NBA likely to vote on changing draft odds next month

[leorautins]

Fact: the people who b**** about tanking are either:

a) over 45 and remember the good old days of walking 5 miles uphill barefoot in the snow to school, and will constantly tell you about the "integrity of the game" and the benefits of "healthy and fair effort and competition".

b) jealous fans of treadmills who wish that someday their owner would let them tank.

c) people who care far too deeply about public perception and will follow along to whatever the flavor of the week is.

Truth: you HAVE TO HAVE a superstar to win a title in the NBA. It's almost indisputable. Yes, you can tell me about the '04 Pistons and I can tell you they had 4 all stars, the DPOY, the 6th man of the year, and a top 3 PG. So is THAT a more viable working model than tanking to get a superstar??? I think not.

The point of professional sports is NOT to compete, it's NOT to show sportsmanship, and it's NOT for love of the game. All those things are NICE, but the POINT is to WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. Doesn't matter how you accomplish it. No one likes the Patriots now, right? Just a bunch of cheaters, right? Did the NFL take away those 3 rings? No? Then they still won. WHO CARES what people say now, all The Hoodie has to do is point to his left hand with 3 rings. Did cheating diminish those rings? Are they somehow less valid? Well, do the history books still list the Pats as 3 time champs? Then no, history still says they won 3 Super Bowls.

The reason I say all of that is the exact same applies to the Sixers. If Hinkie builds them into a back to back champion in 2019 and 2020, will we remember they threw away the 2015 season purposely? Unequivocally the answer is no. Quick, what was OKC's record in 2009? Seattle was a 31 win treadmill in 2007 who lucked into the 2nd pick and Kevin Durant. They then tanked and won only 43 games the next two years combined; drafting Westbrook, Ibaka, and Harden in the process. (Oh yeah, and moving to OKC) They then shot up to 50 wins and have been a legit contender since. Everyone seems to forget this is only the Sixers 2nd year of tanking. I'm not saying the Sixers are going to have the same success, but I could easily see the Sixers going .500 next year if Embiid is right and the guy drafted this summer is a player. So we sit through one more mulligan year. The only reason anyone cares about it is because Hinkie doesn't care about public perception. Well, neither do I. As the saying goes: hate the game, not the player. Tank on, friends! (Sorry for the novel, this is a pet peeve topic lol)

If you want to get cynical about the point of professional sports though, it's not about winning championships, it's about making money. The reason why the tank upsets the NBA so much is because it is a great long term investment by Sixers management for trying to build the value of their franchise. The problem is that by intentionally putting such a **** product on the court for right now, the Sixers are currently hurting the brand, product and value of the NBA as a whole. Sixers road games are going to be poor ticket sellers and bad ratings nights. Fans can more visibly see the flawed structure of the league and form negative opinions about it. In short the tank is great for Sixers value but bad for NBA value which is really what this vote is about.

Single game tickets don't drive attendance numbers as much as you might think. We were 11th in road attendance last year. Most sales come from season tickets and club boxes. And I don't have equivalent numbers for TV ratings, but remember the way it generally works is that these teams sign long term TV contracts with some local station. I doubt the actions of the Sixers will impact an 8 year contract all that much.

Also remember that basketball is a zero sum game. If the Sixers are losing, it means other teams are winning. Even if they lose sales because of us (I don't see any indication that they have) they should theoretically increase when they play teams that win more than they would otherwise.

If you (or any other poster) happen to know this: is announced attendance tickets sold or people who actually show up? And a follow up: to what extent does stuff like parking, concessions, and merchandise sales contribute to the bottom line?

[WorldBeFree]

Doesn't matter. We got the top 2 guys in the past two drafts by not having the no.1 overall picks.

Paul George, Dirk, Kobe, Tony Parker, Ty Lawson, Zach Randolph, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, Rondo, Lowrly, Milsap, Marc Gasol, Hibbert, Ibaka. All non lottery picks. You don't need to tank to get a franchise player

Wow that franchise players, so Iggy was our!!!? Kobe, Dirk and George were lottery picks and Hibbert too i think

Edit: hibbert wasnt sorry
Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Mik317]

**** listed Josh **** Smith as a Franchise player.

gtfo

[LongLiveHinkie]

None of them are except Kobe, Dirk, Parker and possibly George.

[Sixerscan]

And I don't have equivalent numbers for TV ratings, but remember the way it generally works is that these teams sign long term TV contracts with some local station. I doubt the actions of the Sixers will impact an 8 year contract all that much.

I'm wondering if the deals with Comcast regarding the arena and the local TV rights might make the temptation to tank more compelling:

The acquisition does not include the Wells Fargo Center, where the Sixers play in South Philadelphia, or the Philadelphia Flyers, both of which are also owned by Comcast (NASDAQ:CMCSA, CMCSK) unit Comcast-Spectacor.

. . . .

The value of the Sixers was not as great because the team is locked into a long-term lease deal at the Wells Fargo Center and a long-term broadcasting contract with Comcast SportsNet, which has the team's television rights through 2029.

Poor local TV ratings and arena revenue may not hurt the sixers as much as it would some other teams.

Sure. My post was about the impact the Sixers' tank has on other teams though. There's no doubt that the tank hurts our revenues (The ownership has balanced that out by limiting costs however)

[Sixerscan]

If you want to get cynical about the point of professional sports though, it's not about winning championships, it's about making money. The reason why the tank upsets the NBA so much is because it is a great long term investment by Sixers management for trying to build the value of their franchise. The problem is that by intentionally putting such a **** product on the court for right now, the Sixers are currently hurting the brand, product and value of the NBA as a whole. Sixers road games are going to be poor ticket sellers and bad ratings nights. Fans can more visibly see the flawed structure of the league and form negative opinions about it. In short the tank is great for Sixers value but bad for NBA value which is really what this vote is about.

Single game tickets don't drive attendance numbers as much as you might think. We were 11th in road attendance last year. Most sales come from season tickets and club boxes. And I don't have equivalent numbers for TV ratings, but remember the way it generally works is that these teams sign long term TV contracts with some local station. I doubt the actions of the Sixers will impact an 8 year contract all that much.

Also remember that basketball is a zero sum game. If the Sixers are losing, it means other teams are winning. Even if they lose sales because of us (I don't see any indication that they have) they should theoretically increase when they play teams that win more than they would otherwise.

If you (or any other poster) happen to know this: is announced attendance tickets sold or people who actually show up? And a follow up: to what extent does stuff like parking, concessions, and merchandise sales contribute to the bottom line?

I am pretty sure its tickets sold? I assume some teams flub more than others but remember we're talking road games so theoretically it should all even out.

RE Concessions etc: Teams generally keep their numbers private so we don't really know. Some of them have been leaked though. If these Nets numbers are any indication, the answer is: Not very much.



Remember, most teams license their concession stands out to 3rd parties. Aramark, a Philly based company, is one of the biggest ones.

[MCtripDub]

Single game tickets don't drive attendance numbers as much as you might think. We were 11th in road attendance last year. Most sales come from season tickets and club boxes. And I don't have equivalent numbers for TV ratings, but remember the way it generally works is that these teams sign long term TV contracts with some local station. I doubt the actions of the Sixers will impact an 8 year contract all that much.

Also remember that basketball is a zero sum game. If the Sixers are losing, it means other teams are winning. Even if they lose sales because of us (I don't see any indication that they have) they should theoretically increase when they play teams that win more than they would otherwise.

If you (or any other poster) happen to know this: is announced attendance tickets sold or people who actually show up? And a follow up: to what extent does stuff like parking, concessions, and merchandise sales contribute to the bottom line?

I am pretty sure its tickets sold? I assume some teams flub more than others but remember we're talking road games so theoretically it should all even out.

RE Concessions etc: Teams generally keep their numbers private so we don't really know. Some of them have been leaked though. If these Nets numbers are any indication, the answer is: Not very much.



Remember, most teams license their concession stands out to 3rd parties. Aramark, a Philly based company, is one of the biggest ones.

Woah. Pretty cool seeing how the break down of expenses is. Quick question tho. What's the difference between ad revenues and broadcast revenues? Don't we get our ad rev from our broadcasts? Also, what exactly is expansion revenue?

[Sixerscan]

Broadcast revenue is the money the team gets from local/national television deals from networks to broadcast their games. The networks pocket the money from the television ads shown during games, unless the contract says differently.

Otherwise, I believe Ad revenues is other, non TV advertisements. For example, the free big macs when the Sixers score 100 points, McDonalds probably pays something for that.

Expansion Revenue: 2003/2004 was the first year of the Charlotte Bobcats. They had to pay the NBA a fee to get into the league, which was split among the other 29 teams.

[the_process]

Yes that is the way it works, and that's why the 76ers are doing that. I don't think anybody is questioning that. The problem being, is that that system blows . Let's be honest, if the plan all comes together for the 76ers and they are a title contender, were talking AT LEAST 5 years from now. That would be around the time Emlid would be coming into his peak along with the other players in that core. That's a hell of a long time. That is way to long a wait for a fanbase to expect results.

Look at the NFL. Back in the day it was all about dynasties. Steelers, Cowboys. 49ers. Now a day, there are no dynasties. And the NFL is so much better because of it. You can go from worst to title contender in 3 years, so fans always have something to be excited about.

If the NBA was like that, they would be clearly the 2nd most popular sport. Getting rid of tanking is just one part of the big problem. Give credit to Silver for doing something that's for the fans and not the owners like most commissioners do.

The problem with what you are saying is the fundamental nature of the game of basketball. It is so conducive to being dominated by superstars that once a team gets one of those superstars that team will remain good throughout that superstar's tenure there. And superstars don't burn out as fast as in football because there are less injuries and far less contact. In football, a RB could be drafted, become a superstar, and then 3 years later become completely irrelevant. But Durant, for example, was drafted 7 years ago and is still on the upward arc in his career. Hasn't even hit his peak. BIG difference. Because of that, it takes much longer to build a champion in the NBA. I agree NFL-like parity keeps all fan bases interested more and is a good goal, but it may not be able to be achieved in a more individualized sport. They are trying to move this way by incentivizing players to stay with the team that drafted them, but that is not a perfect answer obviously.

Oh, and I agree the system is bad, there should be no lottery. That way bad teams suck it up, get their high pick and hopefully their superstar, then become relevant again and cycle up. With the lottery, teams can suck it up for years and never get the ping pong ball bounce they need to get a top pick and the hopeful superstar that accompanies it, and become perpetual losers.

[TigerInYourTank]

Here are the new probabilities: http://i.imgur.com/W1WAYiG.png
Here is the change in probabilities: http://i.imgur.com/FMfrHP8.png

Good news is lottery teams outside the top three are actually helped by the lottery change.
Bad news is the Sixers are probably going to be in the top 3.

Wow, this is some horseshite. I cannot believe they are proposing to skew things like this. If you are a bad team in this league, you are likely to be perpetually screwed (as opposed to Philly, which already has a nice core).

[guest81]

Here are the new probabilities: http://i.imgur.com/W1WAYiG.png
Here is the change in probabilities: http://i.imgur.com/FMfrHP8.png

Good news is lottery teams outside the top three are actually helped by the lottery change.
Bad news is the Sixers are probably going to be in the top 3.

Wow, this is some ****. I cannot believe they are proposing to skew things like this. If you are a bad team in this league, you are likely to be perpetually screwed (as opposed to Philly, which already has a nice core).

Bad teams are almost always the reason of a bad front office/owner. Even if you struck gold with a superstar in the draft but you had a bad office, it didn't work out anyway IE Cleveland, Minnesota. This process should at least weed out some of that bad office personal

[MCoster]

We have an ally in OKC with us.

[roma258]

Part of me thinks we benefit from this long term. Think about it, we've pretty much got our guys. We'll suck this year, but even if the new odds drop us to 6 or 7, who cares? We've got Embiid coming next year and whoever we pick up at 6 will still be a nice piece. Plus the Miami pick. Our cupboard will be stocked. Then the '16 season, we'll likely be decentish, but not playoff. Guess what, now the odds work in our favor! And from then on, we're off. Meanwhile, the bad teams now can't gameplan and have to depend on dumb luck (or smart moves, obviously) to build up. But it introduces much more randomness to the re-building process, while we're on our way to winning titles

[Ericb5]

Part of me thinks we benefit from this long term. Think about it, we've pretty much got our guys. We'll suck this year, but even if the new odds drop us to 6 or 7, who cares? We've got Embiid coming next year and whoever we pick up at 6 will still be a nice piece. Plus the Miami pick. Our cupboard will be stocked. Then the '16 season, we'll likely be decentish, but not playoff. Guess what, now the odds work in our favor! And from then on, we're off. Meanwhile, the bad teams now can't gameplan and have to depend on dumb luck (or smart moves, obviously) to build up. But it introduces much more randomness to the re-building process, while we're on our way to winning titles

It may very well help us in the future, but whether it helps or hurts us shouldn't be part of the equation. The fact is that it is unfair to do this midstream.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Ericb5]

I just thought of something. What if they disqualified the team with the worst record from getting the first pick?

That would certainly motivate bad teams not to be the worst team.

That is obviously an imperfect system, but it would theoretically keep the worst teams from trying to be the worst. Or you could eliminate the lottery entirely, and make the worst three teams get the top three picks, but give it to them in reverse order. 3 gets 1, 2 gets 2 and 1 gets 3.

That would preserve the top picks for the worst teams, but it wouldn't inspire a race to the bottom.

Haven't really thought it through, but it would probably be better than the new odds.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[roma258]

Part of me thinks we benefit from this long term. Think about it, we've pretty much got our guys. We'll suck this year, but even if the new odds drop us to 6 or 7, who cares? We've got Embiid coming next year and whoever we pick up at 6 will still be a nice piece. Plus the Miami pick. Our cupboard will be stocked. Then the '16 season, we'll likely be decentish, but not playoff. Guess what, now the odds work in our favor! And from then on, we're off. Meanwhile, the bad teams now can't gameplan and have to depend on dumb luck (or smart moves, obviously) to build up. But it introduces much more randomness to the re-building process, while we're on our way to winning titles

It may very well help us in the future, but whether it helps or hurts us shouldn't be part of the equation. The fact is that it is unfair to do this midstream.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Oh yeah, I think I'm on the record that changing it this year is complete bs.

[bball4life]

A stats guru working for an NFL team had a pretty good idea for deciding how many ping pong balls you get in the draft. As soon as a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, they get a ping pong ball for every win they get after that. So the really crappy teams may have less ping pong balls than the decent teams eliminated 10 days from the playoffs. Outside of holding healthy players out, there is no way to play this system. And you could probably police teams holding out healthy players until they magically heal when eliminated.

[roma258]

A stats guru working for an NFL team had a pretty good idea for deciding how many ping pong balls you get in the draft. As soon as a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, they get a ping pong ball for every win they get after that. So the really crappy teams may have less ping pong balls than the decent teams eliminated 10 days from the playoffs. Outside of holding healthy players out, there is no way to play this system. And you could probably police teams holding out healthy players until they magically heal when eliminated.

Lol, people bending over backwards to come up with schemes. The only way to truly avoid tanking is to have a promotion/relegation system, like EPL (and most other leagues around the world). Everything else is poking around the margin.

[TigerInYourTank]

Here are the new probabilities: http://i.imgur.com/W1WAYiG.png
Here is the change in probabilities: http://i.imgur.com/FMfrHP8.png

Good news is lottery teams outside the top three are actually helped by the lottery change.
Bad news is the Sixers are probably going to be in the top 3.

Wow, this is some ****. I cannot believe they are proposing to skew things like this. If you are a bad team in this league, you are likely to be perpetually screwed (as opposed to Philly, which already has a nice core).

Bad teams are almost always the reason of a bad front office/owner. Even if you struck gold with a superstar in the draft but you had a bad office, it didn't work out anyway IE Cleveland, Minnesota. This process should at least weed out some of that bad office personal

Bad front offices can get by with great draft pick slots and a little luck (Orlando in early 90s, Chicago in mid-80s, original Charlotte Hornets in early 90s). As a counter-example, look at the second team you mentioned: Minnesota. They have had terrible draft position relative to how bad the team has been.

[MRxBLACK]

Anyone have any idea why OKC is going to vote "No". ?