Moderators: bwgood77, Domejandro
The NBA is unlikely to have another discussion of lottery reform until the next session of collective bargaining in 2016 or 2017.
Last fall, Adam Silver submitted a proposal that would have flattened the lottery odds but it was voted down by 12 teams voting with the Philadelphia 76ers. The Oklahoma City Thunder were among the teams to lead a behind-the-scenes lobbying effort.
The fear was small market teams would be at a disadvantage to tanking for a high draft pick.
Via Zach Lowe/ESPN
Sam195 wrote:The best way to reform the lottery is to give each non-playoff team an equal chance at the #1 pick/best prospect. Than do weighted odds by losing record to determine the next 4 picks. Than losing order and coin flips for tied records will determine the next 9 selections. This way a team that tanks for the worst record has a very reasonable chance of landing the #6 pick instead of being guaranteed #4 at worst. There are usually a max of only 3-4 game changing prospects (players projected to be all stars before their drafted not guys like Steph Curry and Kobe who got picked later and developed into stars - but guys like Duncan, Wiggins, Lebron, etc) in a draft most have had less than that. NBA should also enact a rule where a team cannot win the #1 pick in back to back years. So in my equal odds scenario - if a repeat winner is selected than the balls are redrawn. To fix the small market dynamic - nba should expand revenue sharing where the local tv money regardless of which city should be shared equally like the national revenue. This way teams like the lakers and knicks cannot consistently outspend teams like the hornets and bucks.
rammagen wrote:Sam195 wrote:The best way to reform the lottery is to give each non-playoff team an equal chance at the #1 pick/best prospect. Than do weighted odds by losing record to determine the next 4 picks. Than losing order and coin flips for tied records will determine the next 9 selections. This way a team that tanks for the worst record has a very reasonable chance of landing the #6 pick instead of being guaranteed #4 at worst. There are usually a max of only 3-4 game changing prospects (players projected to be all stars before their drafted not guys like Steph Curry and Kobe who got picked later and developed into stars - but guys like Duncan, Wiggins, Lebron, etc) in a draft most have had less than that. NBA should also enact a rule where a team cannot win the #1 pick in back to back years. So in my equal odds scenario - if a repeat winner is selected than the balls are redrawn. To fix the small market dynamic - nba should expand revenue sharing where the local tv money regardless of which city should be shared equally like the national revenue. This way teams like the lakers and knicks cannot consistently outspend teams like the hornets and bucks.
That works but you did not address taxes in states. in NY or LA taxes are higher versus states like Texas or Florida where they have no state tax. so that would also need to be adjusted. If you are going to spread the big market money then flatten the playing field across the board.
For example, a team like Orlando right now can technically out spend NY or LA because there is no state tax so a player making 10 million a yr brings home more in Florida (when they play games in the state they do not pay taxes on that money earned) then the same player making 10 million a yr in NY or LA.
Pickled Prunes wrote:rammagen wrote:Sam195 wrote:The best way to reform the lottery is to give each non-playoff team an equal chance at the #1 pick/best prospect. Than do weighted odds by losing record to determine the next 4 picks. Than losing order and coin flips for tied records will determine the next 9 selections. This way a team that tanks for the worst record has a very reasonable chance of landing the #6 pick instead of being guaranteed #4 at worst. There are usually a max of only 3-4 game changing prospects (players projected to be all stars before their drafted not guys like Steph Curry and Kobe who got picked later and developed into stars - but guys like Duncan, Wiggins, Lebron, etc) in a draft most have had less than that. NBA should also enact a rule where a team cannot win the #1 pick in back to back years. So in my equal odds scenario - if a repeat winner is selected than the balls are redrawn. To fix the small market dynamic - nba should expand revenue sharing where the local tv money regardless of which city should be shared equally like the national revenue. This way teams like the lakers and knicks cannot consistently outspend teams like the hornets and bucks.
That works but you did not address taxes in states. in NY or LA taxes are higher versus states like Texas or Florida where they have no state tax. so that would also need to be adjusted. If you are going to spread the big market money then flatten the playing field across the board.
For example, a team like Orlando right now can technically out spend NY or LA because there is no state tax so a player making 10 million a yr brings home more in Florida (when they play games in the state they do not pay taxes on that money earned) then the same player making 10 million a yr in NY or LA.
Historically Orlando hasn't done better than LA at acquiring or holding onto free agents. The teams with the greatest disadvantage are in cold whether cities. Nothing Silver can do about the climate so the playing field will never be equal.
The lottery needs to be separated from the playoff seeding altogether. It should consist of an odd number of teams so the weaker conference always has at least on more representative. A 7 or 9 team lottery would be ideal. There is no reason a .500 team should ever be in the lottery. OKC was in the lottery last year with a .549 record. Can you imagine the outcry if they won?
rammagen wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:rammagen wrote:
That works but you did not address taxes in states. in NY or LA taxes are higher versus states like Texas or Florida where they have no state tax. so that would also need to be adjusted. If you are going to spread the big market money then flatten the playing field across the board.
For example, a team like Orlando right now can technically out spend NY or LA because there is no state tax so a player making 10 million a yr brings home more in Florida (when they play games in the state they do not pay taxes on that money earned) then the same player making 10 million a yr in NY or LA.
Historically Orlando hasn't done better than LA at acquiring or holding onto free agents. The teams with the greatest disadvantage are in cold whether cities. Nothing Silver can do about the climate so the playing field will never be equal.
The lottery needs to be separated from the playoff seeding altogether. It should consist of an odd number of teams so the weaker conference always has at least on more representative. A 7 or 9 team lottery would be ideal. There is no reason a .500 team should ever be in the lottery. OKC was in the lottery last year with a .549 record. Can you imagine the outcry if they won?
Then explain Miami, Houston, San Antonio even Dallas? My point is valid and Orlando was an example of a team in a state that has no sales tax. Historically since the big 2.5 men formed the president is set to go to where you pay less in taxes generally. Why do you think they formed in miami and not in Toronto or even Cleveland? They could afford to take less because they saved on taxes. That has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with money and the salary cap not being equal.
Pickled Prunes wrote:rammagen wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:Historically Orlando hasn't done better than LA at acquiring or holding onto free agents. The teams with the greatest disadvantage are in cold whether cities. Nothing Silver can do about the climate so the playing field will never be equal.
The lottery needs to be separated from the playoff seeding altogether. It should consist of an odd number of teams so the weaker conference always has at least on more representative. A 7 or 9 team lottery would be ideal. There is no reason a .500 team should ever be in the lottery. OKC was in the lottery last year with a .549 record. Can you imagine the outcry if they won?
Then explain Miami, Houston, San Antonio even Dallas? My point is valid and Orlando was an example of a team in a state that has no sales tax. Historically since the big 2.5 men formed the president is set to go to where you pay less in taxes generally. Why do you think they formed in miami and not in Toronto or even Cleveland? They could afford to take less because they saved on taxes. That has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with money and the salary cap not being equal.
Toronto and Cleveland are both cold. Miami, Houston, San Antonio and Dallas are all warm. I think you're making my case for me.
Seriously, I hear what your saying. In reality I think Bosh wanted out of Toronto and nobody was agreeing to go to Cleveland. Miami had a winning culture, had won recently and had Riley at the helm. It was the more practical situation regardless of the taxes or sunshine.
My point was that there are many things that play into the advantage or disadvantage of NBA cities. Taxes are just a small part of the equation. Hopefully on-court opportunity is the #1 factor but quality of life, nightlife, local endorsements and state tax are some of the other considerations. I don't believe most states have a fixed tax rate so adjusting the cap to match the state tax would be tricky to say the least. That said, I don't know why you would try when beachfront property may be a bigger advantage.
