If the draft is rigged...

[YogurtProducer]

This has happened 5 times in the last 40 years when it should only happen once every 50 years at 2%. The chance this is random is very low. These are the easy to see and verify numbers.

If I rolled a 50 sided dice 40 times and got the number 44 5 times those would be the dice odds.

Man.. go a roulette table and sit there for 38 spins (there are 38 numbers with 0 and 00). I GUARANTEE you don't see every number hit once, and you most likely will see a number get hit 4+ times.

And then when you are done, sign up for a high school math class.

It's time you went to university and took a math class. High school only gets you so far. Here is why:

Chance a specific number (like number one in the draft hits) 1.7%

Chance any number hits 4 times: 66%

Plus we are looking at 1 in 50 chance which changes the calculations to:.

Specific number
0.69%

Any number 4+ more
34.3%

It's possible the odds will flatten over the next 1,000 years but right now things look improbable.

Even that's too high because it's 5.
0.12%
5.88%

Maybe things will even out over the next 10,000 seasons

Gotta be honest, I don’t know what the hell you are talking about anymore.

What number in what has a 1.7% chance to hit?


You lost me when you said a 1 in 50 chance has a 0.69% chance to hit… it’s very obviously a 2% chance.

[basketballto]

Man.. go a roulette table and sit there for 38 spins (there are 38 numbers with 0 and 00). I GUARANTEE you don't see every number hit once, and you most likely will see a number get hit 4+ times.

And then when you are done, sign up for a high school math class.

It's time you went to university and took a math class. High school only gets you so far. Here is why:

Chance a specific number (like number one in the draft hits) 1.7%

Chance any number hits 4 times: 66%

Plus we are looking at 1 in 50 chance which changes the calculations to:.

Specific number
0.69%

Any number 4+ more
34.3%

It's possible the odds will flatten over the next 1,000 years but right now things look improbable.

Even that's too high because it's 5.
0.12%
5.88%

Maybe things will even out over the next 10,000 seasons

Gotta be honest, I don’t know what the hell you are talking about anymore.

What number in what has a 1.7% chance to hit?


You lost me when you said a 1 in 50 chance has a 0.69% chance to hit… it’s very obviously a 2% chance.

Those are the odds of your roulette game with 5 of the same number. Remember you could spin it 38 times and see the number one pick show up 4 times.

[CPT]

It's 100% rigged no doubt about it. Can't believe there's so many insane people here who actually thinks the nba is a legit clean company smh.

I think this is where the disconnect is. I doubt anyone here thinks the NBA wouldn’t do this. They would do this and worse if they could get away with it.

People think they aren’t doing it. There are too many levels of checks and balances and too many people would have to be in on it, most with competing interests. There’s no chance Utah agrees to a scenario where they tank all year, alienating their fans, to get the 5th pick. If they thought the process was questionable, they would raise hell. That goes for every team.

I also don’t think we’ve even mentioned the players, but more specifically their agents. Yeah, Flagg and his reps are probably fine going to Dallas instead of Utah, but there’s plenty examples where that wouldn’t be the case. I’m sure Zion would have preferred New York to being the repayment in an Anthony Davis trade.

I pretty much believe every billionaire is evil to at least some extent, but that’s actually a reason why the draft is more likely to be legit. They’re not letting another billionaire get one over on them, leaving money on the table.

[YogurtProducer]

It's time you went to university and took a math class. High school only gets you so far. Here is why:

Chance a specific number (like number one in the draft hits) 1.7%

Chance any number hits 4 times: 66%

Plus we are looking at 1 in 50 chance which changes the calculations to:.

Specific number
0.69%

Any number 4+ more
34.3%

It's possible the odds will flatten over the next 1,000 years but right now things look improbable.

Even that's too high because it's 5.
0.12%
5.88%

Maybe things will even out over the next 10,000 seasons

Gotta be honest, I don’t know what the hell you are talking about anymore.

What number in what has a 1.7% chance to hit?


You lost me when you said a 1 in 50 chance has a 0.69% chance to hit… it’s very obviously a 2% chance.

Those are the odds of your roulette game with 5 of the same number. Remember you could spin it 38 times and see the number one pick show up 4 times.

Okay, but no where in your post did you make it clear at all that was what you were saying.

Not even going to fact check any of your numbers, because I really don't know what you are trying to prove. You apparently proved there is a 34.3% chance one number would show up 4+ times and then are claiming its a conspiracy that something that had a 1/3rd chance of happening.. happened?

[YogurtProducer]

It's 100% rigged no doubt about it. Can't believe there's so many insane people here who actually thinks the nba is a legit clean company smh.

I think this is where the disconnect is. I doubt anyone here thinks the NBA wouldn’t do this. They would do this and worse if they could get away with it.

People think they aren’t doing it. There are too many levels of checks and balances and too many people would have to be in on it, most with competing interests. There’s no chance Utah agrees to a scenario where they tank all year, alienating their fans, to get the 5th pick. If they thought the process was questionable, they would raise hell. That goes for every team.

I also don’t think we’ve even mentioned the players, but more specifically their agents. Yeah, Flagg and his reps are probably fine going to Dallas instead of Utah, but there’s plenty examples where that wouldn’t be the case. I’m sure Zion would have preferred New York to being the repayment in an Anthony Davis trade.

I pretty much believe every billionaire is evil to at least some extent, but that’s actually a reason why the draft is more likely to be legit. They’re not letting another billionaire get one over on them, leaving money on the table.

This is a good post.

I agree there is no doubt I think AN owner would rig the lottery. I put heavy doubt that ALL 14 owners over a decade + would rig the lottery and say nothing. You made a great point, why would Utah try so hard to tank all year if they knew they weren't getting Flagg anyways?

IF teams knew the lottery was all BS, no one would tank. The fact we see teams fighting for better odds just is further evidence that the lottery is legit.

[JB7]

It's 100% rigged no doubt about it. Can't believe there's so many insane people here who actually thinks the nba is a legit clean company smh.

I think this is where the disconnect is. I doubt anyone here thinks the NBA wouldn’t do this. They would do this and worse if they could get away with it.

People think they aren’t doing it. There are too many levels of checks and balances and too many people would have to be in on it, most with competing interests. There’s no chance Utah agrees to a scenario where they tank all year, alienating their fans, to get the 5th pick. If they thought the process was questionable, they would raise hell. That goes for every team.

I also don’t think we’ve even mentioned the players, but more specifically their agents. Yeah, Flagg and his reps are probably fine going to Dallas instead of Utah, but there’s plenty examples where that wouldn’t be the case. I’m sure Zion would have preferred New York to being the repayment in an Anthony Davis trade.

I pretty much believe every billionaire is evil to at least some extent, but that’s actually a reason why the draft is more likely to be legit. They’re not letting another billionaire get one over on them, leaving money on the table.

This is a good post.

I agree there is no doubt I think AN owner would rig the lottery. I put heavy doubt that ALL 14 owners over a decade + would rig the lottery and say nothing. You made a great point, why would Utah try so hard to tank all year if they knew they weren't getting Flagg anyways?

IF teams knew the lottery was all BS, no one would tank. The fact we see teams fighting for better odds just is further evidence that the lottery is legit.

I think the problem is ownership is being viewed as 30 separate individuals all operating in their own best interests, which is not the case. The NBA is not a free market. It is a regulated and controlled oligopoly. Those 30 owners are operating in the best interests of the league, which takes care of all of them through negotiating rich tv deals, which are shared amongst the teams, along with other revenue sharing (dispensing the tax payments to under tax teams). And it is not just the league and its officials that are all apart of this oligopoly. Ultimately the media, that purchase the rights to show the games are also apart of it, and are trying to market the product in the best way possible to maximize their overall revenue.

[YogurtProducer]

I think this is where the disconnect is. I doubt anyone here thinks the NBA wouldn’t do this. They would do this and worse if they could get away with it.

People think they aren’t doing it. There are too many levels of checks and balances and too many people would have to be in on it, most with competing interests. There’s no chance Utah agrees to a scenario where they tank all year, alienating their fans, to get the 5th pick. If they thought the process was questionable, they would raise hell. That goes for every team.

I also don’t think we’ve even mentioned the players, but more specifically their agents. Yeah, Flagg and his reps are probably fine going to Dallas instead of Utah, but there’s plenty examples where that wouldn’t be the case. I’m sure Zion would have preferred New York to being the repayment in an Anthony Davis trade.

I pretty much believe every billionaire is evil to at least some extent, but that’s actually a reason why the draft is more likely to be legit. They’re not letting another billionaire get one over on them, leaving money on the table.

This is a good post.

I agree there is no doubt I think AN owner would rig the lottery. I put heavy doubt that ALL 14 owners over a decade + would rig the lottery and say nothing. You made a great point, why would Utah try so hard to tank all year if they knew they weren't getting Flagg anyways?

IF teams knew the lottery was all BS, no one would tank. The fact we see teams fighting for better odds just is further evidence that the lottery is legit.

I think the problem is ownership is being viewed as 30 separate individuals all operating in their own best interests, which is not the case. The NBA is not a free market. It is a regulated and controlled oligopoly. Those 30 owners are operating in the best interests of the league, which takes care of all of them through negotiating rich tv deals, which are shared amongst the teams, along with other revenue sharing (dispensing the tax payments to under tax teams). And it is not just the league and its officials that are all apart of this oligopoly. Ultimately the media, that purchase the rights to show the games are also apart of it, and are trying to market the product in the best way possible to maximize their overall revenue.

This is also way to basic of a way of viewing it.

Some teams actually want to win. That is why a team like GSW or PHO has paid massive tax bills to put out a better squad. Not every owner is only interested in the bottom line because most owners also know the value of the NBA doesn't change much based on where Flagg ends up. Especially when some of these "rigging" comments are using Zion --> NOP or AD --> NOP or Wiggins --> CLE as examples of rigging. Why the **** would teams rig the lottery for small market teams?

If we had an epidemic of LAL, NYK, MIA, etc. winning the lottery there might be some legs to this. But on one hand the argument is owners/NBA rig it for the leagues best financial interest, but on the other hand its always small markets winning the lottery.

[JB7]

This is a good post.

I agree there is no doubt I think AN owner would rig the lottery. I put heavy doubt that ALL 14 owners over a decade + would rig the lottery and say nothing. You made a great point, why would Utah try so hard to tank all year if they knew they weren't getting Flagg anyways?

IF teams knew the lottery was all BS, no one would tank. The fact we see teams fighting for better odds just is further evidence that the lottery is legit.

I think the problem is ownership is being viewed as 30 separate individuals all operating in their own best interests, which is not the case. The NBA is not a free market. It is a regulated and controlled oligopoly. Those 30 owners are operating in the best interests of the league, which takes care of all of them through negotiating rich tv deals, which are shared amongst the teams, along with other revenue sharing (dispensing the tax payments to under tax teams). And it is not just the league and its officials that are all apart of this oligopoly. Ultimately the media, that purchase the rights to show the games are also apart of it, and are trying to market the product in the best way possible to maximize their overall revenue.

This is also way to basic of a way of viewing it.

Some teams actually want to win. That is why a team like GSW or PHO has paid massive tax bills to put out a better squad. Not every owner is only interested in the bottom line because most owners also know the value of the NBA doesn't change much based on where Flagg ends up. Especially when some of these "rigging" comments are using Zion --> NOP or AD --> NOP or Wiggins --> CLE as examples of rigging. Why the **** would teams rig the lottery for small market teams?

If we had an epidemic of LAL, NYK, MIA, etc. winning the lottery there might be some legs to this. But on one hand the argument is owners/NBA rig it for the leagues best financial interest, but on the other hand its always small markets winning the lottery.

All teams want to win. But that is the secondary goal. First is to make money. And those teams paying massive tax bills are only doing it for a short window, and those windows are closing with the new CBA.

It ultimately is not about fixing the lottery to direct young talent only to big markets. The big markets eventually get the young talent after it has had years to develop. Don't look at the epidemic of lottery wins. Look at the championship wins. Pretty clear who the league favours. If you take out the SAS championships, I believe close to 90% of the champions are from the 10 largest markets in the league. If you add the SAS chips, it drops to 80%.

[YogurtProducer]

I think the problem is ownership is being viewed as 30 separate individuals all operating in their own best interests, which is not the case. The NBA is not a free market. It is a regulated and controlled oligopoly. Those 30 owners are operating in the best interests of the league, which takes care of all of them through negotiating rich tv deals, which are shared amongst the teams, along with other revenue sharing (dispensing the tax payments to under tax teams). And it is not just the league and its officials that are all apart of this oligopoly. Ultimately the media, that purchase the rights to show the games are also apart of it, and are trying to market the product in the best way possible to maximize their overall revenue.

This is also way to basic of a way of viewing it.

Some teams actually want to win. That is why a team like GSW or PHO has paid massive tax bills to put out a better squad. Not every owner is only interested in the bottom line because most owners also know the value of the NBA doesn't change much based on where Flagg ends up. Especially when some of these "rigging" comments are using Zion --> NOP or AD --> NOP or Wiggins --> CLE as examples of rigging. Why the **** would teams rig the lottery for small market teams?

If we had an epidemic of LAL, NYK, MIA, etc. winning the lottery there might be some legs to this. But on one hand the argument is owners/NBA rig it for the leagues best financial interest, but on the other hand its always small markets winning the lottery.

All teams want to win. But that is the secondary goal. First is to make money. And those teams paying massive tax bills are only doing it for a short window, and those windows are closing with the new CBA.

It ultimately is not about fixing the lottery to direct young talent only to big markets. The big markets eventually get the young talent after it has had years to develop. Don't look at the epidemic of lottery wins. Look at the championship wins. Pretty clear who the league favours. If you take out the SAS championships, I believe close to 90% of the champions are from the 10 largest markets in the league. If you add the SAS chips, it drops to 80%.

IDC if 90% of the champs are from the 10 largest markets when that would be taking into consideration 11 Celtics rings in the 60s that do not have any impact on the current NBA landscape.

Last 10 years:

GSW
CLE
GSW
GSW
TOR
LAL
MIL
GSW
DEN
BOS

Only 1 repeat champion (GSW) and it is not like GSW was some lucrative market before Curry.

And this year we are going to see OKC, DEN, MIN, IND, or NYK win. Outside NYK, these are not "large markets".

I think we need to re-evaluate how we view the NBA. The NBA has made it very clear with every rule change they have made that they do not want to overly favor the big markets. If they did, we wouldn't have a lottery (or a draft). We wouldn't have RFAs. We wouldn't see rules on teams excessively spending.

The league very obviously wants parity. It wants to emulate the NFL/NHL more than the MLB.

[ItsDanger]

Some owners might view franchise appreciation as the goal, not improving the team and maybe winning a championship. MJ's investment in Hornets was very profitable. If you're close to cash flow neutral over time, it's a perfect viable option. In this scenario, they won't care as much. As long as the perception of competing fairly is maintained, their downside is limited in an overall stable economy.

Ultimately it's up to the customers to reject the product if they believe it is rigged.

[nikster]

Some owners might view franchise appreciation as the goal, not improving the team and maybe winning a championship. MJ's investment in Hornets was very profitable. If you're close to cash flow neutral over time, it's a perfect viable option. In this scenario, they won't care as much. As long as the perception of competing fairly is maintained, their downside is limited in an overall stable economy.

Ultimately it's up to the customers to reject the product if they believe it is rigged.

With the TV deal locked in for 10 years how does Flagg to Mavs vs a smaller markets make a meaningful difference in franchise evaluation?

And the tanking doesn't make sense then. Sure some level of tanking could be argued to be for painting perception, but it seems the league overall has pivoted to more aggressively as a rebuild strategy or in off years the last decade.

[JB7]

This is also way to basic of a way of viewing it.

Some teams actually want to win. That is why a team like GSW or PHO has paid massive tax bills to put out a better squad. Not every owner is only interested in the bottom line because most owners also know the value of the NBA doesn't change much based on where Flagg ends up. Especially when some of these "rigging" comments are using Zion --> NOP or AD --> NOP or Wiggins --> CLE as examples of rigging. Why the **** would teams rig the lottery for small market teams?

If we had an epidemic of LAL, NYK, MIA, etc. winning the lottery there might be some legs to this. But on one hand the argument is owners/NBA rig it for the leagues best financial interest, but on the other hand its always small markets winning the lottery.

All teams want to win. But that is the secondary goal. First is to make money. And those teams paying massive tax bills are only doing it for a short window, and those windows are closing with the new CBA.

It ultimately is not about fixing the lottery to direct young talent only to big markets. The big markets eventually get the young talent after it has had years to develop. Don't look at the epidemic of lottery wins. Look at the championship wins. Pretty clear who the league favours. If you take out the SAS championships, I believe close to 90% of the champions are from the 10 largest markets in the league. If you add the SAS chips, it drops to 80%.

IDC if 90% of the champs are from the 10 largest markets when that would be taking into consideration 11 Celtics rings in the 60s that do not have any impact on the current NBA landscape.

Last 10 years:

GSW
CLE
GSW
GSW
TOR
LAL
MIL
GSW
DEN
BOS

Only 1 repeat champion (GSW) and it is not like GSW was some lucrative market before Curry.

And this year we are going to see OKC, DEN, MIN, IND, or NYK win. Outside NYK, these are not "large markets".

I think we need to re-evaluate how we view the NBA. The NBA has made it very clear with every rule change they have made that they do not want to overly favor the big markets. If they did, we wouldn't have a lottery (or a draft). We wouldn't have RFAs. We wouldn't see rules on teams excessively spending.

The league very obviously wants parity. It wants to emulate the NFL/NHL more than the MLB.

GSW is in the tech hub of the US. Money is flowing there like no other market. The franchise is the 2nd most valuable franchise (across all sports) $8.8B, next to the Cowboys, according to Forbes. Definitely a large market. And that is not solely because of Curry. Mostly because of the tech industry surrounding San Fran.

90% was looking at all championships since the inception of the league. Even in your example, of the last decade, 70% are large markets.

And the 3 small market teams that won:
- Cavs had Lebron return home to win one (probably with the help of the league)
- Bucks won one with Giannis staying there (also got a pretty easy run)
- Nuggets won one, and like the Spurs, lucked into a superstar that is happy to play in a small market

Another small market might win this year because of a couple of key injuries (Tatum and Curry).

If the league really wanted to help small markets, there would be no lottery at all for the draft. Like the NFL. Just let the small market teams bottom out for a few years and build their team up.

The rules on excessive spending are to ensure the owners aren't pressured into spending. They are set up to ensure they maximize their revenue. Watch Boston cut salaries this summer, like GSW did last year.

For all the parity you say they are creating, I don't see a lot of it in the results. It is also a function of a league dominated by superstars. With individual players driving success, the whole league is interested in maximizing interest ($) by getting those stars to larger markets.

[ItsDanger]

Some owners might view franchise appreciation as the goal, not improving the team and maybe winning a championship. MJ's investment in Hornets was very profitable. If you're close to cash flow neutral over time, it's a perfect viable option. In this scenario, they won't care as much. As long as the perception of competing fairly is maintained, their downside is limited in an overall stable economy.

Ultimately it's up to the customers to reject the product if they believe it is rigged.

With the TV deal locked in for 10 years how does Flagg to Mavs vs a smaller markets make a meaningful difference in franchise evaluation?

And the tanking doesn't make sense then. Sure some level of tanking could be argued to be for painting perception, but it seems the league overall has pivoted to more aggressively as a rebuild strategy or in off years the last decade.

Better in Dallas than Utah. We don't know details of TV contract. Neither does media despite their feigned knowledge of such matters

[YogurtProducer]

GSW is in the tech hub of the US. Money is flowing there like no other market. The franchise is the 2nd most valuable franchise (across all sports) $8.8B, next to the Cowboys, according to Forbes. Definitely a large market. And that is not solely because of Curry. Mostly because of the tech industry surrounding San Fran.

Okay, then why pre-Curry was the league not forcing stars to GSW left and right?

90% was looking at all championships since the inception of the league. Even in your example, of the last decade, 70% are large markets.

And the 3 small market teams that won:
- Cavs had Lebron return home to win one (probably with the help of the league)
- Bucks won one with Giannis staying there (also got a pretty easy run)
- Nuggets won one, and like the Spurs, lucked into a superstar that is happy to play in a small market

Another small market might win this year because of a couple of key injuries (Tatum and Curry).

What are we considering "large markets". GSW and BOS are both more mid pack in terms of population. Toronto is **** Canadian and trying to use them as proof of the NBA catering to large markets if **** LOL worthy.

PLus, your 70% figure is skewed by the fact that you counted GSW 4 times in your figures. We have 6 different champs in the last decade. GSW, BOS, TOR, LAL, MIL, and DEN. Only LAL is what one would consider a "large market". If you wanna extend it to "premier franchises" we could include BOS as well, and GSW is only considered one of those now because of their success in the last 10 years.

It is absolutely revisionist history to try and suggest the NBA was going out of their way to try and prop up GSW>

If the league really wanted to help small markets, there would be no lottery at all for the draft. Like the NFL. Just let the small market teams bottom out for a few years and build their team up.

Except small market teams have less ability to bottom out and have empty venues because they simply do not have the same appeal when they are bad. LAL can be bad and still sell out an arena. CHA or OKC or WAS cannot.

The lottery exists to help small teams. The league would just get rid of the draft if they wanted all the stars to be on the Lakers and Heat.

The rules on excessive spending are to ensure the owners aren't pressured into spending. They are set up to ensure they maximize their revenue. Watch Boston cut salaries this summer, like GSW did last year.

Lol, no. The aprons are there to spread talent around the league and prevent large market teams from outspending everyone else.

For all the parity you say they are creating, I don't see a lot of it in the results. It is also a function of a league dominated by superstars. With individual players driving success, the whole league is interested in maximizing interest ($) by getting those stars to larger markets.

You don't see it in the results? We have 6, soon to be 7 most likely, different champions in the last 7 years. How is that not parity?

If you are going to answer one thing here answer this - If the league was so interested in getting stars to larger markets, why did they add in the supermax, RFA rules, etc. in an attempt to help small market teams retain stars?

[JB7]

GSW is in the tech hub of the US. Money is flowing there like no other market. The franchise is the 2nd most valuable franchise (across all sports) $8.8B, next to the Cowboys, according to Forbes. Definitely a large market. And that is not solely because of Curry. Mostly because of the tech industry surrounding San Fran.

Okay, then why pre-Curry was the league not forcing stars to GSW left and right?

90% was looking at all championships since the inception of the league. Even in your example, of the last decade, 70% are large markets.

And the 3 small market teams that won:
- Cavs had Lebron return home to win one (probably with the help of the league)
- Bucks won one with Giannis staying there (also got a pretty easy run)
- Nuggets won one, and like the Spurs, lucked into a superstar that is happy to play in a small market

Another small market might win this year because of a couple of key injuries (Tatum and Curry).

What are we considering "large markets". GSW and BOS are both more mid pack in terms of population. Toronto is **** Canadian and trying to use them as proof of the NBA catering to large markets if **** LOL worthy.

PLus, your 70% figure is skewed by the fact that you counted GSW 4 times in your figures. We have 6 different champs in the last decade. GSW, BOS, TOR, LAL, MIL, and DEN. Only LAL is what one would consider a "large market". If you wanna extend it to "premier franchises" we could include BOS as well, and GSW is only considered one of those now because of their success in the last 10 years.

It is absolutely revisionist history to try and suggest the NBA was going out of their way to try and prop up GSW>

If the league really wanted to help small markets, there would be no lottery at all for the draft. Like the NFL. Just let the small market teams bottom out for a few years and build their team up.

Except small market teams have less ability to bottom out and have empty venues because they simply do not have the same appeal when they are bad. LAL can be bad and still sell out an arena. CHA or OKC or WAS cannot.

The lottery exists to help small teams. The league would just get rid of the draft if they wanted all the stars to be on the Lakers and Heat.

The rules on excessive spending are to ensure the owners aren't pressured into spending. They are set up to ensure they maximize their revenue. Watch Boston cut salaries this summer, like GSW did last year.

Lol, no. The aprons are there to spread talent around the league and prevent large market teams from outspending everyone else.

For all the parity you say they are creating, I don't see a lot of it in the results. It is also a function of a league dominated by superstars. With individual players driving success, the whole league is interested in maximizing interest ($) by getting those stars to larger markets.

You don't see it in the results? We have 6, soon to be 7 most likely, different champions in the last 7 years. How is that not parity?

If you are going to answer one thing here answer this - If the league was so interested in getting stars to larger markets, why did they add in the supermax, RFA rules, etc. in an attempt to help small market teams retain stars?

It is the last couple of decades where San Fran has boomed because of the tech companies.

Toronto (GTA), in terms of population I believe is like the 3rd or 4th largest market in the NBA (NY, LA, close with Chicago).
While the populations in San Fran and Boston might not revile NY or LA, there industry/wealth elevate them. Plus I was always talking about the top 10 teams in terms of market size in the NBA.

The 70% is simple. 7 of last 10 championships won by teams in a large market

Except small market teams have less ability to bottom out and have empty venues because they simply do not have the same appeal when they are bad. LAL can be bad and still sell out an arena. CHA or OKC or WAS cannot.

This is the big point you are missing here. The shared tv revenue is so massive for these teams, that most small market teams are probably covered for their costs just by this alone, and gate revenue is bonus on top. If big market teams are bad, the worry is not the gate, but rather the tv revenue becoming an issue. If the Lakers are bad for an extended period, and interest in the league drops, that will hurt the leagues negotiating position in the next tv deal. Small market teams sucking doesn't impact global viewership.

The lottery screws bad teams, which generally are small market teams.

About the aprons, do you really think the owners want to spend all that money. They were the ones that agreed to these changes. It was to give them the justification to not overspend.

The 'parity' in terms of different teams winning is because there is not the collection of stars on one particular team. It is still larger markets though generally winning.

Supermax is about paying the superstar players more money than regular max players. But after signing these deals (including RFAs), players just ask to be traded, if they want out. The league tries to put on a public show of supporting smaller market teams, because they don't want to lose those fans, but in reality, they want the big names in the big markets to generate the most amount of revenue for the league, which benefits all teams.

[YogurtProducer]

GSW is in the tech hub of the US. Money is flowing there like no other market. The franchise is the 2nd most valuable franchise (across all sports) $8.8B, next to the Cowboys, according to Forbes. Definitely a large market. And that is not solely because of Curry. Mostly because of the tech industry surrounding San Fran.

Okay, then why pre-Curry was the league not forcing stars to GSW left and right?

90% was looking at all championships since the inception of the league. Even in your example, of the last decade, 70% are large markets.

And the 3 small market teams that won:
- Cavs had Lebron return home to win one (probably with the help of the league)
- Bucks won one with Giannis staying there (also got a pretty easy run)
- Nuggets won one, and like the Spurs, lucked into a superstar that is happy to play in a small market

Another small market might win this year because of a couple of key injuries (Tatum and Curry).

What are we considering "large markets". GSW and BOS are both more mid pack in terms of population. Toronto is **** Canadian and trying to use them as proof of the NBA catering to large markets if **** LOL worthy.

PLus, your 70% figure is skewed by the fact that you counted GSW 4 times in your figures. We have 6 different champs in the last decade. GSW, BOS, TOR, LAL, MIL, and DEN. Only LAL is what one would consider a "large market". If you wanna extend it to "premier franchises" we could include BOS as well, and GSW is only considered one of those now because of their success in the last 10 years.

It is absolutely revisionist history to try and suggest the NBA was going out of their way to try and prop up GSW>

If the league really wanted to help small markets, there would be no lottery at all for the draft. Like the NFL. Just let the small market teams bottom out for a few years and build their team up.

Except small market teams have less ability to bottom out and have empty venues because they simply do not have the same appeal when they are bad. LAL can be bad and still sell out an arena. CHA or OKC or WAS cannot.

The lottery exists to help small teams. The league would just get rid of the draft if they wanted all the stars to be on the Lakers and Heat.

The rules on excessive spending are to ensure the owners aren't pressured into spending. They are set up to ensure they maximize their revenue. Watch Boston cut salaries this summer, like GSW did last year.

Lol, no. The aprons are there to spread talent around the league and prevent large market teams from outspending everyone else.

For all the parity you say they are creating, I don't see a lot of it in the results. It is also a function of a league dominated by superstars. With individual players driving success, the whole league is interested in maximizing interest ($) by getting those stars to larger markets.

You don't see it in the results? We have 6, soon to be 7 most likely, different champions in the last 7 years. How is that not parity?

If you are going to answer one thing here answer this - If the league was so interested in getting stars to larger markets, why did they add in the supermax, RFA rules, etc. in an attempt to help small market teams retain stars?

It is the last couple of decades where San Fran has boomed because of the tech companies.

Toronto (GTA), in terms of population I believe is like the 3rd or 4th largest market in the NBA (NY, LA, close with Chicago).
While the populations in San Fran and Boston might not revile NY or LA, there industry/wealth elevate them. Plus I was always talking about the top 10 teams in terms of market size in the NBA.

The 70% is simple. 7 of last 10 championships won by teams in a large market

Except small market teams have less ability to bottom out and have empty venues because they simply do not have the same appeal when they are bad. LAL can be bad and still sell out an arena. CHA or OKC or WAS cannot.

This is the big point you are missing here. The shared tv revenue is so massive for these teams, that most small market teams are probably covered for their costs just by this alone, and gate revenue is bonus on top. If big market teams are bad, the worry is not the gate, but rather the tv revenue becoming an issue. If the Lakers are bad for an extended period, and interest in the league drops, that will hurt the leagues negotiating position in the next tv deal. Small market teams sucking doesn't impact global viewership.

The lottery screws bad teams, which generally are small market teams.

About the aprons, do you really think the owners want to spend all that money. They were the ones that agreed to these changes. It was to give them the justification to not overspend.

The 'parity' in terms of different teams winning is because there is not the collection of stars on one particular team. It is still larger markets though generally winning.

Supermax is about paying the superstar players more money than regular max players. But after signing these deals (including RFAs), players just ask to be traded, if they want out. The league tries to put on a public show of supporting smaller market teams, because they don't want to lose those fans, but in reality, they want the big names in the big markets to generate the most amount of revenue for the league, which benefits all teams.

Okay man, this is a waste of time.

According to you, all the rules and procedures that are in place to help small markets (and successfully have) are actually is just a public show. SUCH a public show that they’ve had the most unique winners in a 10-year stretch in league history, and on pace for the 7th straight unique winner.

And, according to you 50% of the league is a large market, even the ones that historically never have been considered such.

So TLDR; if you ignore reality anything can be whatever you want it to be

[JB7]

Okay, then why pre-Curry was the league not forcing stars to GSW left and right?


What are we considering "large markets". GSW and BOS are both more mid pack in terms of population. Toronto is **** Canadian and trying to use them as proof of the NBA catering to large markets if **** LOL worthy.

PLus, your 70% figure is skewed by the fact that you counted GSW 4 times in your figures. We have 6 different champs in the last decade. GSW, BOS, TOR, LAL, MIL, and DEN. Only LAL is what one would consider a "large market". If you wanna extend it to "premier franchises" we could include BOS as well, and GSW is only considered one of those now because of their success in the last 10 years.

It is absolutely revisionist history to try and suggest the NBA was going out of their way to try and prop up GSW>

Except small market teams have less ability to bottom out and have empty venues because they simply do not have the same appeal when they are bad. LAL can be bad and still sell out an arena. CHA or OKC or WAS cannot.

The lottery exists to help small teams. The league would just get rid of the draft if they wanted all the stars to be on the Lakers and Heat.

Lol, no. The aprons are there to spread talent around the league and prevent large market teams from outspending everyone else.

You don't see it in the results? We have 6, soon to be 7 most likely, different champions in the last 7 years. How is that not parity?

If you are going to answer one thing here answer this - If the league was so interested in getting stars to larger markets, why did they add in the supermax, RFA rules, etc. in an attempt to help small market teams retain stars?

It is the last couple of decades where San Fran has boomed because of the tech companies.

Toronto (GTA), in terms of population I believe is like the 3rd or 4th largest market in the NBA (NY, LA, close with Chicago).
While the populations in San Fran and Boston might not revile NY or LA, there industry/wealth elevate them. Plus I was always talking about the top 10 teams in terms of market size in the NBA.

The 70% is simple. 7 of last 10 championships won by teams in a large market

Except small market teams have less ability to bottom out and have empty venues because they simply do not have the same appeal when they are bad. LAL can be bad and still sell out an arena. CHA or OKC or WAS cannot.

This is the big point you are missing here. The shared tv revenue is so massive for these teams, that most small market teams are probably covered for their costs just by this alone, and gate revenue is bonus on top. If big market teams are bad, the worry is not the gate, but rather the tv revenue becoming an issue. If the Lakers are bad for an extended period, and interest in the league drops, that will hurt the leagues negotiating position in the next tv deal. Small market teams sucking doesn't impact global viewership.

The lottery screws bad teams, which generally are small market teams.

About the aprons, do you really think the owners want to spend all that money. They were the ones that agreed to these changes. It was to give them the justification to not overspend.

The 'parity' in terms of different teams winning is because there is not the collection of stars on one particular team. It is still larger markets though generally winning.

Supermax is about paying the superstar players more money than regular max players. But after signing these deals (including RFAs), players just ask to be traded, if they want out. The league tries to put on a public show of supporting smaller market teams, because they don't want to lose those fans, but in reality, they want the big names in the big markets to generate the most amount of revenue for the league, which benefits all teams.

Okay man, this is a waste of time.

According to you, all the rules and procedures that are in place to help small markets (and successfully have) are actually is just a public show. SUCH a public show that they’ve had the most unique winners in a 10-year stretch in league history, and on pace for the 7th straight unique winner.

And, according to you 50% of the league is a large market, even the ones that historically never have been considered such.

So TLDR; if you ignore reality anything can be whatever you want it to be

Do you believe the WWE is real wrestling competition?

[mad-man]

The cope in this thread is comical.

Why would the NBA, that is in the Sports Entertainment business - that has billions at stake in keeping the machine running influence particular outcomes?

You dont have to be a conspiracy theorist, you just have to take off the veil that this league isn't as random as you want it to be.

Low IQ posters coming through haha.

Why would an individual team owner, who has billions at stake, be okay with rigging the draft against their own interest? The fact that so many teams tank so aggressively should be proof the franchises believe the lottery works. Why would teams like Utah throw away their season by tanking just for the lottery to be rigged against them?

The whole incentive for the league to rig completely falls apart once you give it any critical thought. The low IQ posters are indeed exposing themselves

here are the flaws in your argument.

its widely accepted NBA viewership is tanking.

do you think the league as a whole is healthier in scenario 1 or 2?

scenario 1:
-DAL gets Flagg, LAL gets Doncic to carry those respective markets post-Lebron retiring

OR

scenario 2:
-UTA get Flagg, DAL gets Doncic and LAL goes in a decade long rebuild

[Kevin Willis]

This is properly already discussed in the thread, I don't want to go back and search. IF, big IF, they did rig it it wouldn't be obvious. I would get a bunch of mathematicians and determine the combinations and permutations based on the number of balls each team has and their possible positioning. Then I would influence games during the season to allow certain teams to lose games in order to get x or y amount of balls. Little things like being 7th usually means dropping (guessing) might mean allowing the Raptors to be 7th knowing they would drop.

Those late losses from injury by Dallas could've been 'encouraged' by the league and would be hard to prove. You're still dealing with chance but you're increasing probability that either Dallas or San Antonio gets Flagg. Unfortunately for them things worked out too well. The NBA has money, they could figure out the probability changes depending on the sequence the balls enter the apparatus given it's likely placement in the top, middle and bottom and the number of spins before stopping. It's math, once you isolate the factors and enter the data you could adjust probability to increase odds.

[720]

If the Celtics get AJ next year somehow (idk if they even have their 1st round pick next year) then I’m officially on board the conspiracy theory.