Hello all, I'm a longtime lurker on here and decided to make an account. (Not sure if this should've gone in the "Around the NBA" or "The Draft Section," so I'm sorry if I chose the wrong one.)
All of this talk of a lottery odds and possible new systems got me thinking, and I always go back to one idea that I think would make the turnover rate of bad teams to good ones quick while also keeping the league competitive.
My idea is this:
1) The worst pick goes to the team with the worst record- This makes sure that the truly awful teams (2012 Bobcats, for example) do not miss out on the transcendant talents (Anthony Davis that year) and get stuck with the likes of a so-so player (MKG). This concept is used in all sports and should not be disputed. Now, you all may be thinking, "Won't that encourage tanking?" You're right- if it was by itself. On to the second part:
2) The lottery is kept, used to determine the picks of all teams that missed the playoffs- See Rule 3
3) Lottery odds are determined by days spent in the top 8 of your conference, with the highest odds (for #2) starting with the team that spent the most days in the playoff race. This does a few things. For one, it makes tanking a calculated risk. If you are a truly awful team, you are guaranteed the #1 pick. However, if you miss out, your odds go from the best possible ending to the worst one- the lowest odds at #2. This rule also makes the league incredibly competitive, especially early on. Even the teams that know they won't make the playoffs will fight really early on, scraping for those few extra days in the "playoff standings" before the law of averages works out. Also, teams that are "mediocre" will quickly add talent. Think the Sixers- they intentionally traded away talent (think Turner and now Thad Young) in order to tank. With this system, it would be much more risky- they could finish second worst and end up with #14. Conversely, if they kept the talent, they would have kept a more competitive team that had higher lottery odds. (Remember their early-season wins before the GM traded half the team?) This encourages competitive spirit. This system also award teams that push hard for the 7th/8th playoff spot and just miss. They can add good young talent and push for the playoffs the next year with a better roster. This system, by virtue of that, encourages teams in 8th seed contention, rather than scaring them away (because the "treadmill of mediocrity" is no more). And if teams do get the 8th seed, they are likely pushed out the next year by the 9th seed who added young talent, and then they get young talent to fuel their run.
Now this system is not perfect, I recognize that. Teams that tank and fail are in the "treadmill of turrible" as Charles Barkley would probably say. However, most GM's would not take the enormous risk of tanking, and if they failed, their team would probably bottom out somewhere in the next few years, anyway. However, I think this system solves a lot of problems, including the tanking, the truly awful teams, the "mediocre 7th/8th seeds," and the lack of competition/slow starts early on.
What do you guys think? I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this idea.