If the draft is rigged...

[Mark_83]

Name me a billion dollar business that leaves the distribution of assets and direction of its business to a random lottery.

[Starr1]

The NBA draft is rigged and no one could ever convince me otherwise

[Kurtz]

Name me a billion dollar business that leaves the distribution of assets and direction of its business to a random lottery.

Extremely well put.

[Kurtz]

It sucks being a fan of a Canadian team lol. Canada doesn't generate a lot of money for these huge businesses so your team will always get shafted in a world of scams and corruption in every sport.

I still shake my head at that very temporary rule that prohibited us from drafting Iverson.

[Raps in 4]

You sound now like a Flat earther.

3 Different people have pointed out certain points:

- burdon of proof lies on the accuser (the ones crying rigged)
- 3rd party involvement
- no whistleblower
- most Stars went to smaller markets


At this point, unless you have proof in your hands, it is a conspiracy theory and has no basis in a serious discussion.

Didnt the Orange Menace in the US teach you enough what happens if conspiracies are getting out of control?

The irony is 500 years ago YOU would have been a flat earther telling Gallileo that he was a heretic and needed to prove the Earth was round, as every credible and educated person swore it was flat.

You think how you're told to think.

Galileo is brought up to justify all sorts of stupid conspiracy theories because the one outspoken voice may be right.

Here's the major difference between Galileo and other dumb conspiracies: Galileo used evidence! He built upon an existing mathematical theory with his own documented and repeatable observations.

Also he was proving the heliocentric model, people knew the Earth was round over a 1000 years before Galileo!

This isn't a stupid conspiracy theory though. It's a logical conclusion. Billionaire owners are colluding to increase the value of their shared product. It doesn't make sense for them not to collude.

Fans care about competitive balance. Owners care about the value of their investment increasing.

[Pointgod]

Name me a billion dollar business that leaves the distribution of assets and direction of its business to a random lottery.

The NHL.

[billy_hoyle]

Name me a billion dollar business that leaves the distribution of assets and direction of its business to a random lottery.

The NHL.

Didn't the biggest market just win the lottery there too?

I'm joking. Every year the draft is rigged.

There's a rigged story for most of the lottery.

[bballsparkin]

Name me a billion dollar business that leaves the distribution of assets and direction of its business to a random lottery.

The NHL.

Same owners though mostly. The McDavid and four time straight with Edmonton was odd though. Bedard to Chicago seemed about as obvious as Wemby to SA. Same with SJ with Celebrini.

[WhatsaTDot]

I love that people are calling this so predictable and yet through the first 8 pages I saw the pic going to Dallas once maybe twice while the pick was going everywhere else for 'rigging reasons'.

Confirmation bias is strong now that the outcome is known....

[UnderdogRaptors]

Of course it is

[mdenny]

Name me a billion dollar business that leaves the distribution of assets and direction of its business to a random lottery.

Extremely well put.

That's not how the business works though. There isn't a clear correlation between sport franchise profitability and performance.

The cowboys and the knicks and the leafs and the Yankees make money whether they win or lose.

The Pittsburgh penguins had huge business problems while they were winning cups.

The draft is not rigged. That's ridiculous.

[Mark_83]

That's not how the business works though. There isn't a clear correlation between sport franchise profitability and performance.

This is a partial truth, but misleading. While some legacy teams like the Knicks, Lakers, or Cowboys can coast on brand value, mid- and small-market teams like Cleveland, New Orleans, Sacramento, or San Antonio do not consistently generate revenue without either: A star player (e.g., LeBron, Zion, Duncan, Wemby), or a winning product. Without high-performing players or a narrative to generate fan interest, jersey sales, and local sponsorships plummet in these markets. Incentive exists for the league to “help” certain teams land stars, especially smaller markets that might fold or relocate without them (see New Orleans & Zion).

The cowboys and the knicks and the leafs and the Yankees make money whether they win or lose.

This supports the pro-rigging argument more than it refutes it. Big markets like New York and L.A. are financially secure already, and can get talent pushed to them in other ways (Davis and Luka to LA, Towns and Carmelo to NY). The NBA is a centralized business, and its collective success depends on league-wide balance, not just the success of "marquee franchises."

If some teams are self-sufficient and others aren’t, then the NBA has motive to use the draft to engineer parity (or compelling storylines) to keep weaker markets afloat (again, like New Orleans winning Zion just after Anthony Davis demanded a trade or Cleveland winning three lotteries post-LeBron, seemingly to keep the franchise viable). Big teams staying rich doesn’t eliminate motive for the league to “guide” lottery results elsewhere.

The Pittsburgh penguins had huge business problems while they were winning cups.

That’s hockey. The NBA has far more star-driven economics. One player can shift league-wide ratings and interest. LeBron James made the Cavs the most watched team in the league. Zion, despite injuries, generated more national broadcast games than the defending champion Raptors in 2020.
Wembanyama’s debut season was covered like a cultural event despite San Antonio being a small, quiet market. Two things drive success in the NBA: success and star power. If a team doesn't have success to generate profit putting a star in their market will not only help them get there, but generate interest and profit until they do.

While I don't think the NBA rigs every draft I do believe they have too much incentive to engage in engineering outcomes that are favorable to the league as a whole to not do so. And they don't just do it in a linear way like letting New York and LA or Miami winning the lottery improbably. That's a two-dimensional view of the many incentive structures at play that ultimately benefit the league as a whole. Players can be funneled to "marquee" teams through trade or free agency, and the small market teams that lose them almost always get rewarded with some lottery luck to keep them afloat.

Every team eventually benefits from this system so there's an element of soft collusion or complicity between stake holders. You just have to stay in the decision-makers good books and in the long run you'll be rewarded. That's how I predicted that we'd be rewarded and move up in the lottery the bubble year when we were the good little soldiers and played away from home the rest of the season without making a stink.

Even if profitability and team performance aren’t 1:1, that doesn’t remove the NBA’s incentive or opportunity to influence the lottery. There’s a business case for manipulating outcomes to save struggling franchises, elevate marketable stars, or maintain competitive balance. Whether or not the draft is rigged, it is not ridiculous to question a process that is opaque, centralized, and consistently aligns with desirable narratives.

[Clutch0z24]

Most Raptor thing to happen we finish the same percentage next year as the Mavs or Hawks....We get knocked out in the play ins....But yet we move down a spot some how....and the team thats 7th moves to 1....

[Raps in 4]

That's not how the business works though. There isn't a clear correlation between sport franchise profitability and performance.

This is a partial truth, but misleading. While some legacy teams like the Knicks, Lakers, or Cowboys can coast on brand value, mid- and small-market teams like Cleveland, New Orleans, Sacramento, or San Antonio do not consistently generate revenue without either: A star player (e.g., LeBron, Zion, Duncan, Wemby), or a winning product. Without high-performing players or a narrative to generate fan interest, jersey sales, and local sponsorships plummet in these markets. Incentive exists for the league to “help” certain teams land stars, especially smaller markets that might fold or relocate without them (see New Orleans & Zion).

The cowboys and the knicks and the leafs and the Yankees make money whether they win or lose.

This supports the pro-rigging argument more than it refutes it. Big markets like New York and L.A. are financially secure already, and can get talent pushed to them in other ways (Davis and Luka to LA, Towns and Carmelo to NY). The NBA is a centralized business, and its collective success depends on league-wide balance, not just the success of "marquee franchises."

If some teams are self-sufficient and others aren’t, then the NBA has motive to use the draft to engineer parity (or compelling storylines) to keep weaker markets afloat (again, like New Orleans winning Zion just after Anthony Davis demanded a trade or Cleveland winning three lotteries post-LeBron, seemingly to keep the franchise viable). Big teams staying rich doesn’t eliminate motive for the league to “guide” lottery results elsewhere.

The Pittsburgh penguins had huge business problems while they were winning cups.

That’s hockey. The NBA has far more star-driven economics. One player can shift league-wide ratings and interest. LeBron James made the Cavs the most watched team in the league. Zion, despite injuries, generated more national broadcast games than the defending champion Raptors in 2020.
Wembanyama’s debut season was covered like a cultural event despite San Antonio being a small, quiet market. Two things drive success in the NBA: success and star power. If a team doesn't have success to generate profit putting a star in their market will not only help them get there, but generate interest and profit until they do.

While I don't think the NBA rigs every draft I do believe they have too much incentive to engage in engineering outcomes that are favorable to the league as a whole to not do so. And they don't just do it in a linear way like letting New York and LA or Miami winning the lottery improbably. That's a two-dimensional view of the many incentive structures at play that ultimately benefit the league as a whole. Players can be funneled to "marquee" teams through trade or free agency, and the small market teams that lose them almost always get rewarded with some lottery luck to keep them afloat.

Every team eventually benefits from this system so there's an element of soft collusion or complicity between stake holders. You just have to stay in the decision-makers good books and in the long run you'll be rewarded. That's how I predicted that we'd be rewarded and move up in the lottery the bubble year when we were the good little soldiers and played away from home the rest of the season without making a stink.

Even if profitability and team performance aren’t 1:1, that doesn’t remove the NBA’s incentive or opportunity to influence the lottery. There’s a business case for manipulating outcomes to save struggling franchises, elevate marketable stars, or maintain competitive balance. Whether or not the draft is rigged, it is not ridiculous to question a process that is opaque, centralized, and consistently aligns with desirable narratives.

Teams absolutely see their values increase irrespective of on-court performance. Owning an NBA franchise is one of the safest bets a billionaire can make. Sure, playing well and having a marketable star can help increase value even more, but that valuation number will be going up regardless. I copied the year-over-year valuation graphs for the Hornets, Jazz, Pelicans, and Wizards below. Despite being tiny markets that have been terrible for most of the past three decades, all four teams have seen their valuations skyrocket. It's the same story for every franchise.

Spoiler:

I do agree with your broader point though that the NBA needs to be selective with how they allocate picks so as not to alienate fan bases completely.

[mdenny]

I appreciate the dialogue but it doesn't make any sense.

There is no identifiable financial incentive for the NY knicks or LA lakers to collude in delivering LeBron James to a small market like Cleveland. Nevermind to do so at risk of federal crimes that could bankrupt them. Not to mention the kabillion dollar TV deals. You think any stakeholder is gonna risk that amount of money?

If what you said here was accurate...why stop at a rigged draft? Why not rig the games too? Do you think the outcomes of the playoffs we are watching are pre-ordained? If the concerns you outline had substance (they don't).....then why not just orchestrate the entire product? Would depend on extremely unreliable scouting reports to do it?

The chance that Flagg is the best player from this draft is about 30%. And the chance that he becomes a top 10 player in the league is less than 15%. So risking the bankruptcy and federal persecution of a kabillion dollar industry for what? Because his jump shot tracks well?


Big teams like Yankees and leafs and knicks and lakers don't benefit from "saving struggling franchises". The big franchises subsidize the smaller ones but they don't want to. They are forced to. I don't have the energy to address how wrong your characterizations of these business dynamics are.

But a simple thing can be said.....you think the nba draft is far more important to the business side of nba franchises than it actually is. ie Important enough to commit fraud while running an enterprise worth 100s of billions of dollars.

[bonjovi0308]

At the time those who said there was no evidence that the draft was rigged/was not rigged, I wanted to open their brains and see how much **** they have inside

There was multiple posters here claiming it might be rigged and i didnt see anyone suggesy Mavs. Utah was the most common one for "great white hope". You suggested Philly might get rewarded with the top pick. So Now Mavs are proof it's rigged?

Did you say anything about the possibility of the league rigging it for the Mavs before today? Or is this just twisting narrative in hindsight like anybodies conspiracy?

I dont have time for someone's brain full of ****

[mdenny]

Name me a billion dollar business that leaves the distribution of assets and direction of its business to a random lottery.

Almost every billion dollar industry has a "lottery". The Orange juice industry goes up and down as a function of weather.

[Raps in 4]

Name me a billion dollar business that leaves the distribution of assets and direction of its business to a random lottery.

Almost every billion dollar industry has a "lottery". The Orange juice industry goes up and down as a function of weather.

Because they can't control the weather. The NBA can control the results of a lottery that they administer. The lottery isn't some legally mandated process that is outside of the league's control. They could abolish the lottery tomorrow if they wanted.

[mdenny]

That's not how the business works though. There isn't a clear correlation between sport franchise profitability and performance.

This is a partial truth, but misleading. While some legacy teams like the Knicks, Lakers, or Cowboys can coast on brand value, mid- and small-market teams like Cleveland, New Orleans, Sacramento, or San Antonio do not consistently generate revenue without either: A star player (e.g., LeBron, Zion, Duncan, Wemby), or a winning product. Without high-performing players or a narrative to generate fan interest, jersey sales, and local sponsorships plummet in these markets. Incentive exists for the league to “help” certain teams land stars, especially smaller markets that might fold or relocate without them (see New Orleans & Zion).

The cowboys and the knicks and the leafs and the Yankees make money whether they win or lose.

This supports the pro-rigging argument more than it refutes it. Big markets like New York and L.A. are financially secure already, and can get talent pushed to them in other ways (Davis and Luka to LA, Towns and Carmelo to NY). The NBA is a centralized business, and its collective success depends on league-wide balance, not just the success of "marquee franchises."

If some teams are self-sufficient and others aren’t, then the NBA has motive to use the draft to engineer parity (or compelling storylines) to keep weaker markets afloat (again, like New Orleans winning Zion just after Anthony Davis demanded a trade or Cleveland winning three lotteries post-LeBron, seemingly to keep the franchise viable). Big teams staying rich doesn’t eliminate motive for the league to “guide” lottery results elsewhere.

The Pittsburgh penguins had huge business problems while they were winning cups.

That’s hockey. The NBA has far more star-driven economics. One player can shift league-wide ratings and interest. LeBron James made the Cavs the most watched team in the league. Zion, despite injuries, generated more national broadcast games than the defending champion Raptors in 2020.
Wembanyama’s debut season was covered like a cultural event despite San Antonio being a small, quiet market. Two things drive success in the NBA: success and star power. If a team doesn't have success to generate profit putting a star in their market will not only help them get there, but generate interest and profit until they do.

While I don't think the NBA rigs every draft I do believe they have too much incentive to engage in engineering outcomes that are favorable to the league as a whole to not do so. And they don't just do it in a linear way like letting New York and LA or Miami winning the lottery improbably. That's a two-dimensional view of the many incentive structures at play that ultimately benefit the league as a whole. Players can be funneled to "marquee" teams through trade or free agency, and the small market teams that lose them almost always get rewarded with some lottery luck to keep them afloat.

Every team eventually benefits from this system so there's an element of soft collusion or complicity between stake holders. You just have to stay in the decision-makers good books and in the long run you'll be rewarded. That's how I predicted that we'd be rewarded and move up in the lottery the bubble year when we were the good little soldiers and played away from home the rest of the season without making a stink.

Even if profitability and team performance aren’t 1:1, that doesn’t remove the NBA’s incentive or opportunity to influence the lottery. There’s a business case for manipulating outcomes to save struggling franchises, elevate marketable stars, or maintain competitive balance. Whether or not the draft is rigged, it is not ridiculous to question a process that is opaque, centralized, and consistently aligns with desirable narratives.

Teams absolutely see their values increase irrespective of on-court performance. Owning an NBA franchise is one of the safest bets a billionaire can make. Sure, playing well and having a marketable star can help increase value even more, but that valuation number will be going up regardless. I copied the year-over-year valuation graphs for the Hornets, Jazz, Pelicans, and Wizards below. Despite being tiny markets that have been terrible for most of the past three decades, all four teams have seen their valuations skyrocket. It's the same story for every franchise.

Spoiler:

I do agree with your broader point though that the NBA needs to be selective with how they allocate picks so as not to alienate fan bases completely.

The nba doesn't do that through draft rigging lol. They do it through the salary cap and CBA regulations that create financial incentives for players to resign with the team that drafts them. In fact...the very concept of a "draft" exists for the benefit of small markets. If it were not for the draft....college players would simply sign with pro teams based on market supply/demand. And the rich teams would all bargain for all the best college players. The whole idea of a draft is to create a semblance of equality between large and small markets.

American sports are distinct in the whole concept of draft and salary caps. No such thing as a "draft" in soccer or cricket.

If you want to know how small market teams survive....it's not because "the nba rigs the draft to give them players to sustain fan interest". It's through profit-sharing distributed from the national TV deals.

The raptors are barely ever on national television. Yet their greatest source of revenue is the share they receive from the national TV deals. So teams like the Lakers essentially subsidize teams like the Raptors because their television draw and associated advertising revenue is shared across all franchises. None of which is impacted to any relevant degree because "flagg is going to the Mavericks instead of to the wizards" lol.

[Raps in 4]

The nba doesn't do that through draft rigging lol. They do it through the salary cap and CBA regulations that create financial incentives for players to resign with the team that drafts them.

If you want to know how small market teams survive....it's not because "the nba rigs the draft to give them players to sustain fan interest". It's through profit-sharing distributed from the national TV deals.

The raptors are barely ever on national television. Yet their greatest source of revenue is the share they receive from the national TV deals. So teams like the Lakers essentially subsidize teams like the Raptors because their television draw and associated advertising revenue is shared across all franchises. None of which is impacted to any relevant degree because "flagg is going to the Mavericks instead of to the wizards" lol.

That's exactly my point. Teams make money even when they aren't winning. This is why teams are happy to allow draft rigging. Their ultimate goal is to increase ratings so the league can sign the biggest TV deal possible. Individual team success is mostly irrelevant in the long term.

The NBA tries to ensure that its most popular teams and players are successful. When a small market team makes a trade that is favourable to a big market or a star player, the NBA rewards them with a high draft pick. That keeps the fan base engaged.

Just look at the streak of #1 picks that have followed LeBron throughout his career.

2011: LeBron leaves the Cavs. The Cavs are rewarded the #1 pick to draft Kyrie (2.8% odds).

2014: LeBron returns to Cleveland and needs a supporting cast. Cavs win the lottery again (1.7% odds) and trade the pick for Love.

2019: LeBron needs help on his new team. AD publicly demands a trade to the Lakers. The Pelicans win the lottery and draft Zion (6% odds).

2025: LeBron is aging and ratings are plummeting. The Mavs trade a young superstar to the Lakers. They win the lottery with 1.8% odds.

The NBA uses the lottery to both directly prop up their marketable players and to reward teams that support these players.