InWestWeTrust wrote:Easy fix to the "but the bad teams will stay bad" argument.
Same idea but instead have it be a 3 on 3 style tournament where each team picks 3 people front their front office to participate.
Then star-based teams would prosper here and it still doesn't motivate players to play for a lost season or even to try in the tourney. The latter can be fixed by giving monetary awards for advancing in each round, but it's still flawed.
A better idea is to use a weighted ranking system:
If you're a lottery team, the higher your seed is, the higher you go in the draft.
If you're a lottery team, your draft ranking is also boosted by having a lower ranked seed in the last 2-3 years.A team that gets a high pick (1-4) would look like:
Year 1: 30th seed, Year 2: 30th seed, Year 3 (current year): 18th seed
Indicating that the team was struggling, but is beginning to put it together. You create an environment where a young star has a chance to make the playoffs in the next few years and the team deserves to be rewarded for sucking so long and trying to put together a winner.A team drafting at a mid-high pick (5-10) would look like:
A: yr 1: 30th, yr 2: 30th, yr 3: 30th
B: yr 1: 20th, yr 2: 17th, yr 3: 18th
It discourages tanking on the year of the draft. In case A, a perennial bad team still gets a decent pick, but their pick is further away from the top the more they suck that year. At the same time, a treadmill team that can't get over the hump has the chance to add a decent pick. They don't need to resort to tanking.A team that gets a low lottery pick:
yr 1: 1st seed, yr 2: 2nd seed, yr 3: 29th seed
Going from a top team to a bottom team may mean their star player was injured or walked or retired. In any case, they don't immediately deserve another high lotto pick in the next season when they were already gifted a chance.