Ideas to stop teams from tanking (post yours here)

[Nivek]

My solution to tanking: keep the draft lottery, but change it. Instead of giving extra weight to bad teams, give every non-playoff team one entry, AND give every team that loses a first round playoff series one entry. Have a random drawing for the 1st 22 slots in the draft.

That's what we had previously (minus the first round losers being included). Everyone cried foul when a pretty good Knicks team landed Patrick Ewing.

I think the system we have now is pretty close to as good as it gets. The goal for the NBA is to make money. Parity is profitable. Fans of bad teams keep showing up because at least the lottery gives them hope for the future. The money lost from a fan base without hope is greater than any money gained by eliminating all incentives to tank.

I would be in favor of eliminating the cap on max contracts. Or have a max salary of $15M or so, but each team gets one franchise designation where they can pay one player $25M. That way, the few superstars would get spread out amongst more teams.

I don't mind when a good team jumps up in the draft. Except when it burns the Wizards.

Re: parity -- I'm not convinced that parity (or competitive "balance" actually is more profitable). It sorta makes sense that it would be, but the research on it suggests that parity is, at best, a weak cause of audience interest. Team owners often say they want parity because it's what fans want, but the end result is that it reduces salary costs for owners.

So, if the NBA was truly interested in increasing parity, they would remove player salary restrictions.

Back when the labor dispute was happening, Henry Abbott interviewed a British economist who's done some research on sports league parity. That economist noted the irony that American sports leagues are basically socialist in their organization while European leagues are free market.

[dobrojim]

And the socialism of many of our professional sports leagues is even
more profound when you consider these hugely profitable men or companies,
get the tax payers to pay for their venues. Pretty disgusting really.

[Higga]

I think people are confusing tanking with rebuilding. There is nothing wrong with saying: "Okay, we have no shot at being good this year, so let's play some young players and focus on building for the future." I mean you shouldn't have to force teams to strive for mediocrity every year.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the current system. Teams should be allowed to rebuild. And it's not like finishing with a lottery pick guarantees you anything anyway.

[nate33]

Re: parity -- I'm not convinced that parity (or competitive "balance" actually is more profitable). It sorta makes sense that it would be, but the research on it suggests that parity is, at best, a weak cause of audience interest. Team owners often say they want parity because it's what fans want, but the end result is that it reduces salary costs for owners.

I oversimplified. It's not so much that parity is profitable, but the absence of perennially bad teams is profitable.

Nobody roots for a team that has no hope on the horizon.

[nate33]

I think people are confusing tanking with rebuilding. There is nothing wrong with saying: "Okay, we have no shot at being good this year, so let's play some young players and focus on building for the future." I mean you shouldn't have to force teams to strive for mediocrity every year.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the current system. Teams should be allowed to rebuild. And it's not like finishing with a lottery pick guarantees you anything anyway.

Exactly. Indeed, as a fan of a (usually) bad team, I am actually MORE interested in the team if they win 24 games with youngsters than if they win 32 games with over-the-hill vets.

[verbal8]

I guess you could relegate the bottom few teams to the D league.

Zero (is equal the better term?) weighting for a lottery of all teams that missed the playoffs.

GMs of bottom three teams must go on overnight romantic date with the Luv-a-Bulls.

OK, I'm on board with this proposal...can you just picture Ernie with Evadney? That would be must-see TV.

Then the next year he could pull a "Juan Pablo" and scare off his date by mentioning this encounter.

[verbal8]

My solution to tanking: keep the draft lottery, but change it. Instead of giving extra weight to bad teams, give every non-playoff team one entry, AND give every team that loses a first round playoff series one entry. Have a random drawing for the 1st 22 slots in the draft.

Absolutely zero incentive for losing regular season games.

My thought was further flattening out the odds and giving the bottom 2 play-off seeds(7th and 8th) a tiny chance at the top 3. I wouldn't be opposed to opening it up to all 1st round losers. No team will throw a play-off series for a tiny chance at a top pick.

Maybe drawing more slots(5 or 6) would further discourage tanking, since it might guarantee only a 6th or 7th pick at very best.

[nate33]

My solution to tanking: keep the draft lottery, but change it. Instead of giving extra weight to bad teams, give every non-playoff team one entry, AND give every team that loses a first round playoff series one entry. Have a random drawing for the 1st 22 slots in the draft.

Absolutely zero incentive for losing regular season games.

My thought was further flattening out the odds and giving the bottom 2 play-off seeds(7th and 8th) a tiny chance at the top 3. I wouldn't be opposed to opening it up to all 1st round losers. No team will throw a play-off series for a tiny chance at a top pick.

Maybe drawing more slots(5 or 6) would further discourage tanking, since it might guarantee only a 6th or 7th pick at very best.

Agreed. The system isn't fundamentally broken. Some minor tweaks in the lottery odds and number of lottery picks can address the issue. Anything beyond that is going to cause more problems than it fixes.

[verbal8]

Not directly related, but what about compensation for top FAs leaving? Either from the signing team or adding "sandwich picks" to the draft.

I think with the new CBA it may not actually be too different in practice. I think there will be a lot more S&Ts than direct signings. The team losing the free agent is probably in a position where a junk contract and pick is better than nothing. Also it will probably be one of the few times when teams are willing to give up a potentially decent pick.

[go'stags]

I agree that the system really isn't broken. Maybe just add some tweaks.

If you win less than 19 games (doesn't have to be 19) the best you can finish in the lottery is 4th. I am also ok with allowing the 7th and 8th seeds to be in the lottery. Also say owners can't raise ticket prices the next year if they lose a certain amount of games.

[dckingsfan]

It seems like the well managed teams are perpetually in the playoffs and the teams that aren't as good - well, they perpetually suck and try to "manage" the lottery.

I am not sure that tanking really does anything for the team that is tanking. I look at the 76ers ... they clearly didn't want to resign Hawes or Turner. And are trying to get in better shape for next year. Is that bad?

It seems like the soft cap (as others have described previously) is the bigger problem, no?

[mohammed10]

Also say owners can't raise ticket prices the next year if they lose a certain amount of games.

You know the greedy owners would never agree to something like that..

[daSwami]

Teams should be able to tank if they want to. The problem for the league is how do you distinguish between teams that are tanking fore the sole purpose of getting a better draft pick, versus those that are "rebuilding" by ridding themselves of onerous contracts? Both are legitimate business tactics imho.

Or, although I don't really know how the TV revenue sharing thing works, but how about weighting the distribution according to a team's record? That would, in effect, penalize teams with poor records, and reward teams that win (which only seems fair since winning teams are the ones that garner the most TV revenue - with the Lakers and Knicks as possible exceptions this year).

[daSwami]

Also, if the Lakers and Knicks both get top 3 picks this year, then the fix is in for sure (right Sev?).

[WizardsWorld]

Good topic. What I think they should do is all 14 teams that don't make the playoffs have an equally fair chance of getting picks 1-5. And they keep the lottery ball system they currently have for the top 5 picks,... though every team(not in playoffs) would have an equal number of lottery balls.
Then after the first five picks you go in descending order of worst record. Where as now the Bucks(worst tanker) will get the 4th pick at worst... with a really good chance of top 3.... would then get the 6th pick at worst with an equal chance to get a top 5 pick as anyone... Wolves, Grizz... and so on.

That completely discourages the tank where you could be tanking full force and only end up with a 6 or 7 pick... which isn't nearly as desirable as those top 3.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Re: parity -- I'm not convinced that parity (or competitive "balance" actually is more profitable). It sorta makes sense that it would be, but the research on it suggests that parity is, at best, a weak cause of audience interest. Team owners often say they want parity because it's what fans want, but the end result is that it reduces salary costs for owners.

I oversimplified. It's not so much that parity is profitable, but the absence of perennially bad teams is profitable.

Nobody roots for a team that has no hope on the horizon.

Uh. Nate, how long have you been a Wizards' fan?

[hands11]

Also, if the Lakers and Knicks both get top 3 picks this year, then the fix is in for sure (right Sev?).

I say its the Lakers and Boston that get top 3 picks.

[nate33]

Re: parity -- I'm not convinced that parity (or competitive "balance" actually is more profitable). It sorta makes sense that it would be, but the research on it suggests that parity is, at best, a weak cause of audience interest. Team owners often say they want parity because it's what fans want, but the end result is that it reduces salary costs for owners.

I oversimplified. It's not so much that parity is profitable, but the absence of perennially bad teams is profitable.

Nobody roots for a team that has no hope on the horizon.

Uh. Nate, how long have you been a Wizards' fan?

That actually makes my point. I root for the Wizards because the potential for future lotto picks gives me hope. Imagine if we had that stupid draft wheel system over the past 6 years.

[Severn Hoos]

Also, if the Lakers and Knicks both get top 3 picks this year, then the fix is in for sure (right Sev?).

Aww, Swami - you remembered. I'm touched.


So I'm considering suing ESPN. You think Spence would take the case?

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10545 ... n-magazine

[MDStar]

In Bill Simmons latest mailbag, he posted this response to a question about how he would fix the lottery. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-b ... ks-theory/

"Last point (and I’ve made it before): It’s not the worst thing ever if a decent team wins the lottery. Was it bad when the Bulls got Derrick Rose, or the Magic teamed up Shaq and Penny Hardaway? If you’re making the case “Don’t we have the right to protect certain bumbling franchises from being stuck at the bottom year after year?” — I mean, isn’t that their own fault?

Here’s an idea: If you want to avoid the bottom, make better picks, make smarter trades and spend your cap money wisely. Minnesota had four top-six picks in three years and ended up with Jonny Flynn, Ricky Rubio, Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams. Sacramento had the no. 4, no. 5, no. 7, no. 5 and no. 7 picks in the past five drafts and has only DeMarcus Cousins and Ben McLemore left. The Wizards earned the no. 5, no. 1, no. 6, no. 3 and no. 3 picks in the last five drafts and batted 40 percent on moves. The Cavs had the no. 1, no. 4, no. 4 and no. 1 picks in the past four drafts and can’t make the 2014 playoffs.

I’ve joked before about being an NBA Republican, but seriously, why enable these losers? If you can’t produce a winning franchise, sell it to someone else. The league needs to stop protecting teams from themselves — we give them amnesties to make up for boneheaded roster moves, luxury tax money to reward them for being cheap, and better lottery odds to make up for being dumbasses. We need more of a Lord of the Flies mind-set. Sink or swim. If there’s a way to steal soccer’s relegation system — the top 26 teams stay in the league, the bottom four get relegated — I’m all for it. Could you “add” five European teams, beef up the D-League so it’s made up of five loaded D-League teams, then create a separate 14-team league that operates like a poor man’s NBA? It’s not the craziest idea in the world, right?"