obviously there's a problem with the current system when a team like the cavs tanked to get bron, tanked to get kyrie, tanked last year and is tanking this season. if i had my druthers, the franchise would be contracted and the stadium burned to the ground with as many clevelanders inside as possible. it's the only way they'll learn.

but is there a better way to distribute college talent than the weighted lottery?

my solution would be to give the team with the worst record 30 balls, the team with the second-worst record 29, and so forth until the champion (who gets 1). it would eliminate tanking and give teams mired in mediocrity the chance to get a top pick without plunging into the abyss of ineptitude. the system of rewarding the worst-run organizations with the most valuable commodities in the sport is fucking ridiculous.

Id just make it an open lottery again so you cna land anywhere (including the bottom 3)


As we go through the doldrums of the NBA season shit sucks.
This wasnt really your point but
I mean 8 teams are separated by 8 games. At some point shit is just arbitrary. What makes Philly that much better than Sacramento?

What about just reversing the damn order and having the best Lottery team get the #1 lol. Then youd see teams wh are fighting for 8th and 7th just give up to get the #1. Shit i guess you can just give them the mst balls.


>obviously there's a problem with the current system when a
>team like the cavs tanked to get bron, tanked to get kyrie,
>tanked last year and is tanking this season. if i had my
>druthers, the franchise would be contracted and the stadium
>burned to the ground with as many clevelanders inside as
>possible. it's the only way they'll learn.
>
>but is there a better way to distribute college talent than
>the weighted lottery?
>
>my solution would be to give the team with the worst record 30
>balls, the team with the second-worst record 29, and so forth
>until the champion (who gets 1). it would eliminate tanking
>and give teams mired in mediocrity the chance to get a top
>pick without plunging into the abyss of ineptitude. the system
>of rewarding the worst-run organizations with the most
>valuable commodities in the sport is fucking ridiculous.

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

Just because you are fighting for the 14th worst record (and thus the top picks) in the league doesn't mean you have a chance to get it.

So the bad teams stay bad. Which is bad for the league.


The current lottery system works a lot better than people give it credit for. For every Cavs, there is a Bulls (Rose, 1.7% chance) or even Hornets last year (we won a bit down the stretch).

The worst team only gets a 25% chance, by no means a dunker.

I would advocate giving the 5-14 teams more weight in the lottery though. Having a 5% or less chance despite being a losing team doesn't seem fair.


I say weight the lottery based on record, not place in the standings. That would even it out a bit, and tanking would be more difficult and less effective.

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

Not their winning percentage specifically.

As of 2008, with 30 NBA teams, 16 qualify for the playoffs and the remaining 14 teams are entered in the draft lottery. These 14 teams are ranked in reverse order of their regular season record and are assigned the following number of chances

250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the #1 pick
199 combinations, 19.9% chance
156 combinations, 15.6% chance
119 combinations, 11.9% chance
88 combinations, 8.8% chance
63 combinations, 6.3% chance
43 combinations, 4.3% chance
28 combinations, 2.8% chance
17 combinations, 1.7% chance
11 combinations, 1.1% chance
8 combinations, 0.8% chance
7 combinations, 0.7% chance
6 combinations, 0.6% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance

Aka, if you have the second worst record by one game you have the same chance as if you have the second worst record by 5 games.

Like was said, some teams are bunched up but they could have a massive difference in where they draft based on one game difference. I say even this out a bit.


edit: Maybe I've worded this confusingly. I'm saying attach lotto weight specifically to number of wins, not a set order in the standings.

let me think about your solution though

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery

Seems like it's only happened 4 times in the last 27 years (Danny Manning, Derrick Coleman, LeBron James, Dwight Howard) - and the 2nd worst teams have gotten it 4 times in 27 years also.

I'm not saying it's not flawed, but tanking rarely works out how it "should".

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

And odds are it will be top 3

the point is that top picks go to the worst teams. look where the best players are drafted:

bron 1
paul 4
durant 2
harden 2
anthony 3
wade 5
bosh 4
griffin 1
duncan 1
westbrook 4

outside of foreigners and some high schoolers, there aren't any superstars who weren't taken that high. you might be able to get a jrue or a brook lopez in the teens, but there are very few superstars available that late. the reward for tanking is tremendous.

those teams that tanked. any of them won any titles any time lately?
nope.

so what's the deal?

players playing on/locked into "wack" teams?

gtfoh.

stop your bloodclaart crying.

And for all the years that they've been awful, they've only picked higher than 4th 3 times. I'm not the biggest conspiracy theorist in the world, but I would say there are bigger problems with the lottery than teams tanking to get into it.

I mean, the lottery should be designed to give the team with the worst records in the league the best chance to improve. Drastically improving the chances of the other teams to stop potential tanking is like killing an ant with a sledgehammer. There's no way to build fairly into the system a way to differentiate teams that are tanking and teams that just suck. Didn't work after 1984, can't think of a reasonable way that it will work now.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

In which losses with a star-depleted roster are given less weight? Weigh teams that miss the playoffs using a system that rewards teams that can't win with their ideal lineup on the floor rather than those who simply sit stars to stack the deck later.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

I mean, you'd have thought Tyreke Evans was a star after his rookie year, for example.

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

They might actually go as deep as five, I don't remember... but I think three for some reason.

If one of those contributors is out, that loss is weighed less heavily. Like Louisville's losses without Dieng, or Duke's losses without Kelly.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

anyway you try to eliminate the benefits of tanking, you'll be eliminating the chances a legit ass team has to improve, which is the point.

If the team is willing to suck enough and take the L's (on and off the court) that come with tanking, then let em get a higher % of balls, f it.

That being said, i've never rooted for my team to tank before.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

Edit I guess my memory is wrong after rereading

So its still weighted but you the worst team can theoretically land in the 14th spot and arent protected to stay in that top 4.

I really dont see why the worst team needs 9% better of a chance than they previously did in 1993, and thus an 8% chance better than the #2 team despite record.

And I like that the worst team could land anywhere in the Lotto--just not top 4. Your odds to land top 4 are still good, but they arent guaranteed--so even if you tank, you just increase your odds of a 1-4, but dont ock yourself in.

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

the worst teams should get the higher picks....

the environment that bore the lottery was one where you teams that were consistently horrible...regardless of who they got at the top of the draft....and owners who didn't seem dedicated to winning..

the climate is not like that any more....not really...

all the lottery really does is open the door for people to claim conspiracy theories....like last year..

Now.... if not get rid of it all the way.... at least limit it to the top 3 teams or so and 4th through the rest of the teams that dont make the playoffs goes by record..

I just think it's unecessary now...

and Im anywhere near the bottom. Theres gonna be a competition to be bad.

In Football and baseball 1 player doesnt hav ethe same impact it does in basketball

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

There's a difference between "tanking to get the best player in the draft" and "tanking to get a transcendent player that could potentially change the fortune of your franchise for years to come."

I can remember the latter only really happening four times: for Olajuwon, for Ewing, for Duncan, and for LeBron.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

Shaq

Cweb

Dwight

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

For the 1993 draft, there was no tanking involved, Dallas absolutely was the worst team in the league (and of course, they ended up being bumped out of the top three in the lottery).

Plus, with Howard in 2004, there was a lot of debate whether or not he was going to even be the the #1 pick. There was a lot of speculation that Okafor was the better bet.

Hell, even with Webber, some were making arguments that Bradley or Penny should be taken #1 overall.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

I mean it drasticlly improves ones chances....if you was gonna tank..you was gonna tank..


I'm sure 5 or 6 years from now when Thon Maker and that other 9th grade kid that's dunking on cats come out of college someone may want to tank..

but again..

what good did it do the Clippers to be horrible all those years before the lottery??

a horrible franchise will not become a champion based off 1 draft pick..regardless of how great the player is.

the lottery in itself was a punitive, idiotic move in hindsight... people mad because a team purposely lost to get the best player in the draft. well, sorry. that's the game. suck more next year.

the fact that there is a lottery opens the door to fuckery... Cavs getting Bron (which I also wish would not have happened) is a result of a "good story" and Stern, IMO.

-Sig-

“Why didn’t you do this in your own god damn country?"

-All Stah's view on undocumented immigrants wanting to be treated like human beings.

The 1st pic has a set salary....what like 3 million a year

Teams get increasing cash value towards the upcoming F/A period which they could use towards a contract amnesty or add it to the qualifying value...


it makes sense in my head...


so like with Omer Asik and the Bulls

The Bulls had a good record so as a reward they get the cash value off a rookie salary towards retaining a F/A or towards their cap, or if they want, amnesty payout of a bench contract player and then draft towards the future. With Asik getting that poison pill... if they get an additional $2 million bonus value for a good record each year towards retaining the player, then that last year bubble would be -6million off performance rewards.


If you suck, you get less money and a higher draft pick. So that #1 pick won't give you cash value you just get the #1 pick


That will stop tanking and teams will try to end the season with the best record possible so that they can get a higher cash bonus instead of 0 and the #1 pick

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
http://s17.postimg.org/6r7bfqpnz/kyrieglass.jpg - They Call Him Mr. Glass

draw balls for the first 3-5 picks or so, then do the rest in reverse order of finish.

finishing with the worst record gives you no lottery advantage over 2nd worst, 3rd worst, etc. but if you ARE bad, you can still get a top 4-6 pick if you don't win the lottery.

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

if there's a roughly a 1/5 chance of getting a top three pick, do you even try to make the playoffs when OKC or MIA are waiting in the first round?

I doubt you're gonna convince NBA players to tank and give up playoff money so that the team can potentially draft someone that's gonna take their job.

the owner gets more ticket revenue for playoff games as well.

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

Because there was a much better chance of a team with the worst record in the league getting the "worst" lottery pick. It happened the first year they did the lottery.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=1961044&mesg_id=1961044&listing_type=search

____________

Could the NBA do it like soccer leagues overseas?

U change the outcome for teams with losing records....Basically, if you r a losing team you get bumped down to a developmental league type situation, the same way soccer teams do it overseas....I like Argentina's way of doing it...They take an average of three seasons and then if you are among the bottom three or four you get relegated to another division...

So the 3 worst teams from the Western and Eastern conferences would lose out on the bulk of the TV money and financial rewards...The team that gets better ends up making it out of the dungeon...

So teams like Sacramento, New Orleans, and Charlotte will have more incentive to actually get better...Of course, owners would hate this shit...That's why it will never happen...lol

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Worst team in the league gets dropped to NBDL for a year....

NBDL team moves up into the League and gets the #1 pick

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
http://s17.postimg.org/6r7bfqpnz/kyrieglass.jpg - They Call Him Mr. Glass

____________

the first is no one would ever be okay with a number 1 pick going to north dakota or the rio grande valley or whatever.

the second is that it would concentrate talent in top markets. top tier people already don't sign with milwaukee...the next tier players definitely wouldn't if there was a risk of getting gated

it would fuck up finances...they'd have to do more to heavily subsidize the next level

and finally, people already complain about not enough talent out there to keep 30 teams interesting.

NBA for his rookie season

conversely, that would be huge ratings for D League games and attendance

the last overall #1 to come in the league and do something in the playoff I can think of is Duncan

I think most rookie years for #1s don't effect the outcome of an NBA season

"the second is that it would concentrate talent in top markets."

already happens

the league would have to pool some money to ensure the franchise doesn't go completely under

but is CHA selling out games?

"and finally, people already complain about not enough talent out there to keep 30 teams interesting."

right, so make it 29

I'm not moving up an NBADL team

just moving an NBA team down for a season

now that we've addressed the negatives

think about the positives

all these games that don't mean shit right now

all the sudden have meaning

franchises would be going hard trying NOT to be the next D League team

you'd essentially create a second race (competitive race that is)

the playoff race

and the next team to sit for a year

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

>NBA for his rookie season
>
>conversely, that would be huge ratings for D League games and
>attendance
>
>the last overall #1 to come in the league and do something in
>the playoff I can think of is Duncan
>
>I think most rookie years for #1s don't effect the outcome of
>an NBA season
>
>"the second is that it would concentrate talent in top
>markets."
>
>already happens

it would be so much worse. right now the top markets get top talent because they can take risks and because they have a media advantage. this would doom teams like san antonio or okc the second they fell out of contention because it would keep them from being able to claw their way back up. might even have doomed a team in a market like houston.

>the league would have to pool some money to ensure the
>franchise doesn't go completely under
>
>but is CHA selling out games?
>
>"and finally, people already complain about not enough talent
>out there to keep 30 teams interesting."
>
>right, so make it 29
>I'm not moving up an NBADL team
>
>just moving an NBA team down for a season

this is how i know you aren't thinking. what about the next season? they just get back in after a year of not really competing? with the assets they undoubtedly lost out on? you'd have to move someone else up and make it real. which would effectively make a 50-60 team pool.

>now that we've addressed the negatives

you didn't. it would compound the problem the nba has.

>think about the positives
>
>all these games that don't mean shit right now
>
>all the sudden have meaning
>
>franchises would be going hard trying NOT to be the next D
>League team
>
>you'd essentially create a second race (competitive race that
>is)
>
>the playoff race
>
>and the next team to sit for a year

no. desperation is not entertaining. we only like it when someone has a chance to win something that they didn't have before.

the relegation system works (and it doesn't work perfectly) in soccer because it has deeeeeep roots and teams have history. in the united states, tiered soccer isn't working.

and if somebody wants to cut a check I'll devote more time to working out every hole you can poke in the idea

but I think relegation could work

.

I don't really get your point about small market teams

because they're throwing away a season anyway by tanking

and I don't see the big difference

there's a handful of teams that suck every year

regardless

this would at least make it interesting

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

On a given day, the best team in the NBDL can play the Cavs and win some games...

Now imagine Cleveland got dropped to NBDL and Omaha brought up to NBA squad intact.

Now that Omaha gets Kyrie, they are better. They play the season and have the ability to not have the worst record. If Sac gets the worst record, then they are with Cleveland in the NBDL (provided Cleveland doesn't get the best record in the NBDL that season)

If you are Chicago, Miami, NY, LA...


hell Utah, Cleveland, Sacramento is the same shit as Omaha, Piedmont, or whever them teams are...


AND you have San Antonio and OKC that proves small markets with success = fans DGAF as long as you have good basketball.



bet you nobody tanks

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
http://s17.postimg.org/6r7bfqpnz/kyrieglass.jpg - They Call Him Mr. Glass

although really there just should be a shorter season.

the truth is people don't mind tanking that much. it gives us something to talk about and a minigame when the games for the heat and knicks start to not matter.

i think people overestimate how controllable all this is. yes, good gms and coaching matters, but it takes a lot of luck and patience too. as a spurs fan, i can tell you i've been scared shitless of what the next 10 years will be like for a while. it wouldn't take much to put them in a sacramento situation.

>i think people overestimate how controllable all this is. yes,
>good gms and coaching matters, but it takes a lot of luck and
>patience too. as a spurs fan, i can tell you i've been scared
>shitless of what the next 10 years will be like for a while.
>it wouldn't take much to put them in a sacramento situation.

This is my view...And on the real, that's why it would be interesting to keep an average of three seasons for losing teams, instead of just one. Because u don't want to punish a team for having ONE bad season because a few players got injured...

Like I said, the only thing that would be a complete roadblock to relegation in the Minor/D Leagues is the owners being scared, greedy bitches...

Because trust...If you are a terrible team and u find yourself in the D League, you would make better decisions in terms of who you pick in the lottery, trades, and your finances (given that they will be limited)...

And as u said...Imagine those scrub ass teams playing their hearts out just to get out of the basement late in the season? Indeed...all the games would matter...

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

I'd argue that OKC is NOT a small market team

being that they are SEA relocated

I would expect them to be dogshit soon enough

doesn't SAN prove that teams tank

and that it works

DRob could have played more games that year

but SAN tanked for Timmay

I would expect them to be dogshit soon enough too

is the success of 2 teams out of 30 an argument for or against small market teams?

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

>I'd argue that OKC is NOT a small market team
>
>being that they are SEA relocated
>
>I would expect them to be dogshit soon enough
>
>doesn't SAN prove that teams tank
>
>and that it works
>
>DRob could have played more games that year
>
>but SAN tanked for Timmay
>
>I would expect them to be dogshit soon enough too
>
>is the success of 2 teams out of 30 an argument for or against
>small market teams?

San Antonio is such an exception to the rule. They had a competent front office (which few professional sports teams have)...

hell part of the reason the Lakers don't ever stay sucking for long is because their FO is (largely) airtight.

because I would much rather see a team rebuild through FA and trades, than the draft to begin with

and isn't the NBA pretty structured as far as salaries

is there a payroll floor in the NBA

we know there's a cap (which the LAL seem to completely ignore, speaking to your genius FO comment)

I speaking to the small market issue being raised in this post

it's obvious that the system as currently constructed, really isn't helping small market teams as is

with guaranteed contracts, etc...

big name FAs still go to big markets

you can only really point to 2 teams that have had recent success in small markets

so I'd be for making BIG changes, where tanking (and if you want to argue the term, that's fine, we can call it rebuilding through the draft)

isn't as attractive of an option

as being a competitive team

now if that means relegate

or contract

etc...

I'm for it

in the end

I'm just tired of seeing the same handful of teams SUCK ASS every year

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

we don't even do it for soccer here, no way it would work for the NBA. you have teams like Charlotte who already have trouble filling the arena most nights. they basically bank off of top tier teams coming through to fill the arena. do you really think fans would support the team if they got relegated to a lower league? they would make no money and eventually cease to exist.

1. It works for soccer because no matter where you go overseas and whatever league the team is playing for, people are still interested and showing up to games. The international soccer fanbases are incomparable to fanbases of pro sports teams over here. Incomparable.

2. Aren't NBDL teams affiliated with 1 or 2 NBA teams each? How are you going to have NBDL teams filled with players who are technically under contract or at least claimed by NBA teams in the same league playing against them?

If they actually cared about creating a better outlet for players and development instead of fucking over Isiah Thomas, the situation would be better.

The CBA didn't have that problem being that it had a chance to build a fanbase and be a standalone league with a better farming system intact.


Had the CBA existed and you have an entire subleague of 30 teams expanded to small markets and other North American cities, you could have 2 more Canadian teams and a team in PR or Mexico all farming for NBA teams and providing an option for global play as well as keeping talent abroad.


NBA would be Premier League
CBA would have been Tier 2
NBA draft would be 3 rounds
Round 1-2 NBA and round 3 CBA
2nd round draft picks could make the team or develop on the affiliate team during the first year and the 3rd round pick has to spend a year with the CBA before being eligible to move up to he NBA (helps with one and dones)


NBA preseason you have NBA teams match with CBA affiliates and global exhibitions.


The league has bad planning and vision and the NBDL is run like crap.

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
http://s17.postimg.org/6r7bfqpnz/kyrieglass.jpg - They Call Him Mr. Glass

obviously, the league would have to pool money to ensure the franchise doesn't go completely under

but the issue isn't the draft

the draft works as constructed

the issue is TANKING!!!

RELEGATE dem fools

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

Yeah, it happens some of the time, but most of the teams that "tank" stink anyway. It's not like there's a huge wave of potential play-off teams that are packing it in too early in hopes of getting a shot at drafting the next superstar. The bad teams are consistently bad all season. If they bench their "best" players the last eighth of the season it hopes of improving their draft position doesn't change the fact that they also sucked legitimately for the other 7/8s. Most of these solutions are killing ants with elephant guns.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

I love how it's got to the point where everyone assumes every team in the lotto is tanking. I don't think this was the case ten years ago, but now this narrative has been accepted so much I feel like it doesn't even get questioned. Why? Has anybody uncovered recent evidence of a team specifically doing this to the degree that we need to completely scrap/overhaul the lottery? How come nobody freaks out when NFL teams spend like the last 3 weeks benching their starting QB?

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

and the lottery really does what its supposed to do pretty well.

I'm not saying teams are all tanking for 1st pick but this level of play at the end of the season is pretty subpar.

Like for the last 2 weeks game quality every night is ridiculous. Like 80% of games have key people out.

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

>I'm not saying teams are all tanking for 1st pick but this
>level of play at the end of the season is pretty subpar.

>Like for the last 2 weeks game quality every night is
>ridiculous. Like 80% of games have key people out.

Eh, besides the fact that it happens in every other sport, the last two weeks still only constitute less than 10% of the regular season. By that point, the "bad" teams in the league have long since made themselves known. They were bad before, they're more bad at the end. Changing the system based on that just seems pointless.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

if an nfl team starts resting players those last two weeks you still got lots of other people and prospects to watch. in baseball you got almost many players and a longer wait on prospects too.

at this point in an nba season it's unlikely that there are stones that haven't been unturned. though sometimes you get shit like dragic and bayless tearing it up at the end of last season.

like, if you're cleveland, you know what you've got with your starters. but what about the bench guys that see little game time, or the dude you signed to a 10 day contract? should you bring them back next year? are they projects worth developing, or should you just release them and look for someone else?

How else are you going to get answers without giving them some game time? why not do that after you've already been eliminated from playoff contention?

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

there are times (Cavs this season) where the intent was to tank, but they are pretty young and bad as it is.

the lottery is 100% bullshit.

with each win, you lose a ball until you're eliminated. then, each win gets you a ball and each loss takes one away.

i haven't done the math so i have no idea how gameable this is but fresh out of happy hour, it sounds cool.

>i haven't done the math so i have no idea how gameable this is
>but fresh out of happy hour, it sounds cool.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

And YES I know it benefited my team with Ewing, but with Stern slithering off into the forest, let's have clean slate. CLEAN. slate.

------------------
One Hundred.

>And YES I know it benefited my team with Ewing, but with
>Stern slithering off into the forest, let's have clean slate.
>CLEAN. slate.

your team wasn't smart enough to "tank". be mad at them. leave us outta your bullshit.

they just need to get rid of the lottery. wholesale.
tanking isn't the issue, IMO. it's the fact that there's too much politics in who gets what, DESPITE the rules they are going to get. if you don't think Stern is in it... you got another thing coming.

worst record gets the #1 pick. same as other sports. tanking in professional sports is going to happen, regardless. the politics surrounding it needs to go.

tanking shouldn't be "smart," because being bad is the easiest thing in the world to do. it's a crutch for a pathetic front office. that's why morey get props -- because he refused to ever do it.

and "tanking" rarely works out for those teams that do tank, anyway.
it's not even controllable or even effective, as others in this post.

if a team like the Bobcats was en route to a title in the next 2-3 seasons maybe this would be an issue. but the effect of "tanking" is overstated. I think this was a case of a few teams being mad at -THAT- team for getting TBPA over "tanking", that's why we have this bullshit lottery... which introduces the "Stern" factor. something I'm sure we know is behind certain drafts *cough2003cough*

GET RID OF THE LOTTERY.

more than anything else, that's the one thing I'd change about the NBA. It won't end "tanking", but lord it would help to end some of the more egregious political issues in the league.

that can even remotely substantiate anything foul going on in the current lotto system.

Last years lotto obviously forced me to confront this wave of people who insist that it is rigged, despite all evidence to the contrary. I always joked about it too, but damn if people aren't convinced its rigged. I mean shit, you can make a conspiracy case every year for almost every lotto team to get the top pick.


All lotto teams are represented at the drawing of the numbers, and witness the combinations being pulled. For it to be rigged so many factors would have to be in place its really hard to imagine. Unless the entire league is in on it.

And if it is rigged? Fuck it, thanks Sternlioni! Spread the wealth.

2003 (the reason this post was made), certainly was one I'd suspect. If I had a time machine... I'd hoist Bron on the Raptors. Or better yet, the Timberwolves. That is if they were nearly as suck as the Cavs were that season.

Though there was a bit of a flap thereabouts with all the craziness with moving Chris Paul out of NOLA and the team having league ownership... some might suspect it being part of a "package deal". But nah... Stern already saved face by vetoing the Lakers deal and making up for Donald Sterling's idiocy but a season earlier with the Clippers.

The lottery just complicates something that shouldn't be complicated. Tanking to ensure a high draft pick, even in the NBA, doesn't ensure that the team is going to be good or win a title just because it has TBPA. There are just too many factors that go into the relative "good" of a team.

I think this is just more madness that stems from LeBronies had to watch their Lord and Savior on a team they wouldn't ever root for.

I'm all for the abolishment of the lottery. If only because the reasons it was instilled was some BS in the first place.

the Grizz's pick was only top 1 protected, and they were in the final two with the Cavs. So when they pulled that card, it was either going to be that they got LeBron or they got NOTHING. and that's what they got.

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

...that they should just eliminate it. A lot more often than not, the team with the worst record in the league was legitimately awful that season, and they should get the first crack at that best talent.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

I mean, what would NBA writers write about in April? There's nobody worth tanking for this year yet, here we are, once again, having the tanking discussion.

Tanking has become an "issue" in the NBA because there are too many teams and too many games. You have a superstar driven league that has multiple teams with nothing to play for by the All-Star break. If you want to fix the league's problems, downsizing is the key. But since that will never happen, people dream up all sorts of ideas that won't really change much of anything.

But, realistically, most fans don't give a shit about tanking. It's part of the media echo chamber to give them something to talk about at the end of the season.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Only seven teams make the playoffs in each conference, then we have a 16-team, single-elimination tournament for the two 8-seeds in each conference.

Why call it the Entertaining As Hell Tournament? Because teams wouldn't be able to tank down the stretch and shut down the best players anymore. Because late-bloomer teams (like the Wiz) would be rewarded with a chance — repeat: a chance — at making the postseason. Because it's harder to get one of seven playoff spots instead of eight, and because teams like the Celtics and Lakers would be freaking out right now trying to get those 7 seeds. Because the real playoff teams would get a much-needed week of rest, instead of using the actual season for that rest (like Miami right now). Oh, and because it would be entertaining as hell!

Here's how easy this would be: Shorten the NBA season to 78 games, end it one week early, then make the EAH Tournament first round start Monday/Tuesday, followed by Round 2 on Wednesday/Thursday, then the Eastern/Western finals for the 8-seeds on Saturday afternoon … and then the playoffs start the following day?


----------
I Love That Dirty Water...Boston Your My Home