Draft Lottery Reform & Resting Player Fines, Approved by B of Gov's. 09-28-17 ~ Woj

[Fidel Sarcasmo]

I say they take 14 sticky octopus wall crawlers with team names on each one. Throw them against the wall. Whoever gets to the bottom first wins the lottery

[jmr07019]

I think the best solution is to flatten the odds and expand how many spots are picked by the lottery. One of the biggest positives of the philly style tank is you are guaranteed a top 4 pick if you finish last. But if there's a chance you tank all year and pick 6 then tanking is a lot less appealing.

I would tweak it a little bit every few years until you find the right mix. No need to go crazy.

[Parliament10]

WNBA Lottery Reform Could Be Incubator For NBA’s Future
by Phil Watson
https://hoopshabit.com/2016/02/02/wnba-lottery-reform-could-be-incubator-for-nbas-future/

The WNBA system changes the lottery to weight the odds based on a team’s cumulative two-year record, rather than simply on the results of the previous season.

This was 2 years ago.
And also, the WNBA only has 4 Teams in the Lottery. 12 Teams total.

The NBA could Expand this, to all teams cumulative 3-year records.
I also think that it should include teams finishing 15th & 16th, for a total of 16 teams in the Lottery.

[Froob]

I've said it before - I love the idea of the wheel system - no more teams like the Sixers undeservently getting high picks. Teams having incentive to playing hard and winning every single game. What a novel idea

The wheel is an absolutely horrendous idea, it gets rid of tanking and creates much much much worse problems. So now teams can't rebuild through the draft, say you're the Bulls and now you get say the 30th, 15th, and 5th pick over the next 3 years. Wtf do you do? Who is going to sign and join a garbage team? And now say we give the Warriors the 5th pick in the draft, is that what we want?

Tanking isn't even the issue, the issue is soft cap and max contracts. LeBron makes like 32 mill and Horford makes 26, both at max contract. Those two aren't anywhere close in impact yet are only capped 6 mill apart. If you want to adjust the odds and range of the lotto okay..but the wheel would be a massive mistake. I think people grossly exaggerate the amount of teams tanking anyways, people kept saying Milwaukee was tanking when they went all in for the 8th seed a few years ago and somehow ended up with the worst record in the league.

[Andrew McCeltic]

Only other question is whether we'll feel like the lottery is fair under a different system.

Like, imagine it's the 2014 draft and we're not picking in the top five again until 2020 because there's a "wheel."

Or Indiana, just forced to trade Paul George, ends the season with the fourth worst record and picks tenth.

[London2Boston]

Ainge **** violated the Cavs, lol.

I'm going to **** laugh if that Brooklyn pick becomes worthless.

[165bows]

Initial reaction: Cavs got a killing for Kyrie

IT will miss time: Ok, this is a little fairer.

Brooklyn finishes with the worst record and Cavs get the 12th pick: Ainge might be God.

I think they should do a live broadcast. 14 balls, and let the order fall where it may.

Last thing you need is 8th seed candidates tanking during the last week of the regular season.

Yeah flattening the odds gets really tricky.

I lean more to the idea of not repeating lottery winners. Teams will tank no matter what they try, don't want teams tanking out of the playoffs into the the top of the lotto like you said. Better to have one year tanks then teams have to get back to reality.

[3D Chess]

What they really need to do is make the prospect of a #1 pick less enticing by changing the structure of rookie contracts. Either bigger $ or shorter years on deals. Would a team really tank for only 2-3 guaranteed years of a #1 pick vs the 7+ they are guaranteed now?

They can only fix that by changing the CBA though, so they are left with a bandaid solution of tweaking the lottery that won't fix the true problem. If there is even marginal benefit to be worse than the next team, teams will tank.

[djFan71]

Once you get a top 3 pick, the highest pick you can get is say 4 for the next 3 years. That's it.

Changing the odds is just stupid. Really bad teams should get to pick at the top. They just can keep picking there over and over.

I like something along these lines. Still keep some lottery, but you're ineligible for top 3 if you got it the previous season.
LOL, unless it's not your own pick...


Wouldn't prevent the one-year Spurs-type dip and Duncan, but would clamp down on the process.

The Spurs type is much worse though. This idea is almost as bad as the wheel. We drop to #3 and are barred from winning the next year?

Just smooth the odds. Simple. Eff these gimmicks.

Yeah, I think they're all bad ideas, that's the problem. If there was an easy simple one they would have picked it by now. Smoother odds just give more teams the idea that they can get lucky if they tank late instead of making the playoffs. No good answer really.

[Taget]

Read on Twitter

I have actually been thinking of that but with a more positive spin. League distributes tv deal revenue to teams based on number of wins including a large bonus for playoff appearances.

There is also a second way of doing it that may actually make the most sense given the large divide between the haves and have nots. Do what the Europeans do with some of their sports leagues. Have a two tiered league. The top 18 teams play in the "A league" for an NBA championship trophy. The bottom 12 teams play for a "B League" and compete for their own NIT type championship. Worst two teams in the "A-League" get thrown down to the "B-League" and the best two teams in the "B League" get upgrade to the "A League."

B league teams would receive less tv revenue (or even media interest) and would be far less attractive to free agents. The draft would be adjusted to give B League teams a higher chance of getting top draft picks. But all A League teams would receive equal chances at draft spots. And all B League teams would receive equal chances at draft spots.

[Darth Celtic]

Read on Twitter

I have actually been thinking of that but with a more positive spin. League distributes tv deal revenue to teams based on number of wins including a large bonus for playoff appearances.

There is also a second way of doing it that may actually make the most sense given the large divide between the haves and have nots. Do what the Europeans do with some of their sports leagues. Have a two tiered league. The top 18 teams play in the "A league" for an NBA championship trophy. The bottom 12 teams play for a "B League" and compete for their own NIT type championship. Worst two teams in the "A-League" get thrown down to the "B-League" and the best two teams in the "B League" get upgrade to the "A League."

B league teams would receive less tv revenue (or even media interest) and would be far less attractive to free agents. The draft would be adjusted to give B League teams a higher chance of getting top draft picks. But all A League teams would receive equal chances at draft spots. And all B League teams would receive equal chances at draft spots.

Lottoing off the first 4 or 5 instead of 3. Flattening the odds at the top like 1-3 all have 12%, 4-6 all get 7%, and so on makes sense.

I've always wanted it so if a team wins one year, they can't pick 1st again the next year. I'm ok if you pick in top 3, you can't win top 3 again the next year. Of course it's per team, not traded picks prior to the lotto.

[Gant]

Read on Twitter

The problem with this is there's already a huge money cost to losing in nearly every stream of revenue. Teams already have a monetary reason to win.


As far as the general topic: There's a very good reason for the draft and a very good reason for the lottery. If they make it difficult for hopeless teams to improve through the draft, they will create a deeper problem of perpetual competitive imbalance that's worse than the current system.

They might tweak the odds, and that could be worthwhile. A radical change will be hard to implement though, as small market teams will not give up aspects of the lottery that help them compete.

No matter what they do, they won't stop tanking, only modify it.

[Celts17Pride]

Lottery reform is long overdue. Embarrassing for the NBA teams tanking and literally throwing games. Support lottery reform 100%. Take away the incentive to lose.

Bad teams have no right to complain. Their abuse of the system has brought about these changes. Thank you Philly. It's the right thing to do.

[Froob]

Lottery reform is long overdue. Embarrassing for the NBA teams tanking and literally throwing games. Support lottery reform 100%. Take away the incentive to lose.

Bad teams have no right to complain. Their abuse of the system has brought about these changes. Thank you Philly. It's the right thing to do.

Some of these teams with a tanking rep just suck though, Orlando hasn't been trying to tank yet ends up top 5 almost every year. Aside from Philly, who has really been hard core tanking? Changes so you can't do things like sit out a healthy Bledsoe for the rest of the year are good, but do we really think trapping teams in mediocrity is really a good thing for the league?

It's already incredibly difficult to build a good team, there's gotta be big changes to the system if we want to eliminate bad teams getting high picks.

[celticfan42487]

Read on Twitter

I have actually been thinking of that but with a more positive spin. League distributes tv deal revenue to teams based on number of wins including a large bonus for playoff appearances.

There is also a second way of doing it that may actually make the most sense given the large divide between the haves and have nots. Do what the Europeans do with some of their sports leagues. Have a two tiered league. The top 18 teams play in the "A league" for an NBA championship trophy. The bottom 12 teams play for a "B League" and compete for their own NIT type championship. Worst two teams in the "A-League" get thrown down to the "B-League" and the best two teams in the "B League" get upgrade to the "A League."

B league teams would receive less tv revenue (or even media interest) and would be far less attractive to free agents. The draft would be adjusted to give B League teams a higher chance of getting top draft picks. But all A League teams would receive equal chances at draft spots. And all B League teams would receive equal chances at draft spots.

Lottoing off the first 4 or 5 instead of 3. Flattening the odds at the top like 1-3 all have 12%, 4-6 all get 7%, and so on makes sense.

I've always wanted it so if a team wins one year, they can't pick 1st again the next year. I'm ok if you pick in top 3, you can't win top 3 again the next year. Of course it's per team, not traded picks prior to the lotto.

Both of those are easy fixes that sound good to me. Hell take them out of the top 3. That probably won't solve tanking though as no price is too high for a LeBron, Duncan year to get in that bottom 3.

Another post in this thread was make it the culm of a teams last 3 seasons for their records for pre lottery standings. I like that too, it still inspires a 76ers rebuild... but so does the current system. And it makes tanking at the end of the season less of a priority. Wouldn't mind seeing all 3 things go into effect. 1-3 have same odds, can't be in top 3 if you were #1 overall last year, lottery standings is in reverse order of the cumulative record for the previous 3 season.

[Darth Celtic]

Yeah, I don't think the league minds a team selling off all it's players, and being real1ly bad 1 year, as long as they attempt to improve every year. 1 true tank isn't an issue. Doing it 3 years in a row with no attempt to improve like the sixers is the "problem". Owners and NBA afraid Hinkie will get hired or the sixers actual become good making other teams try.

1 year tanks are fine.

[jmr07019]

I think they should do a live broadcast. 14 balls, and let the order fall where it may.

Last thing you need is 8th seed candidates tanking during the last week of the regular season.

Yeah flattening the odds gets really tricky.

I lean more to the idea of not repeating lottery winners. Teams will tank no matter what they try, don't want teams tanking out of the playoffs into the the top of the lotto like you said. Better to have one year tanks then teams have to get back to reality.

I agree 6-8 seeds tanking into the lotto could be a problem but that's why I wouldn't adjust the odds too much.

Team / Current Odds for #1 / What I propose
1 / 25 / 20
2 / 20 / 18
3 / 15.6 / 14
4 / 11.9 / 10
5 / 8.8 / 8
6 / 5.3 / 7.5
7 / 5.3 / 6.5
8 / 2.8 / 5
9 / 1.7 / 3
10 / 1.1 / 3
11 / .8 / 2.5
12/ .7 / 2
13 / .6 / 1.5
14 / .5 / 1

Something like that. I spent all of 3 minutes adjusting the odds but that coupled with drawing spots 4 and 5 would seem like a good solution. If tanking remains an issue after a few years then you flatten the odds a little bit more and draw the 6th pick as well.

[Froob]

Perhaps 7th and 8th seed could have same odds as around 10-14? Honestly though, I can't recall a team actually tanking out of the playoffs. I feel like this doesn't actually happen.

[Gant]

Last thing you need is 8th seed candidates tanking during the last week of the regular season.

Yeah flattening the odds gets really tricky.

I lean more to the idea of not repeating lottery winners. Teams will tank no matter what they try, don't want teams tanking out of the playoffs into the the top of the lotto like you said. Better to have one year tanks then teams have to get back to reality.

I agree 6-8 seeds tanking into the lotto could be a problem but that's why I wouldn't adjust the odds too much.

Team / Current Odds for #1 / What I propose
1 / 25 / 20
2 / 20 / 18
3 / 15.6 / 14
4 / 11.9 / 10
5 / 8.8 / 8
6 / 5.3 / 7.5
7 / 5.3 / 6.5
8 / 2.8 / 5
9 / 1.7 / 3
10 / 1.1 / 3
11 / .8 / 2.5
12/ .7 / 2
13 / .6 / 1.5
14 / .5 / 1

Something like that. I spent all of 3 minutes adjusting the odds but that coupled with drawing spots 4 and 5 would seem like a good solution. If tanking remains an issue after a few years then you flatten the odds a little bit more and draw the 6th pick as well.

This may be what they try but no matter how you do it the tank just changes form, it doesn't diminish. I'm not against it, as the end result will be delightfully entertaining.

Rewarding losing teams with the better slots in the draft is necessary for parity and for the protection of small market clubs who use it as a safety net. Take that away and problems arise that are much worse than tanking.

Modify the odds and expand the drawings, and tanking spreads from the very worst teams to bad and even mediocre teams. There's nothing wrong with that, but this is what will happen.

[Celts17Pride]

Lottery reform is long overdue. Embarrassing for the NBA teams tanking and literally throwing games. Support lottery reform 100%. Take away the incentive to lose.

Bad teams have no right to complain. Their abuse of the system has brought about these changes. Thank you Philly. It's the right thing to do.

Some of these teams with a tanking rep just suck though, Orlando hasn't been trying to tank yet ends up top 5 almost every year. Aside from Philly, who has really been hard core tanking? Changes so you can't do things like sit out a healthy Bledsoe for the rest of the year are good, but do we really think trapping teams in mediocrity is really a good thing for the league?

It's already incredibly difficult to build a good team, there's gotta be big changes to the system if we want to eliminate bad teams getting high picks.

There is no substitute for good management. Celtics were a 25 win team and now are a 50+ win team in four years because they have good management. The NBA is not suppose to protect teams from themselves.