Pat Riley stole me idea to fix lottery tanking!

[Roscoe Sheed]

The way to fix tanking is to have every team that missed the playoffs have an equal chance of getting the top pick

[Howardeep]

maybe lottery should just be for bottom 10 teams. with team from 11-15 being set where they are at. Then a tourney between the 10 worst teams makes sense. Doubt anything like this is done though anyways.

[Nightperzon]

Tanking isn't nearly as big of a problem as the worst teams not getting the best draft picks would be.

[First Step]

And then a player who is set to become a UFA tears an ACL trying to get a team that they aren't going to play for the #1 pick? Sounds like a great idea.

[guitarpatch]

I believe Bill Simmons has been saying this for years....

The problem is this. Players aren't going to want to play it. Wouldnt this be a union issue?

You'd have players who would be losing their jobs to whoever is coming in. Then you have guys who will be hurt and don't want to risk getting new contract. Coaches who are likely lame ducks. You'd have to really incentive them w some absurd $ to take the risk. Too many things to try and create a competitive race to the bottom.

Better off changing the odds of grabbing a top 5 pick

[Warchant]

Give the bottom 4 teams a bye to equal it out....11-14 play in 1st round

[Euphonetiks]

Just flip the odds for the 1-3 worst teams and the 4-6. Would make tanking more difficult.

[Danny11]

Maybe if they limit it to 8 teams and seed it 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, and so on. That way the best teams knock each other out early and the bad teams have a shot of getting to the last game. A bottom 4 and top 4 team would be guaranteed of having one of the top two picks.

[nodeal]

Ive heard the tournament idea for a long time. Never liked it, you dont just need to end tanking you also have to insure legit bad teams have a chance to improve.

I came up with my own tournament idea, but didnt even like it that much. Ill post it later.

[og15]

The issue with that is the teams closer to the playoffs will win.

There is a point to the worse teams having a the best chance for the highest pick- they need it!

Tanking sucks, but I would rather have it than the worse teams having less of an opportunity to improve.

I suppose the idea here is that this would give incentive for the teams to improve their rosters as to be able to win such a tournament

[King Close]

Tanking is a big problem. Just look at Brooklyn, you can't tell me they didn't purposefully tank to ensure a top 4 pick. They only started winning games after they locked up the worst record.

Why would they intentionally tank when they are losing the pick anyways?

Why indeed... Maybe they just sucked?

There is no maybe, they definitely sucked. I'm not entirely sure I understand your post looking at your 2nd reply, but they started winning games the 2nd half of the season because most teams knew who was making the playoffs, and the ones who weren't started to tank to get a better pick, more players getting rest etc.

I can tell you they didn't purposefully tank to ensure a top 4 pick, why would they do that? They didn't own that pick coming into the season - i'm either super tired (i am) and not understanding you, or you're mis-informed.

[Tukkerwolf]

Why would they intentionally tank when they are losing the pick anyways?

Why indeed... Maybe they just sucked?

There is no maybe, they definitely sucked. I'm not entirely sure I understand your post looking at your 2nd reply, but they started winning games the 2nd half of the season because most teams knew who was making the playoffs, and the ones who weren't started to tank to get a better pick, more players getting rest etc.

I can tell you they didn't purposefully tank to ensure a top 4 pick, why would they do that? They didn't own that pick coming into the season - i'm either super tired (i am) and not understanding you, or you're mis-informed.

Sheldon, is it you?

[rugbyrugger23]

I still like my idea better. I won't repost the whole long thing. Summary:

=Round-Robin 58 game regular season (play every team twice) -- using geographical swings to minimize travel, back-to-backs and maximize TV time. End records result in 2 flights...

=Top 16 teams play "Playoff Season" -- final 24 games scheduled by some sort of SOS algorithm to ensure result is final 1-16 playoff seeding result.

=Bottom 14 teams play "Draft Season" -- final 24 games scheduled by some sort of SOS algorithm to ensure result is ping pong balls for lotto based on a point system for final 24 games ONLY. Wins and losses are worth points. A lowest seed beating a highest seed on road is more points than a win at home to equal SOS team. Every game is weighted for a point system outcome that determines who gets how many ping pong balls. This way it eliminates tanking (yes still could tank to be in Draft Season vs. Playoff Season -- but weighted point system fool proofs that as does keeping NBA favorite son the Draft Lotto event).

[SCHeat]

Just give everyone in the lottery an equal chance of getting number one and draw for the top five spots. Basically eliminates the importance of having the worst record.

[Soupman]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1548226&hilit=tournament

They most likely had this idea on the back burner for some time now.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

Why would they intentionally tank when they are losing the pick anyways?

Why indeed... Maybe they just sucked?

There is no maybe, they definitely sucked. I'm not entirely sure I understand your post looking at your 2nd reply, but they started winning games the 2nd half of the season because most teams knew who was making the playoffs, and the ones who weren't started to tank to get a better pick, more players getting rest etc.

I can tell you they didn't purposefully tank to ensure a top 4 pick, why would they do that? They didn't own that pick coming into the season - i'm either super tired (i am) and not understanding you, or you're mis-informed.

I was going to argue that the team with the worst record should lose it's draft pick, but then I realized that wouldn't stop teams from "tanking", so I don't see how giving them a late lottery pick instead is any better.

The only real way to prevent tanking is to give the #1 pick to the team with the best record and the #30 pick to the team with the worst record. Giving the worst team the #14 pick and the best non-playoff team the #1 pick is only slightly better. But that would still make bad teams even worse. And then your issue wouldn't be a team "tanking" to 25 wins, it would be team "sucking" to 15 wins.

The bottom line is making bad teams worse is not a solution to tanking. Making bad teams better by giving them good draft picks is the solution.

True fixes would involve salary cap and player salary rules that prevent superteams from being kept together and allow quicker rebuilds. It has nothing to do with the lottery. For example, hard caps and higher lottery pick rookie salaries. Could you imagine if the #1 pick in 2013 had a slotted guarantee of $15M a year? It would basically give the #1 pick in that year negative value. Now that's extreme, but an example of de-valuing tanking without depriving bad teams of the ability to acquire young talent.

[Soupman]

Much easier:
- extract not only the last three picks but all of the ones for teams not in the PS
- adjust the weighted probability, so that being the worst would be less of a premium

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

I like this idea.

[abark]

My idea is something like this (the numbers can be worked with)

5 worst teams have a 12 percent chance each (60)
Next 5 have a 6 percent chance each (30)
Next 4 have a 2.5 percent chance each (10)

This will help against blatant tanking because the worst 5 all have the same odds but still give the worst teams the best chance at the pick.

You cant have tiers like that. You will see more teams trying to drop down to the next tier if it means doubling their chances.

I think the lottery odds just need to be more balanced. You don't want equal odds like before the lottery, but you also don't want the worst teams to be as heavily favored as they are now.

The number 1 seed doesn't need to have nearly the same odds of winning as 5-14 combined. We can still have a system that favors the worst teams without creating a race to the bottom like the current odds do.

Another idea would be actually having a true lottery for all 14 slots, instead of just the top 3. When these teams are tanking for the worst record, they aren't just thinking about getting the top pick. They also know that they can ensure a top 4 pick.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

Much easier:
- extract not only the last three picks but all of the ones for teams not in the PS
- adjust the weighted probability, so that being the worst would be less of a premium

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

I like this idea.

So if a team drafts Evan Turner #2, then Derrick Williams #2, then Michael Kidd-Gilchrist #2 in consecutive drafts, how much lower should their probability be due to the unfairly overwhelming amount of talent they were able to stockpile in the last 3 drafts?

[Soupman]

Maybe keep the lottery the same for just the #1.

50% of the odds of #2 - #14 picks are by calculated by the current lottery system and 50% by winning in a playoff.