team tier system doesn't seem like it dissuade teams much.

warfelg
04-19-2018, 09:16 AM
I just don't buy that teams will be willing to make those deals, but okay.

But all there has to be is the chance for the NBA to not want it.


The tiered lottery still encourages tanking, it's just a little less than it is now. 9 teams tanked this year, they all knew they couldn't all be the worst record, with the tiered lottery the team that finishes 5th has an equal chance at the first pick as the teams with a worse record. It may end up looking better to casual viewers which is all the NBA really cares about, but when 9 teams are tanking a 5 team tier system doesn't seem like it dissuade teams much.

1 - how many times in NBA history has 9 teams tried to tank in the same year. Of course we'e covered a few times that I think some of those 'tanking' teams are just flat out bad teams

2 - Of course that's what the NBA cares about. They are confident that hardcore fans won't go anywhere. It's the casual fan that they worry about because they aren't guaranteed to come back. I think you keep missing out on what the tiered system does. I've said a few times completely eliminating tanking won't happen. But it prevents something from another Philly situation happening. Or if a team is locked into tier 1 late in the season what's the incentive to keep tanking? Same thing if you know you're locked into tier 2.

I think I've seen Indy say it, and I'm on it.....you will never eliminate tanking and keep competitive balance. The best you can do is mitigate the optics of tanking. Tiering will do that to a certain level. If fans realize they don't have to be that bad to get a better pick, they'll be more invested in the team.

Of course draft lottery reform (they'll never go away from a lottery system) is only part of stopping tanking. The other part is working on creating some competitive balance. As long as the draft is the best way to get good players there will always be a reason to want a top pick.

IndyRealist
04-19-2018, 09:27 AM
I still like my idea better. I mean what the NBA is lacking is competitive balance. And by implementing a round robin playoffs tournament for the teams that didn't make the playoffs you are forcing all team's to build a better roster to either compete for the playoffs if they make it or compete for the tournament for the top draft pick. Creating better competitive balance. Now for team's that rest their players to be able to tank. They should be some sort of fines or wtvr. Just imagine the frenzy that this tourney would be. More revenue and fans would love to watch their young players duking it out against other young stars

No one would watch a loser's bracket outside of their own team. It would get less viewership than the regular season, because it likely would have to happen after the playoffs. It would essentially be the NIT. Who watches the NIT?

warfelg
04-19-2018, 09:40 AM
No one would watch a loser's bracket outside of their own team. It would get less viewership than the regular season, because it likely would have to happen after the playoffs. It would essentially be the NIT. Who watches the NIT?

On top of that, that means voluntarily playing extra games, actual bad teams don't have a way to improve, and you are encouraging 7-8 seeds to tank out of the playoffs by sitting someone and running through the playoffs.

I mean it would be bad for the NBA, in 2015-16 having the 8 seed Rockets with Harden sit him for the last 2 weeks, become the 9th seed, then use Harden for the 'loser bracket' run through it and end up with Simmons. Pacers the same year doing the same thing with PG-13.

jericho
04-19-2018, 09:58 AM
No one would watch a loser's bracket outside of their own team. It would get less viewership than the regular season, because it likely would have to happen after the playoffs. It would essentially be the NIT. Who watches the NIT?

Agree to disagree my friend. I think a lot of people would watch it because it wouldn't be watered down competition at that point.

jericho
04-19-2018, 10:01 AM
No one would watch a loser's bracket outside of their own team. It would get less viewership than the regular season, because it likely would have to happen after the playoffs. It would essentially be the NIT. Who watches the NIT?


On top of that, that means voluntarily playing extra games, actual bad teams don't have a way to improve, and you are encouraging 7-8 seeds to tank out of the playoffs by sitting someone and running through the playoffs.

I mean it would be bad for the NBA, in 2015-16 having the 8 seed Rockets with Harden sit him for the last 2 weeks, become the 9th seed, then use Harden for the 'loser bracket' run through it and end up with Simmons. Pacers the same year doing the same thing with PG-13.

I know what you are saying but we can't be using those examples because if this was ever implemented team's would be better build for either a playoff run or a draft tourney run. The hole point to this would be to create better competitive balance.

warfelg
04-19-2018, 10:11 AM
I know what you are saying but we can't be using those examples because if this was ever implemented team's would be better build for either a playoff run or a draft tourney run. The hole point to this would be to create better competitive balance.

Not really. How does a truly bad team entice FA's to come? A team with few good players gets eliminated in the 1st round 5 straight years. No FA will go, they can't get a good pick, how do they get better?

Also you are encouraging teams to sit star players if they are on the end of the playoffs, get into the draft event, and bring the star back in. If this were to be a thing you would have to start with a rule saying that available players could not be out more than 'X' games in the final month.

jericho
04-19-2018, 11:08 AM
No one would watch a loser's bracket outside of their own team. It would get less viewership than the regular season, because it likely would have to happen after the playoffs. It would essentially be the NIT. Who watches the NIT?


Not really. How does a truly bad team entice FA's to come? A team with few good players gets eliminated in the 1st round 5 straight years. No FA will go, they can't get a good pick, how do they get better?

Also you are encouraging teams to sit star players if they are on the end of the playoffs, get into the draft event, and bring the star back in. If this were to be a thing you would have to start with a rule saying that available players could not be out more than 'X' games in the final month.

You got that right. Make rules, fines and penalties for team's that try to do that.

McAllen Tx
04-22-2018, 07:54 PM
Wow another "ways to stop tanking thread". We get about 3 of these every season don't we?

I haven't changed my idea of how to stop tanking, and it goes like this:

Draft order should go to best winning % of all non playoffs teams final 32 games.

After each team's 50th game there's like 2 weeks before the TD so that gives every team a chance to make a move to get better. Sure there won't be teams dumping players to purposely tank anymore. There will be more buyers then sellers but it will stop tanking.

Every game will mean something at the end of the season. A game between the Mavs and Suns (just examples) would've been big at the end of the season. Winner gets the 1st pick sorta deal. That would keep fans interested in all games cause all are meaningful.

Sure there will be instances when a team who's fighting for the 8th spot with 1-3 games to go knows if they just miss out on the playoffs they will get a top 3 pick because of their winning % in their final 32 games and they might purposely tank but they put themselves in that position by "winning". That would also help these 7-10 seed teams get out of purgatory. With a high draft pick they can get into that upper level.

Reward winning.

Westbrook36
04-22-2018, 08:12 PM
This is the best solution I've heard

Once eliminated from the playoffs you would begin to count the wins up until the end of the season. The team that comes out with the most wins would get the highest odds for #1 pick. This allows the terrible teams to have more time to obtain those wins and still give the other franchises a chance as well.

McAllen Tx
04-22-2018, 08:15 PM
But I also believe tanking is very important so I think the NBA should have some sort of system to do it (behind the scenes of course.

Every year have 3 teams tanking. Teams should be able to tank for 3 straight years however they feel fit without any backlash from the other owners. They just can't be open about it.

Every year have a team going into their 3rd straight year of tanking, another team going into their 2nd year of tanking and another team going into their 1st year of tanking.

After a teams third year of no interference of tanking, that's it. They made their bed and now have to lie in it. They have to go with what they got and try to win. While another team enters the 3 year tanking period and so forth.

Of course in the system every team gets their # called to tank but if they're on top right now (let's just say GS) they can refuse and be skipped that year and it falls on the next team up. The next season GS can refuse again and again it goes to the next team up. It would continue to be GS turn to accept until they actually do.

McAllen Tx
04-22-2018, 08:17 PM
This is the best solution I've heard

Once eliminated from the playoffs you would begin to count the wins up until the end of the season. The team that comes out with the most wins would get the highest odds for #1 pick. This allows the terrible teams to have more time to obtain those wins and still give the other franchises a chance as well.

There has to be a set date to start. A team could be eliminated with 1 game to go and win their final game and have a 100% winning.

Scoots
04-22-2018, 08:19 PM
Wow another "ways to stop tanking thread". We get about 3 of these every season don't we?

I haven't changed my idea of how to stop tanking, and it goes like this:

Draft order should go to best winning % of all non playoffs teams final 32 games.

After each team's 50th game there's like 2 weeks before the TD so that gives every team a chance to make a move to get better. Sure there won't be teams dumping players to purposely tank anymore. There will be more buyers then sellers but it will stop tanking.

Every game will mean something at the end of the season. A game between the Mavs and Suns (just examples) would've been big at the end of the season. Winner gets the 1st pick sorta deal. That would keep fans interested in all games cause all are meaningful.

Sure there will be instances when a team who's fighting for the 8th spot with 1-3 games to go knows if they just miss out on the playoffs they will get a top 3 pick because of their winning % in their final 32 games and they might purposely tank but they put themselves in that position by "winning". That would also help these 7-10 seed teams get out of purgatory. With a high draft pick they can get into that upper level.

Reward winning.

That encourages teams to tank for 50 games then play all out for 30, and it penalizes truly bad teams that are not tanking. No thanks.

McAllen Tx
04-22-2018, 08:55 PM
That encourages teams to tank for 50 games then play all out for 30, and it penalizes truly bad teams that are not tanking. No thanks.

Lol teams aren't gonna tank for the first 50 games. How does it penalize the truly bad teams?

Are you saying that good teams are gonna purposely tank from the beginning of the season to miss the playoffs and get a high draft pick?

IndyRealist
04-22-2018, 09:53 PM
This is the best solution I've heard

Once eliminated from the playoffs you would begin to count the wins up until the end of the season. The team that comes out with the most wins would get the highest odds for #1 pick. This allows the terrible teams to have more time to obtain those wins and still give the other franchises a chance as well.

Encourages teams to all-out tank until they are eliminated from the playoffs. If the point is to eliminate tanking, this doesn't do it.

IndyRealist
04-22-2018, 10:03 PM
Lol teams aren't gonna tank for the first 50 games. How does it penalize the truly bad teams?

Are you saying that good teams are gonna purposely tank from the beginning of the season to miss the playoffs and get a high draft pick?

They might tank to get out of the playoffs. With a sufficiently bad record they know they will miss the cutoff and start playing for real at game 51. Then you play all the players who were "injured" and win your last 32 games, get the #1 pick on your playoff caliber team for next season. Multiple teams would game the system if you leave an obvious opening like that, because of the notion that if you are not championship caliber you are wasting your time. The Blazers are the #3 seed, and everyone is saying they should blow up their team. They are a perfect example of a team that would tank in this system, because they're good but not great.

Bad teams have no shot at getting the #1 pick in this system, so you're just keeping bad teams bad. Saying thinks like "reward winning" always sounds good until you actually break down how it would work. It's more complicated that a 3 second sound bite.

Sanjay
06-10-2018, 02:37 AM
Encourages teams to all-out tank until they are eliminated from the playoffs. If the point is to eliminate tanking, this doesn't do it.

But at least it would be for only half the amount of time.

More-Than-Most
06-10-2018, 03:42 AM
Give every team a 3 year warning... in 21/22 every team outside of the playoffs has an equal chance at getting the number 1 pick.


A couple of fringe playoff teams might tank but not many

IndyRealist
06-10-2018, 08:10 AM
But at least it would be for only half the amount of time.

But you could eliminate tanking almost completely by not rewarding losing. Every non-playoff team gets two balls, every team that loses in the first round gets one. Draw all picks 1-22. There's no tanking for half the season, there's no being as bad as possible and getting no worse than 5th pick, there's no guarantee of anything. The only POSSIBLE tanking would be if you make the playoffs and are good enough to beat your 1st round opponent but decide you'd rather be in the lottery with incredibly slim chances of landing #1 vs. advancing in the playoffs. The other scenario is tanking out of the playoffs to have a slightly better shot at #1, but the odds are SO meager no matter where you are in the lottery....

ChiTownPacerFan
06-10-2018, 11:15 AM
I still like the idea of moving the draft after free agency, and then having an independent committee decide the draft order. Get people like Zach Lowe, Woj, Bill Simmons, Mark Stein, Nate Duncan, SVP and other basketball writers to vote on it. In this system, tanking is completely irrelevant. Records don't matter. Instead, you have the smartest basketball minds analyze the state of each individual franchise, and decide which roster is in the most need of help, which is 2nd, and so on. It's almost like doing a future power rankings outlook, in reverse. Nobody but me likes this idea, but it's my favorite.

The goal of the draft should be to create as much parity as possible. That means helping the teams that truly need it. I've never really liked the lottery, and rewarding the best of the bad teams is dumb too.

This would also solve the problem of teams in a situation like Cleveland this year. If a team's superstar(s) leaves or retires, they shouldn't be punished because they were good the previous year. The draft order should be about team outlook, not their past.

IndyRealist
06-10-2018, 04:09 PM
I still like the idea of moving the draft after free agency, and then having an independent committee decide the draft order. Get people like Zach Lowe, Woj, Bill Simmons, Mark Stein, Nate Duncan, SVP and other basketball writers to vote on it. In this system, tanking is completely irrelevant. Records don't matter. Instead, you have the smartest basketball minds analyze the state of each individual franchise, and decide which roster is in the most need of help, which is 2nd, and so on. It's almost like doing a future power rankings outlook, in reverse. Nobody but me likes this idea, but it's my favorite.

The goal of the draft should be to create as much parity as possible. That means helping the teams that truly need it. I've never really liked the lottery, and rewarding the best of the bad teams is dumb too.

This would also solve the problem of teams in a situation like Cleveland this year. If a team's superstar(s) leaves or retires, they shouldn't be punished because they were good the previous year. The draft order should be about team outlook, not their past.

Sports writers are not the smartest basketball minds. They're simply the most easily accessible for average people, because it's their job to be accessible to the public.

I like the idea of a selection committee, but it shouldn't be sports writers. How about having a committee made up of each of the owners of all the playoff teams? That's 16 votes, and they vote on who gets each slot 1-14, from non-playoff teams. In case of ties, the commissioner casts the tie breaking vote. Obviously, since it's made up of the owners of playoff teams you can't vote for your own team. There's the possibility of factions and whatnot, but in general playoff teams are going to want the better picks to go to the weaker teams, so they don't immediately go from fringe team to contender. It will naturally increase parity.

The tricky part is traded picks. It's placement will likely be determined by the team that owns it rather than the team that trades it. Say the worst team in the league traded their upcoming pick to a playoff team. Owners will likely vote for that pick based on the fact that a playoff team owns it, so it'll likely be #14. That will radically change the value of picks. Conversely, if a bad team trades for another bad team's pick, they could theoretically end up with #1 and #2 in a draft if the other owners voted that way.

Scoots
06-10-2018, 06:05 PM
Another issue with the committee is that right now there is a penalty for a team going all-in to win now ... Cleveland did. This committee could potentially make that a much smaller issue to the detriment of teams trying to build for the long haul. And traded picks are going to be a problem.

warfelg
06-10-2018, 06:25 PM
Well, there's a huge reason not to use a committee --- corruption.

Scoots
06-10-2018, 06:56 PM
Well, there's a huge reason not to use a committee --- corruption.

Has there been a proposal that is immune to corruption?

warfelg
06-10-2018, 07:07 PM
I mean letting people decide the order based on who they think needs help the most is rife for corruption. At least the lotto would take massive conspiracy.

Scoots
06-10-2018, 07:23 PM
I mean letting people decide the order based on who they think needs help the most is rife for corruption. At least the lotto would take massive conspiracy.

The weighted lottery conspiracies are what this thread (and about 50 others like it) are about. That the system is being corrupted.

At this point I think the least corruptible solution is the wheel but even it's not immune.

warfelg
06-10-2018, 07:39 PM
The wheel is never happening. Any time there's the decision of humans elements where's bound to be corruption.

There's a two pronged problem with the NBA:
#1 - It's the only sport so reliant on a single great player. So teams will always do whatever for that.
#2 - As long as a lottery expects people will think conspiracy.

Aside from being super open and doing the drawing of balls live as they announce who's where, there will always be rumors of them being corrupt with it.

IndyRealist
06-10-2018, 07:50 PM
Well, there's a huge reason not to use a committee --- corruption.

Make votes public. Everyone sees who is voting for whom. With the ownership committee that will lead to teams getting ganged up on if they try to form alliances. With a sports writers committee, which I disagree with, the writers will be forced to defend their choices and could lose their jobs if they seem to be influenced by a team.

Scoots
06-10-2018, 08:24 PM
The wheel is never happening. Any time there's the decision of humans elements where's bound to be corruption.

There's a two pronged problem with the NBA:
#1 - It's the only sport so reliant on a single great player. So teams will always do whatever for that.
#2 - As long as a lottery expects people will think conspiracy.

Aside from being super open and doing the drawing of balls live as they announce who's where, there will always be rumors of them being corrupt with it.

I wasn't saying I wanted the wheel, just that it's the least corruptible.

The lottery itself isn't the only corruption in the NBA draft ... doing it live on the air wouldn't assure it wasn't corrupt either.

Scoots
06-10-2018, 08:41 PM
Make votes public. Everyone sees who is voting for whom. With the ownership committee that will lead to teams getting ganged up on if they try to form alliances. With a sports writers committee, which I disagree with, the writers will be forced to defend their choices and could lose their jobs if they seem to be influenced by a team.

The owners committee deciding who gets which pick is ... interesting. There would be so much secret drama going on.

warfelg
06-10-2018, 08:49 PM
The owners committee deciding who gets which pick is ... interesting. There would be so much secret drama going on.

Yea I don't like it at all. Corruption, infighting, back door deals, not to mention the fate of the franchise balancing on what someone things of your roster?

CityofTreez
06-10-2018, 09:08 PM
Kings actually won meaningless games to end the season, and ended up getting #2 pick.
Our jump up because of ping pong balls really threw Ďourí tanking argument on its head. I canít state how to fix it

IndyRealist
06-10-2018, 09:22 PM
Yea I don't like it at all. Corruption, infighting, back door deals, not to mention the fate of the franchise balancing on what someone things of your roster?

I mean, the Colangelo drama was far more interesting than the Finals.

Scoots
06-10-2018, 09:25 PM
Kings actually won meaningless games to end the season, and ended up getting #2 pick.
Our jump up because of ping pong balls really threw Ďourí tanking argument on its head. I canít state how to fix it

The Warriors tanked HARD then had to win a coin flip to keep their pick at all. Had they not tanked they would not have been able to draft Barnes and Green and would probably have no titles now.

Scoots
06-10-2018, 09:32 PM
I mean, the Colangelo drama was far more interesting than the Finals.

Not to me :)

warfelg
06-10-2018, 09:32 PM
I mean, the Colangelo drama was far more interesting than the Finals.

Touche. Still is too.

ChiTownPacerFan
06-11-2018, 02:41 AM
Sports writers are not the smartest basketball minds. They're simply the most easily accessible for average people, because it's their job to be accessible to the public.

I like the idea of a selection committee, but it shouldn't be sports writers. How about having a committee made up of each of the owners of all the playoff teams? That's 16 votes, and they vote on who gets each slot 1-14, from non-playoff teams. In case of ties, the commissioner casts the tie breaking vote. Obviously, since it's made up of the owners of playoff teams you can't vote for your own team. There's the possibility of factions and whatnot, but in general playoff teams are going to want the better picks to go to the weaker teams, so they don't immediately go from fringe team to contender. It will naturally increase parity.

The tricky part is traded picks. It's placement will likely be determined by the team that owns it rather than the team that trades it. Say the worst team in the league traded their upcoming pick to a playoff team. Owners will likely vote for that pick based on the fact that a playoff team owns it, so it'll likely be #14. That will radically change the value of picks. Conversely, if a bad team trades for another bad team's pick, they could theoretically end up with #1 and #2 in a draft if the other owners voted that way.

I don't love the idea of the owners voting. I don't know how knowledgeable other team owners (or even GMs) are about every detail of the worst teams in the league. How much time does R.C. Buford want to spend analyzing the future of the Suns vs. the future of the Hornets? I also think there's a massive conflict of interest if it's people within the NBA. I do think corruption and personal agendas would come into play there. The Suns owner could say, "hey, vote for us for first pick, and we'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you ever miss the playoffs".

If you have an independent group of basketball minds, you eliminate the conflict of interest, and you don't have any more reason to suspect corruption than any other system.

Traded picks would presumably work no different than they do now. If the Suns trade their 1st round pick to Golden state, Golden State is going to get a high 1st round pick. No issue there.

IndyRealist
06-11-2018, 10:38 AM
I don't love the idea of the owners voting. I don't know how knowledgeable other team owners (or even GMs) are about every detail of the worst teams in the league. How much time does R.C. Buford want to spend analyzing the future of the Suns vs. the future of the Hornets? I also think there's a massive conflict of interest if it's people within the NBA. I do think corruption and personal agendas would come into play there. The Suns owner could say, "hey, vote for us for first pick, and we'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you ever miss the playoffs".

If you have an independent group of basketball minds, you eliminate the conflict of interest, and you don't have any more reason to suspect corruption than any other system.

Traded picks would presumably work no different than they do now. If the Suns trade their 1st round pick to Golden state, Golden State is going to get a high 1st round pick. No issue there.

Except the pick would be traded BEFORE to the committee votes. They will almost certainly vote based on the team that.owns the pick, not the team that traded it away. That massively changes the value.

Owners of playoff teams have every incentive to reward bad teams with high picks. That keeps impact players away from the fringe playoff teams who could become contenders. And it's not additional work. Their teams have already scouted every other team in the league. It's just a matter of writing a report. And again, you make the votes public, and it's obvious if side deals were made and every other team will gang up on them next draft.

Giannis94
06-11-2018, 10:42 AM
Stop tanking? Contract. Boom. solved

Wrigheyes4MVP
06-11-2018, 11:57 AM
Easiest way to stop tanking is to implement a hard cap. Let's see these mother****ers team up knowing they'll take a drastic paycut to do so.

Hard Cap is probably the best way. Make it nearly impossible to build a super team.

warfelg
06-11-2018, 12:34 PM
Except the pick would be traded BEFORE to the committee votes. They will almost certainly vote based on the team that.owns the pick, not the team that traded it away. That massively changes the value.

Owners of playoff teams have every incentive to reward bad teams with high picks. That keeps impact players away from the fringe playoff teams who could become contenders. And it's not additional work. Their teams have already scouted every other team in the league. It's just a matter of writing a report. And again, you make the votes public, and it's obvious if side deals were made and every other team will gang up on them next draft.

My counter to this and Scoots proposal of drafting based on other teams is the fate of your franchise isnít up to you. And Iím not a fan of that and I doubt Owners ever will be either. Thatís the last thing teams want, is little control on their future.

Scoots
06-11-2018, 01:42 PM
My counter to this and Scoots proposal of drafting based on other teams is the fate of your franchise isnít up to you. And Iím not a fan of that and I doubt Owners ever will be either. Thatís the last thing teams want, is little control on their future.

In the draft other teams scheme your teams future is up to you making "right" choices.

warfelg
06-11-2018, 01:47 PM
In the draft other teams scheme your teams future is up to you making "right" choices.

But your pick isn't actually in your control.

It also relies on the other team making the 'right' choices. It relies on good teams picking good teams and staying healthy. It relies on teams hoping that other teams don't make trades.

You franchise's fate relies on everything else, and you have little say.

JLynn943
06-11-2018, 02:14 PM
Kings actually won meaningless games to end the season, and ended up getting #2 pick.
Our jump up because of ping pong balls really threw Ďourí tanking argument on its head. I canít state how to fix it

Yep. We were bad, but we didn't actually tank. Obviously I'm biased, but it's nice to see a bad team that actually tried to win get rewarded over a team that just went full tank.

IndyRealist
06-11-2018, 03:05 PM
My counter to this and Scoots proposal of drafting based on other teams is the fate of your franchise isnít up to you. And Iím not a fan of that and I doubt Owners ever will be either. Thatís the last thing teams want, is little control on their future.

I 100% buy that argument.

FOXHOUND
06-11-2018, 03:13 PM
Kings actually won meaningless games to end the season, and ended up getting #2 pick.
Our jump up because of ping pong balls really threw Ďourí tanking argument on its head. I canít state how to fix it

That's because the idea that "tanking" works is a myth. It's also completely overblown because no team has gone into a season with the idea of "tanking" besides the 76ers during the Hinkie era.

If all you do is use success stories as an example then you can frame anything as working. The Rockets have not had a top 10 pick since 2006, which they used on Rudy Gay at #8 and traded him for Shane Battier on draft night, and look at them. They haven't drafted top 5 since they took Yao Ming #1 in 2002. The Warriors had high picks when they were building but not a single top 5 selection.

Tanking does not work and is not an issue in the NBA. Poor ownership/team management among a certain group of franchises is an actual issue.

warfelg
06-11-2018, 03:16 PM
I 100% buy that argument.

Yea the more I thought about that proposal and yours that's the issue that kept coming up to me. You don't have control of your own future. And that's going to be a sticking point.

The best is going to be continual working of the lottery system and continually working things like the odds and stuff like that. Making the need for the worst record smaller will help. I still argue including at least the 8 seeds into the lotto will help some. That's IMO an issue area with the subtle tanking.

Scoots
06-11-2018, 03:33 PM
But your pick isn't actually in your control.

It also relies on the other team making the 'right' choices. It relies on good teams picking good teams and staying healthy. It relies on teams hoping that other teams don't make trades.

You franchise's fate relies on everything else, and you have little say.

Your pick isn't in your control now with the lottery. The drafting other teams actually gives teams more control of where they pick than the randomness of the lottery does.

Regardless of these 11 pages of discussion chances are the only changes will be tweaks to the current system.

Scoots
06-11-2018, 03:36 PM
That's because the idea that "tanking" works is a myth. It's also completely overblown because no team has gone into a season with the idea of "tanking" besides the 76ers during the Hinkie era.

If all you do is use success stories as an example then you can frame anything as working. The Rockets have not had a top 10 pick since 2006, which they used on Rudy Gay at #8 and traded him for Shane Battier on draft night, and look at them. They haven't drafted top 5 since they took Yao Ming #1 in 2002. The Warriors had high picks when they were building but not a single top 5 selection.

Tanking does not work and is not an issue in the NBA. Poor ownership/team management among a certain group of franchises is an actual issue.

Every time tanking comes up someone says either it doesn't exist (it does), or that it doesn't work (it does).

It's EASILY provable that it exists, the Mavs and Nets were officially chastised for tanking this year.

It's EASILY provable that it works ... with no tanking and the Warriors likely have no titles in the last 4 years instead of 3.

warfelg
06-11-2018, 03:51 PM
Your pick isn't in your control now with the lottery. The drafting other teams actually gives teams more control of where they pick than the randomness of the lottery does.

Regardless of these 11 pages of discussion chances are the only changes will be tweaks to the current system.

No itís not 100% in your control. But itís not completely out of your control.

Drafting other teams your stock is 100% out of your control. Vlade isnít making moves knowing the Magic own his pick and they need a good player. Heís making moves based on whatís best for his team.

FOXHOUND
06-11-2018, 03:54 PM
Every time tanking comes up someone says either it doesn't exist (it does), or that it doesn't work (it does).

It's EASILY provable that it exists, the Mavs and Nets were officially chastised for tanking this year.

It's EASILY provable that it works ... with no tanking and the Warriors likely have no titles in the last 4 years instead of 3.

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said no team has used it as an actual strategy besides the Seventy Hinkies.

Did the Mavericks tank? Yes, Mark Cuban made some dumb comments and was rightfully punished for them, but that's a perfect example of what I mean in saying it's overblown and people are quick to throw that term out. They were capped out and did what they could to add talent in the offseason, they're just a very bad team. They added Doug McDermott at the deadline in place of dead weight Devin Harris when they could have done nothing, who then proceeded to play a solid role for them.

Did the Nets tank this year, when they didn't even have their own pick? Maybe you meant the Bulls? There was definitely some odd things with them towards the end of the year, for sure.

I think there's a very large difference in accepting losses and tanking. At a certain point in the season it's obvious that it's over. Teams often shift focus at that point to developing young talent and as a result more losses come. Teams like the Mavs this year or the Warriors then, who the most you could say tanked for a third of the season, is not remotely the same as the Seventy Hinkies.

And that still doesn't say it works. The Warriors got to keep their pick but they selected 7th overall. Nobody "tanks" for the 7th overall selection and historically you don't get much from that range on average. That was not a success in tanking, but a success in their drafting ability and team building going forward.

Orlando drafted 2nd, 4th and 5th in 2013, 2014 and 2015. Let's talk about their pursuit of "tanking" and how much that worked out for them.

Scoots
06-11-2018, 04:15 PM
No itís not 100% in your control. But itís not completely out of your control.

Drafting other teams your stock is 100% out of your control. Vlade isnít making moves knowing the Magic own his pick and they need a good player. Heís making moves based on whatís best for his team.

It's not 100% out of your control, it's in your control in that you choose the team to take. The team draft is a year before the player draft so teams can make their decisions knowing where their pick is going to be.

At any rate, I know it's not going to happen.

warfelg
06-11-2018, 04:17 PM
It's not 100% out of your control, it's in your control in that you choose the team to take. The team draft is a year before the player draft so teams can make their decisions knowing where their pick is going to be.

At any rate, I know it's not going to happen.

Too much can happen in season to take it out of the picking teams control. Like I said, one team isn't going to not do an in season trade knowing the fate of another franchise hinges on what they do.

ChiTownPacerFan
06-11-2018, 04:18 PM
Except the pick would be traded BEFORE to the committee votes. They will almost certainly vote based on the team that.owns the pick, not the team that traded it away. That massively changes the value.

Owners of playoff teams have every incentive to reward bad teams with high picks. That keeps impact players away from the fringe playoff teams who could become contenders. And it's not additional work. Their teams have already scouted every other team in the league. It's just a matter of writing a report. And again, you make the votes public, and it's obvious if side deals were made and every other team will gang up on them next draft.

Yes, the pick would be traded before the committee votes, but the pick would still be that of the original team (Just like now). If the Magic traded for the Warriors and Rockets 1st rounders, the committee would still be deciding draft slots for the Warriors and Rockets. They wouldn't be giving 3 early 1st rounders to the Magic. I'm not understanding why this is a problem.

Your 2nd point is a good one. Perhaps I could be talked into giving the votes to owners/execs. That's definitely better than the current system, a stupid wheel, or rookie free agency.

Scoots
06-11-2018, 04:25 PM
I didn't say it didn't exist, I said no team has used it as an actual strategy besides the Seventy Hinkies.

Did the Mavericks tank? Yes, Mark Cuban made some dumb comments and was rightfully punished for them, but that's a perfect example of what I mean in saying it's overblown and people are quick to throw that term out. They were capped out and did what they could to add talent in the offseason, they're just a very bad team. They added Doug McDermott at the deadline in place of dead weight Devin Harris when they could have done nothing, who then proceeded to play a solid role for them.

Did the Nets tank this year, when they didn't even have their own pick? Maybe you meant the Bulls? There was definitely some odd things with them towards the end of the year, for sure.

I think there's a very large difference in accepting losses and tanking. At a certain point in the season it's obvious that it's over. Teams often shift focus at that point to developing young talent and as a result more losses come. Teams like the Mavs this year or the Warriors then, who the most you could say tanked for a third of the season, is not remotely the same as the Seventy Hinkies.

And that still doesn't say it works. The Warriors got to keep their pick but they selected 7th overall. Nobody "tanks" for the 7th overall selection and historically you don't get much from that range on average. That was not a success in tanking, but a success in their drafting ability and team building going forward.

Orlando drafted 2nd, 4th and 5th in 2013, 2014 and 2015. Let's talk about their pursuit of "tanking" and how much that worked out for them.

Yeah, I meant the Bulls. I got players mixed up in my head.

The Warriors ABSOLUTELY tanked to get that 7th pick.

I don't think "tanking" only applies to teams who start the season trying to lose but teams who at any point decide to lose to try to improve the team. It's been a big enough problem that the lottery was created in the early 80s and has changed a multitude of times over the years just to fight tanking.

That said, of course there are teams that are just bad teams.

Tanking doesn't ALWAYS work, but it DOES WORK, and often enough for teams to keep doing it year after year, and this last year most people can point to 9 teams that tanked ... that's close enough to a third of the teams that nobody (who dislikes tanking) should be calling it a small issue.

Scoots
06-11-2018, 04:28 PM
Too much can happen in season to take it out of the picking teams control. Like I said, one team isn't going to not do an in season trade knowing the fate of another franchise hinges on what they do.

Yeah, there is a chance that it doesn't work out ... but that's true of the lottery we have now too. The point is not to give the teams control of their draft pick, it's to take just enough control away to eliminate tanking while still giving them SOME control over it. And it that's the goal then the team draft comes the closest of any proposed plan I've seen. Most of them either dramatically increase the randomness just for the sake of increasing randomness, and move the motivation to tank around a little.

We've got a new draft format next year, if it goes to hell then we'll get another half assed plan, rinse and repeat.

IndyRealist
06-11-2018, 04:28 PM
Yes, the pick would be traded before the committee votes, but the pick would still be that of the original team (Just like now). If the Magic traded for the Warriors and Rockets 1st rounders, the committee would still be deciding draft slots for the Warriors and Rockets. They wouldn't be giving 3 early 1st rounders to the Magic. I'm not understanding why this is a problem.

Your 2nd point is a good one. Perhaps I could be talked into giving the votes to owners/execs. That's definitely better than the current system, a stupid wheel, or rookie free agency.

Suppose Phoenix traded their pick to the Warriors. Do you think a committee would make that the #1 pick KNOWING it's going to the champs, or are they going to make it as bad of a pick as possible? The value of that pick is drastically different, and the Warriors likely give up much less for it.

ChiTownPacerFan
06-12-2018, 09:35 AM
Suppose Phoenix traded their pick to the Warriors. Do you think a committee would make that the #1 pick KNOWING it's going to the champs, or are they going to make it as bad of a pick as possible? The value of that pick is drastically different, and the Warriors likely give up much less for it.

The guidelines would have to clearly state that traded picks should not, in any way, come into consideration. You make the order based on the state of the franchises. It doesn't matter who now owns the pick. I guess he could subconsciously affect people, but it wouldn't really be a factor.

Scoots
06-12-2018, 10:43 AM
The guidelines would have to clearly state that traded picks should not, in any way, come into consideration. You make the order based on the state of the franchises. It doesn't matter who now owns the pick. I guess he could subconsciously affect people, but it wouldn't really be a factor.

So terrible team A trades their next 1st round pick to team B for quality assets, then signs 3 all-pros, then the committee adjusts their draft pick based on the terrible team plus the quality assets plus the 3 all-pros and team B gets screwed over as the value of the pick plummets?

ChiTownPacerFan
06-12-2018, 11:26 AM
So terrible team A trades their next 1st round pick to team B for quality assets, then signs 3 all-pros, then the committee adjusts their draft pick based on the terrible team plus the quality assets plus the 3 all-pros and team B gets screwed over as the value of the pick plummets?

I assume you mean the team doesn't actually improve during the course of the season, just that they sign good players, so they're better on paper, right?

So team A sucked last year, but they have a bunch of cap room available. Why would team B be dumb enough to trade for team A's 1st round pick before free agency. They would know the possibility, or probability, that the team would improve in free agency.

The Lakers would be a perfect example of a "team A". A team that is likely to get a high draft pick based off of last season. BUT, they shouldn't get a super high draft pick if they sign LeBron, PG, and CP3. Teams would know this, and wouldn't be trading a haul for that 1st rounder. If they missed on all those top free agents, then they would get a high pick, and they could still explore trading it.

I'm telling you, this system would work. It'll never happen, but it's better than anything else I've heard proposed.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 01:58 PM
The guidelines would have to clearly state that traded picks should not, in any way, come into consideration. You make the order based on the state of the franchises. It doesn't matter who now owns the pick. I guess he could subconsciously affect people, but it wouldn't really be a factor.

That's both unreasonable and unenforceable. It shouldn't have mattered in 2011 that Lebron won MVP the previous 2 years, but it did. It's nowhere in the guidelines that someone shouldn't win it 3 times in a row. You have to go back to Bird 83-86 and then Chamberlain 65-68 to find threepeat MVPs.

If you tell voters in that scenario that you MUST give the Warriors the #1 pick because the Suns are bad, there will be open revolt. Fans will be up in arms. Owners will protest. Players will say it's rigged. Literally no one outside the Warriors and their fans would be ok with that.

FOXHOUND
06-12-2018, 02:50 PM
Yeah, I meant the Bulls. I got players mixed up in my head.

The Warriors ABSOLUTELY tanked to get that 7th pick.

I don't think "tanking" only applies to teams who start the season trying to lose but teams who at any point decide to lose to try to improve the team. It's been a big enough problem that the lottery was created in the early 80s and has changed a multitude of times over the years just to fight tanking.

That said, of course there are teams that are just bad teams.

Tanking doesn't ALWAYS work, but it DOES WORK, and often enough for teams to keep doing it year after year, and this last year most people can point to 9 teams that tanked ... that's close enough to a third of the teams that nobody (who dislikes tanking) should be calling it a small issue.

But is it a problem though? Is it actually hurting the league? I don't think so and haven't seen any evidence of the sort. The league is doing FANTASTIC. I think the current, well now old, lottery system worked just fine.

I actually don't like the new rules and think it will be counterproductive as an anti-tanking method. You've given more teams a much better chance at receiving the #1 pick or moving up, so naturally you will have more teams vying to get into that group. Teams that have been traditionally too far to realistically get into the bottom 3-4 record group at a certain point of the year, which was kind of the sweet spot for having a good chance at #1, can now just get into bottom 5-6. Likewise having the 3rd worst record is now just as good as the worst, again making it easier to get into pole position on lottery night. I think this is an example of over correction on something that doesn't really need correcting.

Does tanking work though? I mean if all you're talking about is being bad and getting high picks yeah, but what does that mean? How many tops teams got to where they are from tanking? Not many, from my view.

The Warriors may have tanked to keep their pick and ended up with #7 but I don't think that really counts in the traditional sense because nobody expected Curry to be that good and #7 never is. The wrong team could have taken DeRozan or Jennings (LOL remember that debate?) instead of Curry because he was "too small, too old, etc". The home run on Klay from #11 and the grand slam on Green from #35 are arguably just as important, IMO. Without those, Curry is just another awesome player stuck on a blah team.

Houston has never tanked or anything remotely close.

Toronto has never tanked... they just choke lol.

Boston has never tanked but thanks to fantastic GM work got the benefits anyways.

Philly is the prime example of tanking working, but even then they were very sloppy and got absolutely nothing from two high draft picks.

Cleveland was just bad when LeBron left. They were young and lacking depth after being a contender for so long + poor managment. They also got extremely "lucky" with lottery balls those years. Not a lottery conspiracy theorist, but there's certainly no other situation that looks as fishy as that did. Still, they never get back there without LeBron coming back. After using high picks on guys like Waiters and Thompson, while having hindsight on Wiggins and his impact on winning thus far, they would have probably went down the other path from GS. Kyrie would have been just another awesome player on a blah team.

Portland? Nope.

OKC? I think it was just a youth thing. They were smart not to rush the process but I don't consider that tanking. They have rebuilt themselves multiples since and obviously have not tanked in those years.

Indiana? Another team like Houston that is never drafting that high.

Utah? They don't tank.

Those are the top 5 seeds in each conference. I can keep going but I don't think it adds much to the tanking column. Miami and Milwaukee certainly never tanked, neither did the Pelicans. The Spurs you can go back to Duncan, but you can't plan for David Robinson's injury and those bones are gone. Washington and Minnesota are just two horribly run franchises that were terrible for years. HM to Denver and their 46 wins - another team that doesn't tank.

The idea that tanking needs to be fixed is misguided. What the league needs to focus on is poor ownership/management that has left a group of franchises in the dumps for a very long time no matter how often they draft high. How to fix that though, without having some sort of way to purge bad owners, is seemingly impossible.

BKLYNpigeon
06-12-2018, 03:16 PM
Every Team has Tanked for seeding in the NBA Draft.

Get over it. It wasn't an issue until the Sixers did it for 4 consecutive years.


Whatever rules they implement teams will always find a way.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 03:19 PM
Every Team has Tanked for seeding in the NBA Draft.

Get over it. It wasn't an issue until the Sixers did it for 4 consecutive years.


Whatever rules they implement teams will always find a way.

You could make it absolutely no incentive to tank. Then no one would.

And the Pacers have never tanked for seeding. Which is why we haven't had a top 3 pick since Rik Smits.

BKLYNpigeon
06-12-2018, 03:32 PM
You could make it absolutely no incentive to tank. Then no one would.

And the Pacers have never tanked for seeding. Which is why we haven't had a top 3 pick since Rik Smits.

Its 30 separate private businesses in the NBA, you can't really tell teams how to run them.

Theres no right way of doing things. Theres consequences to Tanking to begin with. Orlando has been taking since Dwight Howard, how do you think they're doing? I don't think Utah ever really tanked after that Deron William + Boozer Team, and look at them now. It all comes down to Smart Ownership and Great Front Office.

lavell12
06-12-2018, 03:37 PM
best way to stop tanking is either reverse the lottery odds where the teams that don't make the playoffs that have the better record get the better odds to win the lottery or get rid of the lottery and just give the team with the 14 best record the #1 pick.

Rivera
06-12-2018, 03:40 PM
i didnt go through the pages, so let me apologize right away if this idea was already taken

bottom 8 teams. tournament. nothing more exciting in basketball than a tournament. 1 game elimination, you can convince me to best out of 3 but nothing more than that. and winner gets #1 overall.

in the situation that the Cavs have the #8 seed this year, have the original team (Nets) play for them

BKLYNpigeon
06-12-2018, 03:46 PM
i didnt go through the pages, so let me apologize right away if this idea was already taken

bottom 8 teams. tournament. nothing more exciting in basketball than a tournament. 1 game elimination, you can convince me to best out of 3 but nothing more than that. and winner gets #1 overall.

in the situation that the Cavs have the #8 seed this year, have the original team (Nets) play for them

so what incentive do the Nets have to win that pick for Cleveland? they would just tank as well. lol.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 04:12 PM
Its 30 separate private businesses in the NBA, you can't really tell teams how to run them.

Theres no right way of doing things. Theres consequences to Tanking to begin with. Orlando has been taking since Dwight Howard, how do you think they're doing? I don't think Utah ever really tanked after that Deron William + Boozer Team, and look at them now. It all comes down to Smart Ownership and Great Front Office.

You misunderstand. You can make the rules so there is no incentive to tank, by not giving better odds to worse teams. Then no one would.

And Orlando has not been tanking since Dwight. They really tried from the point they hired Frank Vogel. They were just bad.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 04:25 PM
i didnt go through the pages, so let me apologize right away if this idea was already taken

bottom 8 teams. tournament. nothing more exciting in basketball than a tournament. 1 game elimination, you can convince me to best out of 3 but nothing more than that. and winner gets #1 overall.

in the situation that the Cavs have the #8 seed this year, have the original team (Nets) play for them

To be clear, you want to hold a tournament after the season, where players are playing for the rights to a better player to come in and potenitally take their job the following year?

And are we playing this tourney before or after two months of playoffs? Even single elimination is 7 games, so two weeks including travel. Before takes excitement away from the playoffs. After is a 2 month layoff, games will be super sloppy and players will already be on vacation. Concurrent with the playoffs, no one would watch and it would be a huge monetary sinkhole. The first round of the playoffs there's 2 or 3 games every weekday and 4 each weekend day. All televised.

BGeer091
06-12-2018, 04:25 PM
I prefer no draft and players can pick where they want to go. Give the players bonuses for staying local... Something like up to an extra million a year if they play in the state they are from and 500k to play in the state their college resides in.

As far as teams go base their allowed money off of record. Non playoff teams get X and playoff teams get Y. With the local bonuses not counting against that budget. 2 slots per team (picks) If a team wanted to say get 3 or 4 players they acquire a slot from another team.

If a player isn't ready for NBA they can go to or stay in school but the rights are still held by the NBA team.

Instead of a huge draft have a decision day. It would still be an event and draw viewers.

Scoots
06-12-2018, 04:27 PM
But is it a problem though? Is it actually hurting the league? I don't think so and haven't seen any evidence of the sort. The league is doing FANTASTIC. I think the current, well now old, lottery system worked just fine.

It's not a problem for me, but there are enough fans and writers talking about it for the league to talk about it like it's a problem.


Does tanking work though? I mean if all you're talking about is being bad and getting high picks yeah, but what does that mean? How many tops teams got to where they are from tanking? Not many, from my view.

Like I said, it doesn't work all the time, in part because the draft itself is such a crap-shoot, but it works often enough for people to try it.


The Warriors may have tanked to keep their pick and ended up with #7 but I don't think that really counts in the traditional sense because nobody expected Curry to be that good and #7 never is. The wrong team could have taken DeRozan or Jennings (LOL remember that debate?) instead of Curry because he was "too small, too old, etc". The home run on Klay from #11 and the grand slam on Green from #35 are arguably just as important, IMO. Without those, Curry is just another awesome player stuck on a blah team.

Tanking is tanking. When a team makes move whose purpose is to lose games they are tanking. Without that tank Draymond Green is not a Warrior, they don't win in 2015, and KD doesn't join the team in 2017. Tanking REALLY REALLY worked for the Warriors.


... has never tanked ...

No, I don't buy it, EVERY team has tanked. They may not tank a lot and it may not be obvious from the outside but every team has done it at some point for some reason. You can start with any losing game where a star player was a healthy scratch or played well below their normal number of minutes. Philly took it to extremes, but there really is nothing new about teams intentionally trying less than 100% to win games.


The idea that tanking needs to be fixed is misguided. What the league needs to focus on is poor ownership/management that has left a group of franchises in the dumps for a very long time no matter how often they draft high. How to fix that though, without having some sort of way to purge bad owners, is seemingly impossible.

This I agree with, and I suggested a vanity based method to put pressure on bad owners.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 04:29 PM
I prefer no draft and players can pick where they want to go. Give the players bonuses for staying local... Something like up to an extra million a year if they play in the state they are from and 500k to play in the state their college resides in.

As far as teams go base their allowed money off of record. Non playoff teams get X and playoff teams get Y. With the local bonuses not counting against that budget. 2 slots per team (picks) If a team wanted to say get 3 or 4 players they acquire a slot from another team.

If a player isn't ready for NBA they can go to or stay in school but the rights are still held by the NBA team.

Instead of a huge draft have a decision day. It would still be an event and draw viewers.

The NBA will likely never give up the draft. Smaller markets would never get good players, and small markets outnumber big markets by a lot.

Scoots
06-12-2018, 04:31 PM
I prefer no draft and players can pick where they want to go. Give the players bonuses for staying local... Something like up to an extra million a year if they play in the state they are from and 500k to play in the state their college resides in.

As far as teams go base their allowed money off of record. Non playoff teams get X and playoff teams get Y. With the local bonuses not counting against that budget. 2 slots per team (picks) If a team wanted to say get 3 or 4 players they acquire a slot from another team.

If a player isn't ready for NBA they can go to or stay in school but the rights are still held by the NBA team.

Instead of a huge draft have a decision day. It would still be an event and draw viewers.

I am fine with no draft. The home state thing is a real head scratcher. Historically there are more NBA players from CA, NY, and IN than the next 10 states combined. There are 3 teams in CA, 2 in NY and 1 in IN that would REALLY like your plan.

Rivera
06-12-2018, 08:15 PM
so what incentive do the Nets have to win that pick for Cleveland? they would just tank as well. lol.

cash incentive, league revenue, and a spot light on how you perform in a high leverage situation for next year. it gives pending free agents and restricted free agents one last chance to boost their value


To be clear, you want to hold a tournament after the season, where players are playing for the rights to a better player to come in and potenitally take their job the following year?

And are we playing this tourney before or after two months of playoffs? Even single elimination is 7 games, so two weeks including travel. Before takes excitement away from the playoffs. After is a 2 month layoff, games will be super sloppy and players will already be on vacation. Concurrent with the playoffs, no one would watch and it would be a huge monetary sinkhole. The first round of the playoffs there's 2 or 3 games every weekday and 4 each weekend day. All televised.

why not during? Theres an NCAA and NIT Tournament. Start it round 2 if you dont want to take away from round 1 but id start it asap and maybe give playoff teams a week before their playoffs officially start.

i dont feel it would take excitement away from the playoffs. its the first round and if your team is in it, your invested. if your a basketball fan like myself, its more basketball to watch with something at stake. never a bad thing and makes me more invested as a fan. plus nba playoff storylines will progress and thats what NBA uses to market itself, storylines.

its more tv revenue potentially which means, more money to split with the owners which means more money for the players. you could easily get a contract for at least 50 mil from one of the big networks for this tournament

if you dont want it to detract from the playoffs, put in on NBA TV or get a contract with youtube and air it live on youtube.

ChiTownPacerFan
06-13-2018, 10:41 AM
That's both unreasonable and unenforceable. It shouldn't have mattered in 2011 that Lebron won MVP the previous 2 years, but it did. It's nowhere in the guidelines that someone shouldn't win it 3 times in a row. You have to go back to Bird 83-86 and then Chamberlain 65-68 to find threepeat MVPs.

If you tell voters in that scenario that you MUST give the Warriors the #1 pick because the Suns are bad, there will be open revolt. Fans will be up in arms. Owners will protest. Players will say it's rigged. Literally no one outside the Warriors and their fans would be ok with that.

Why, the same thing would happen today if a garbage team traded it's first round pick to a great team (assuming they won the lottery). That would simply be a terrible move for the bad team, and their fans should be mad at their own team management for trading a 1st round pick when their team is garbage.

Quinnsanity
06-13-2018, 10:43 AM
Guys this isn't hard. If we don't want tanking, we can't have a draft. It's that simple. As long as an incentive structure exists that rewards losing in any way, shape or form, teams are going to take advantage of it.

ChiTownPacerFan
06-13-2018, 10:44 AM
best way to stop tanking is either reverse the lottery odds where the teams that don't make the playoffs that have the better record get the better odds to win the lottery or get rid of the lottery and just give the team with the 14 best record the #1 pick.

Let's see, 5 games left in the season. I'm currently the 8th seed. I'm one game up on the 9th seed. 1.5 up on the 10th. Great playoff race we have here as all 3 teams sit all 5 starters for the next 5 games.

Scoots
06-13-2018, 11:22 AM
Guys this isn't hard. If we don't want tanking, we can't have a draft. It's that simple. As long as an incentive structure exists that rewards losing in any way, shape or form, teams are going to take advantage of it.

And several solutions were suggested in this thread that would mitigate or outright eliminate the incentive to tank.

Jamiecballer
06-13-2018, 09:56 PM
I think the best way to discourage tanking is to use the current seasons standings to determine the draft order 3 years into the future, like a lag time. that way I can't start tanking a third of the way through the season because a special college talent has emerged for this draft class, or the class is shaping up to be a great one at the top... and the lag time would put an unbelievable amount of stress on the market where tanking is occurring before bearing any semblance of fruit.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Scoots
06-14-2018, 01:06 AM
I think the best way to discourage tanking is to use the current seasons standings to determine the draft order 3 years into the future, like a lag time. that way I can't start tanking a third of the way through the season because a special college talent has emerged for this draft class, or the class is shaping up to be a great one at the top... and the lag time would put an unbelievable amount of stress on the market where tanking is occurring before bearing any semblance of fruit.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

That's a new one. The downside is that a 4 year tank becomes a 7 year tank I guess :)

Not a bad suggestion really though 3 years may be a bit much.

Rivera
06-14-2018, 11:24 AM
another one, probably already suggested but I didnt go through the thread

free market. let teams bid on draft rights. have a separate "pool" money thats different from the cap (like baseball and the international pool) have limits, allow teams to trade for more pool money if they desire, and bid on rookies similar to the international pool that baseball has

Vinylman
06-15-2018, 09:17 AM
you guys continue to try and fix the parity issue via eliminating tanking...

parity would be impacted much more by the following

1. Contract two teams
2. Eliminate max salaries
3. Eliminate BAE/MLE and only give one exception a year to go over the cap to sign your bird rights players

Scoots
06-15-2018, 10:13 AM
you guys continue to try and fix the parity issue via eliminating tanking...

parity would be impacted much more by the following

1. Contract two teams
2. Eliminate max salaries
3. Eliminate BAE/MLE and only give one exception a year to go over the cap to sign your bird rights players

I think it's not trying to fix parity by eliminating tanking but rather how do you eliminate tanking while protecting the possibility of allowing parity. Because fixing tanking is really easy if you don't care about parity ... you just make the lottery flat between all 30 teams and boom, no tanking because there is no advantage to a lesser record. The problem is that it helps the good teams far too much and the bad teams far too little.

1. I don't buy that contracting makes the league better.
2. Eliminating max salaries just means the bad teams will be paying even more stupid money to marginal "stars".
3. No exception for veteran minimum deals? You are going to have a bunch of partial rosters, and even if the owners agreed (which they wouldn't) the players union would not. So it's a non-starter.

warfelg
06-15-2018, 10:31 AM
2. Eliminating max salaries just means the bad teams will be paying even more stupid money to marginal "stars".
3. No exception for veteran minimum deals? You are going to have a bunch of partial rosters, and even if the owners agreed (which they wouldn't) the players union would not. So it's a non-starter.

Point 2 - Or.....bad teams offer up a boatload of money to the second tier starts that prevents these teamups. Would Love stick with Cleveland at $23mil a year if say.....Charlotte was offering him $40mil a year? That dings the Cavs and brings another team into the mix. If they had a good GM they would be able to build something.

Point 3 - I think he was more talking about the bi-annual non-tax, early bird rights, partial bird rights, the taxpayer exemption, and stuff like that. I think almost everyone would agree you got to let teams fill out their roster. But having almost every single stinking exemption available is stupid, and it's what I argue against too. Cut the number of them down and make some of those players go elsewhere.

Scoots
06-15-2018, 01:10 PM
Point 2 - Or.....bad teams offer up a boatload of money to the second tier starts that prevents these teamups. Would Love stick with Cleveland at $23mil a year if say.....Charlotte was offering him $40mil a year? That dings the Cavs and brings another team into the mix. If they had a good GM they would be able to build something.

Point 3 - I think he was more talking about the bi-annual non-tax, early bird rights, partial bird rights, the taxpayer exemption, and stuff like that. I think almost everyone would agree you got to let teams fill out their roster. But having almost every single stinking exemption available is stupid, and it's what I argue against too. Cut the number of them down and make some of those players go elsewhere.

2 - sure, but it will also mean teams will even more absurdly overpay players, and those teams will be totally screwed for years because of it. The max contract was more for bad teams than good ones. The big issue with getting rid of max contracts is that the owners and the the majority of the players like the max contracts.

3 - yeah, I have no idea what so many exceptions were added. There is also the Arenas rule and I think another one I can't remember the name of at the moment which are not specifically exceptions but work like them because they are to help teams over the cap keep players. I'm fine with the original bird exception that allows the team that drafted a player to go over the cap to keep them. I don't think it should be limited to one player, but I'd be fine with all the other exceptions, other than the vet minimum one, being eliminated.

LOb0
06-16-2018, 05:35 PM
I don't see why it matters. Tank an suffer for 4 years for no guarantee. Do I really care if PHX is tanking?

Scoots
06-16-2018, 09:34 PM
I don't see why it matters. Tank an suffer for 4 years for no guarantee. Do I really care if PHX is tanking?

Some do.