NBA Voting on Draft Lottery Reform Tomorrow

[Absolut]

equal chances for the top 3 picks, then go by record. and for the top 3 televise the shyt LIVE on tv. since its all equal chances, just toss lotto balls with the team logos and draw one ball for each of the top 3 picks, instead of some weird ass number combination done behind closed doors. it would silence the conspiracy theorists that think there is too much coincidence going on with the top of the lotto, which is certainly arguable

 

[Cladyclad]

So 48 win Phoenix gets the number one pick last year?

i would use the top four teams

 

[THEANGEL&THEGAMBLER]

The number of difference making players in the NBA is so small that you can be a trash GM and still make the playoffs or almost make the playoffs so rewarding that wouldnt help the issue

You had trash GMs who made a bunch of dumb moves in Detroit and Cleveland an those teams still missed the playoffs by just a few games

People just need to accept that if you are going to have a 30 team basketball league there will be many teams with long playoff dry spells

 

[BujuBoombastic]

There's no doubt in my mind that some of the people who endorse this change in order to deter tanking, are going to be the first ones bytching when the first "undeserving" team wins under that system. There is never going to be a perfectly fair system, there's always something to complain about with the result. If it's not a complaint about a big market team winning it, then it will be a complaint about a "tanking" team winning it, or a team that makes perpetual bad decisions and therefore doesn't deserve to be bailed out. You take away the lottery and just go by record like pre-1985, or at least make the lottery more heavily weighted towards the worst records, then everyone complains about tanking. If you make the lottery more balanced, then everyone complains about teams that aren't that bad winning it (rich get richer.) If you get rid of the draft altogether, and just have these amateur players be free agents, then everyone complains about the big market teams picking up all the best amateur talent and ruling the league. Some things just can't be perfectly fair and satisfy everyone, and even if it could be perfectly fair, that won't satisfy everyone either since some people don't want it to be fair, but rather just want it to benefit whatever team they have a vested interest in but are too cowardly to admit it.

 

[FTBS]

They DO. That's how most teams get to where they are. It's almost impossible to get to a certain level in the NBA without getting through that murky point of the middle of nowhere. It's not even a fool proof plan THEN.

If anything, by doing that, you're proving what the NBA is dying not to admit (you're fukked if you pick anywhere after 10 by and large. THAT is the real problem and the only way to fix it is for better players to exist)

Who cares what they want to admit, it is what it is. Teams wouldn't be pushing for reform if that was so taboo.

It's not an issue of being fool proof, it's an issue of being fair and realistic. You need superstars in the NBA. You shouldn't have to completely suck to have a realistic shot at them.

That JUST happened and everyone bytched and yelled conspiracy (Cleveland Cavaliers). Once that happened everyone wanted reform so that they're not so lucky.

If Philly wins, people will bytch. If Minny wins, people will bytch. If other random teams win, people will bytch. Why? How? That's what's been happening.

One team getting the top pick 3 times in a 4 year span is gonna raise eyebrows and rightfully so. If it was just this year, you don't see the hue and cry. The 6ers suck and are doing so on purpose and still I don't think that gets the same level of outcry as Cleveland. Nobody would've bytched about Minny like that and if they did so what...let them bytch. It's not so much about bytching as it is being fair.

 

[FTBS]

There's no doubt in my mind that some of the people who endorse this change in order to deter tanking, are going to be the first ones bytching when the first "undeserving" team wins under that system. There is never going to be a perfectly fair system, there's always something to complain about with the result. If it's not a complaint about a big market team winning it, then it will be a complaint about a "tanking" team winning it, or a team that makes perpetual bad decisions and therefore doesn't deserve to be bailed out. You take away the lottery and just go by record like pre-1985, or at least make the lottery more heavily weighted towards the worst records, then everyone complains about tanking. If you make the lottery more balanced, then everyone complains about teams that aren't that bad winning it (rich get richer.) If you get rid of the draft altogether, and just have these amateur players be free agents, then everyone complains about the big market teams picking up all the best amateur talent and ruling the league. Some things just can't be perfectly fair and satisfy everyone, and even if it could be perfectly fair, that won't satisfy everyone either since some people don't want it to be fair, but rather just want it to benefit whatever team they have a vested interest in but are too cowardly to admit it.

Complaining isn't a problem...valid complaints are. The entire purpose of the lottery was to deter tanking. If they had kept it the way it was originally (where it was an actual lottery) this wouldn't be as big of an issue. There is nothing rich about a 37 win NBA team breh. Beyond that, the NBA was most successful and popular when the actual rich were getting richer (Lakers an C's getting top picks while competing for championships).

 

[nieman]

Damn I never thought about the impact this change would have on small market teams. It is true though, the draft is the only way for small market cities to get a star player.

I was all for the NBA changing the draft lottery until I read that. Just keep the lottery the way it is.

The real way for small market teams to get a star is through trades, not drafting. The risk is still the same as if being drafted, how do you know they will stay?

 

[tremonthustler1]

Who cares what they want to admit, it is what it is. Teams wouldn't be pushing for reform if that was so taboo.

It's not an issue of being fool proof, it's an issue of being fair and realistic. You need superstars in the NBA. You shouldn't have to completely suck to have a realistic shot at them.



One team getting the top pick 3 times in a 4 year span is gonna raise eyebrows and rightfully so. If it was just this year, you don't see the hue and cry. The 6ers suck and are doing so on purpose and still I don't think that gets the same level of outcry as Cleveland. Nobody would've bytched about Minny like that and if they did so what...let them bytch. It's not so much about bytching as it is being fair.

It IS fair. The lottery is supposed to be a way to ensure some sort of competitive balance where it otherwise doesn't exist. Cleveland winning a lottery means they have dumb luck, the same way some old rich white family figures out how to win Powerball.

The thinking is that if there's less incentive to "tank" teams will somehow make smart moves that they otherwise aren't making which is a load of crap. Where Philly is 100% on point is that they have a long term mentality because what's the point in playing for today if you ain't winning? In other sports you can sell the dream of "you never know. It could be your year" but in basketball we know. We all know.

 

[tremonthustler1]

The real way for small market teams to get a star is through trades, not drafting. The risk is still the same as if being drafted, how do you know they will stay?

The logic is that players obviously will take the 4 years given to them + 4 or 5 year extension. Even that's beginning to not be a guarantee anymore.

 

[FTBS]

It IS fair. The lottery is supposed to be a way to ensure some sort of competitive balance where it otherwise doesn't exist. Cleveland winning a lottery means they have dumb luck, the same way some old rich white family figures out how to win Powerball.

The thinking is that if there's less incentive to "tank" teams will somehow make smart moves that they otherwise aren't making which is a load of crap. Where Philly is 100% on point is that they have a long term mentality because what's the point in playing for today if you ain't winning? In other sports you can sell the dream of "you never know. It could be your year" but in basketball we know. We all know.

A weighted system is at it's very essence unfair . You can't ensure competitive balance in the NBA but pushing all the top players to the worst squads certainly isn't gonna help though. Allowing halfway decent squads a shot at top talent does far more for competitive balance than force feeding them to the bottom feeders. Cleveland was bullshyt, plain and simple, and there should be a mechanism beyond this reform put in place to address that (limits on top picks in a certain span, not eligible for top pick in consecutive years etc.).

For me it isn't as much about tanking as it is teams trying to do the best with what they got. There is no reason for a bottom feeder to do this under the current system. I get why Philly is doing what they are doing, I just think the system should be changed so they don't have to do that. We have gone back and forth before and agree that the treadmill is the worst spot to be in. That doesn't make any logical sense...it's better to completely suck than be average. What is wrong with a system that gives teams that aren't horrible but aren't quite the good a decent shot at landing that Lebron or Duncan or KD?

 

[tremonthustler1]

A weighted system is at it's very essence unfair . You can't ensure competitive balance in the NBA but pushing all the top players to the worst squads certainly isn't gonna help though. Allowing halfway decent squads a shot at top talent does far more for competitive balance than force feeding them to the bottom feeders. Cleveland was bullshyt, plain and simple, and there should be a mechanism beyond this reform put in place to address that (limits on top picks in a certain span, not eligible for top pick in consecutive years etc.).

For me it isn't as much about tanking as it is teams trying to do the best with what they got. There is no reason for a bottom feeder to do this under the current system. I get why Philly is doing what they are doing, I just think the system should be changed so they don't have to do that. We have gone back and forth before and agree that the treadmill is the worst spot to be in. That doesn't make any logical sense...it's better to completely suck than be average. What is wrong with a system that gives teams that aren't horrible but aren't quite the good a decent shot at landing that Lebron or Duncan or KD?

A weighted system is supposed to assist really bad teams. The thing you and the NBA can't get over is the idea that really bad teams actually exist. They do. Most aren't really there by choice. The Sixers are where they are because they suck, not because they didn't try. The guys they jettisoned off to other places are gone for the same reasons teams looking to retool shed dead weight.

The bolded is simply sports in a nutshell, from the Wolves to the Yankees. That's how it's been done. That's how it will be unless you think blatantly telling teams you can't ever get your hands on top amateur talent is a good idea.

Doing the best with what you got in NBA language is lowering expectations. If you're halfway decent, guess what? Someone's helping you get to that point (more often than not it was a top pick). There just isn't a plan in place to have more variable results for teams without a better pool of talent to choose from. That's nobody's fault really.

In a weird way, my team is a litmus test for what you're taking about. A 40 win team last year that isn't tanking, tried to get more vets in the mix, traded for the #1 pick and still managed to keep their franchise player. We'll see how much it actually helps.

 

[FTBS]

A weighted system is supposed to assist really bad teams. The thing you and the NBA can't get over is the idea that really bad teams actually exist. They do. Most aren't really there by choice. The Sixers are where they are because they suck, not because they didn't try. The guys they jettisoned off to other places are gone for the same reasons teams looking to retool shed dead weight.

The bolded is simply sports in a nutshell, from the Wolves to the Yankees. That's how it's been done. That's how it will be unless you think blatantly telling teams you can't ever get your hands on top amateur talent is a good idea.

Doing the best with what you got in NBA language is lowering expectations. If you're halfway decent, guess what? Someone's helping you get to that point (more often than not it was a top pick). There just isn't a plan in place to have more variable results for teams without a better pool of talent to choose from. That's nobody's fault really.

In a weird way, my team is a litmus test for what you're taking about. A 40 win team last year that isn't tanking, tried to get more vets in the mix, traded for the #1 pick and still managed to keep their franchise player. We'll see how much it actually helps.

I get that bad teams exist. The problem is that decent teams are in a worse position than them. I am not saying bad teams should never get a shot at top talent, I am saying everybody should.

Since you can't increase the talent pool, why not increase the number of teams with a shot at said talent?

Which team are you referencing?

 

[muzikfrk75]

New teams that may block it include the Pellies and the Heat

They trying to corral those votes like Frank Underwood

 

[nomoreneveragain]

Reform didn't get the 23 votes required

17-13

 

[nomoreneveragain]