NBA likely to vote on changing draft odds next month

[steveb21]

[Sixteen]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAP2nmo8al8[/youtube]

[LongLiveHinkie]

When a top notch and intelligent organization like the Spurs vote with you, you know you are doing the right thing.

I truly believe that this vote was never as heavily favored toward a reform as originally reported. Now, I think that is the media projecting their personal disdain toward the Sixers into the article. Blowhard Windhorst specifically.

and LOL at Stan Van Gundy voting with the Sixers after he ridiculed the team's roster. What a damn hypocrite.

I'm gonna be real here. I laugh at all these sanctimonious fans that try to act like the NBA let a "good opportunity" slip away for change. Please, shut up. If you were put on truth serum, none of you care about this damn lottery reform. You really don't. You front like you do, to try to give yourself grounds for a good argument, but it all comes down to jealousy. Jealousy makes people do crazy and petty things, and because the Sixers have ownership support to tank, so many people are like "wahhh it's bad for the game, it makes a mockery of the game!" Like it matters to you if one team finishes with like 12 wins. Stop. If anything, it probably helps you, because if you truly believe in trying to win, than the you have free wins whenever you play the Sixers.

TANK ON

[Ericb5]

17 teams voted for it, so unlikely it was just one upset owner

You are probably right.

I think they could probably get enough votes if they agreed to wait a few years to implement it. This proposal was too vindictive and petty to get through though.

It was too extreme.

Move the odds from 25 20 15 ... to 20, 17.5, 15, and you have 7.5% chance of the 1st pick (alone) you can redistribute to make it slightly flatter.

Blowing it up entirely (which this basically was) was a massive over reaction.

Its a shame, because when the jump up in odds between 3 and 1 is too big as is imo.

To me, the most damaging thing for the worst teams was not the reduction in odds for the top pick, but rather the worst case scenario of other teams jumping a head of you.

If you have the worst record you can fall no further than 4th. Any team can only fall 3 positions from their original position. Allowing you to drop 6 positions potentially is putting an undue burden on the worst teams.

[HartfordWhalers]

You are probably right.

I think they could probably get enough votes if they agreed to wait a few years to implement it. This proposal was too vindictive and petty to get through though.

It was too extreme.

Move the odds from 25 20 15 ... to 20, 17.5, 15, and you have 7.5% chance of the 1st pick (alone) you can redistribute to make it slightly flatter.

Blowing it up entirely (which this basically was) was a massive over reaction.

Its a shame, because when the jump up in odds between 3 and 1 is too big as is imo.

To me, the most damaging thing for the worst teams was not the reduction in odds for the top pick, but rather the worst case scenario of other teams jumping a head of you.

If you have the worst record you can fall no further than 4th. Any team can only fall 3 positions from their original position. Allowing you to drop 6 positions potentially is putting an undue burden on the worst teams.

Oh, the whole proposal was about 3 bridges too far. Zero odds increment between the worst and near worst teams? Etc. Glad it failed, but I would have liked to see some moderate change. Here was my take from the TnT board:

I've felt the jump between the odds at the top was too steep.

The odds started with 16.67% for the top team (too low), then switch to 25% (too high)

If they switched the odds from:
250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the #1 pick
199 combinations, 19.9% chance
156 combinations, 15.6% chance
119 combinations, 11.9% chance
88 combinations, 8.8% chance
63 combinations, 6.3% chance
43 combinations, 4.3% chance
28 combinations, 2.8% chance
17 combinations, 1.7% chance
11 combinations, 1.1% chance
8 combinations, 0.8% chance
7 combinations, 0.7% chance
6 combinations, 0.6% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance


To:
200 combinations, 20% chance of receiving the #1 pick (down 5%)
175 combinations, 17.5% chance (down 2.4%)
150 combinations, 15% chance (down .6%)
125 combinations, 12.5% chance (up .6%)
100 combinations, 10% chance (up 1.2%)
80 combinations, 8.0% chance (up 1.7%)
60 combinations, 6.0% chance (up 1.7%)
40 combinations, 4.0% chance (up 1.2%)
20 combinations, 2.0% chance (up .3%)
15 combinations, 1.5% chance (up .4%)
10 combinations, 1.0% chance (up .2%)
8 combinations, 0.8% chance (up .1%)
6 combinations, 0.6% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance

I think changing is better for the NBA, fairer, and could be done midstream (right now)

[marcush]

I hate to be that guy saying this but these other teams are not really siding with us, they dislike / despise what we are doing because its bad for business. They are more likely siding with the clear thinkers over at OKC who seemed to have persuaded these teams that its just a poor system change. Lol, they will probably still find a way for the Lakers to drop into the top 2 anyway.

[LongLiveHinkie]

Haha... just what I've been saying all along. I've been beating the drum for months that NBA executives were jealous that the Sixers had ownership support to tank and they don't. Zach Lowe confirmed it in his Grantland article today.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-r ... ry-reform/

This is not to say Philly is doing anything wrong or unethical. It is, in fact, using the current system of rules to tank better than anyone else has had the balls or patience for in the past. Some executives feel envious that their owners never green-lit such a blatant multiyear tanking scheme — a long-term play that provides Sixers GM Sam Hinkie with unusual job security during a run of losing seasons. Job security is gold bullion in a league of such insane turnover.

Love that I can see right through their front and see how butthurt they are.


Another interesting part:

Some executives say Philly has violated the sacred obligation for teams to compete as hard as they can every season. That is the more righteous version of the backlash, even if Philly is really trying to position itself to compete for championships in a half-decade or so. The league heard all of this grumbling. It saw all the press about tanking — all the hand-wringing and finger-wagging. It sought to squash the perception that something was fishy about team building in basketball, and it thought it would win. To be frank, I did, too. We were all wrong.

Spare me this nonsense. "Sacred obligation"? I hate unwritten rules in life. There is no sacred obligation. First of all, the players who will be on the court will compete as hard as they can. Second of all, who the hell is any executive out there to tell Hinkie what players to like and not to like? Maybe Hinkie likes the players on this roster. Maybe the Sixers will surprise people and be better than anyone thought. Probably not, but what if the Sixers shocked people and won 30 games? What then?

What if Hinkie didn't like a player like Luol Deng in his personal evaluation or did like him, but didn't think he was worth the money? Should he just sign him anyway to "try to compete" even if he didn't want to?

This is all asinine hogwash by people trying to come up with an argument that sounds legitimate, when it isn't. Keep trying to get blood from a stone, jackasses.

[CoreyGallagher]

Some executives say Philly has violated the sacred obligation for teams to compete as hard as they can every season.

Lol, what a **** crock.

[LongLiveHinkie]

Some executives say Philly has violated the sacred obligation for teams to compete as hard as they can every season.

Lol, what a **** crock.

Just edited my post above to comment on that snippet... lol. See above.

[GoSixersBro]

Listening to the panel on Philly Sports Talk is driving me insane. If you don't support the tank at this point, you just don't get it.

I don't care if season ticket holders have to "suffer" another 41 games of watching marginal to below NBA talent be trotted out each night. If you are a real fan and actually keep tabs on this squad, you should be elated and understand this new management is positioning this franchise to eventually propel from the stale mediocrity REAL FANS endured for over a decade, which is much worse than a couple 19 or below win seasons. Skip the season tickets for a year or two if it's so bad.

I'm guessing the people bitching and moaning are ones who think being a 7th or 8th seed led by the likes of Andre Iguodala and over-the-hill FA signings is much more enjoyable to watch. FOH!

[Sixersftw]

I don't care if season ticket holders have to "suffer" another 41 games of watching marginal to below NBA talent be trotted out each night. If you are a real fan and actually keep tabs on this squad, you should be elated and understand this new management is positioning this franchise to eventually propel from the stale mediocrity REAL FANS endured for over a decade, which is much worse than a couple 19 or below win seasons. Skip the season tickets for a year or two if it's so bad.

The season ticket holder whine is the stupidest crap in sports. If I am an individual non-corporation purchasing season tickets for potentially thousands of dollars you can bet your ass I know what I'm buying/watching. No one has a gun to people's heads forcing them to purchase and watch a crappy product. People that buy those tickets no full well what they are getting. Its a disingenuous trumped up argument so sports talk blowhards can chatter.

[42uptop]

You would think that we were forfeiting games the way some people in the media complain about the Sixers. It's a bunch of grown men whining and moaning about a team that nobody is forcing them to support. So pathetic.

[LongLiveHinkie]

That's what jealousy does, bro. There is no age group that jealousy does not influence, and it makes all ages act like little petty children.

You'd think grown professionals are above that, but they aren't. I mean, look at the nonsense that goes on in politics.

[Sixerscan]

I hate to be that guy saying this but these other teams are not really siding with us, they dislike / despise what we are doing because its bad for business. They are more likely siding with the clear thinkers over at OKC who seemed to have persuaded these teams that its just a poor system change. Lol, they will probably still find a way for the Lakers to drop into the top 2 anyway.

I still prefer that versus the teams that voted to immediately change it. Those teams just wanted to screw us over.

[76thBearCub]

Its funny that after 10 years of being irrelevant in the NBA we've turned into a lightning rod because we're bad. I really do think other executives and fans are more intimidated then outraged.

[76thBearCub]

Its funny that after 10 years of being irrelevant in the NBA we've turned into a lightning rod because we're bad. I really do think other executives and fans are more intimidated then outraged.

[Chamberlainship]

Only a simple majority of the league, including probably the commissioner, thinks the rules need to be changed because we're creating a "corrosive perception" with our terrible team. Thats's not exactly a cause for celebration.

The essence of the problem is the sixers are taking way more than they're adding. That's not being a good partner to the other teams.

[Sixersftw]

The essence of the problem is the sixers are taking way more than they're adding. That's not being a good partner to the other teams.

But we are being excellent competitors. When you are both a competitor and a partner there are going to be obvious conflicts. When you have a flawed system this is what you get.

[BullyKing]

Only a simple majority of the league, including probably the commissioner, thinks the rules need to be changed because we're creating a "corrosive perception" with our terrible team. Thats's not exactly a cause for celebration.

The essence of the problem is the sixers are taking way more than they're adding. That's not being a good partner to the other teams.

It's going to be really annoying to watch you celebrating along when the team is good.

[Chamberlainship]

When's that gonna be?

So was there ever a time when you didn't agree with the front office but still supported the sixers?