Author Topic: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.  (Read 10484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #75 on: October 22, 2014, 07:45:01 PM »

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3275
  • Tommy Points: 228
Basketball is the one sport where getting one superstar player can change everything.  None of the other major pro sports (hockey, football, baseball) can say that.  There is always going to be tanking when getting that one player can make all the difference in the world.  It's just the nature of the game.

agree, they should just do away with the lottery.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #76 on: October 22, 2014, 08:07:53 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
Basketball is the one sport where getting one superstar player can change everything.  None of the other major pro sports (hockey, football, baseball) can say that.  There is always going to be tanking when getting that one player can make all the difference in the world.  It's just the nature of the game.

agree, they should just do away with the lottery.
What was Milwaukee supposed to do last year that they didn't? Orlando and Milwaukee were going to be horrible no matter what they did.

There will always be bad teams because talent will not be evenly distributed. The bad teams will lose. Look at the Lakers. The Lakers did not tank. But they were horrible. Partially due to injury, partially due to the Howard and Nash acquisitions and the blocking of the CP3 trade. The only way to get rid of losing teams is to declare every game a tie.

It doesn't matter what system we have. So long as there are potential transcendent top picks, people will rant about tanking no matter what teams do.

If people don't like the lottery helping tanking teams, they must be happy with Cleveland winning last year since Cleveland made all sorts of moves last season in an attempt to win.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #77 on: October 22, 2014, 08:23:07 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Why don't they punish the teams via revenue sharing?

Ok. How?

They've got a repeater tax for luxury tax teams. Why not a tax on terribleness? I'm sure it'll have to be a Rube Goldberg combination of clauses and conditions, but I bet they could figure out a prohibitive tax that works.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #78 on: October 22, 2014, 08:40:19 PM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47114
  • Tommy Points: 2401
Why don't they punish the teams via revenue sharing?

Ok. How?

In English Premier League

Quote
English broadcast income for clubs is generated in three parts: 50% shared between the 20 clubs equally, 25% in facility fees and 25% in merit payments which depend upon where a club finish in the league table. Facility fees are paid to each club every time their matches are shown on UK television

NBA could do something along the same lines. Everyone gets an equal share on first payment (largest sum - to provide enough money to stimulate competition). Then a second payment dependent on team's regular season record (place in final standings - to reward good teams). And, if they so wish, a third payment based on number of TV appearances (again, to reward good teams + usually teams who play attractive style of play + have built larger fan-bases).

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #79 on: October 22, 2014, 10:19:48 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5945
  • Tommy Points: 4586
Great news that the change was not passed. Horrible proposal, mostly just because of Philly. It would have been a disaster for small market teams.

This part I don't understand, and I've seen it mentioned before (like in Woj's article).  So someone explain to me how this unfairly hurts small market teams?

Small market teams struggle to attract star players, so their only hope is to draft them.  Okay I get it so far.  But why would they be less likely to get a good draft pick in the proposed system?  Why would this help large market teams?

I mean look at this last season.  You had one large market team (NY) and one small market team (Phoenix) finish 9th in each conference, and one large market (Philly) and one small market team (Milwaukee) finish with the 2 worst records in the league.  Why would the proposed reform help NY more than Utah, Phoenix, or Minnesota (unless of course the lottery is rigged  ;))?

The big market teams have actually done pretty well in the lottery, winning almost half the lotteries in the last 20 years ('95, '96, '98, '99, '01, '02, '07, '08, '09, '10).  I just think this would help the small market teams more (since there's more small market teams in general, and there tends to be more small market teams in the lottery).  It seems like teams like Utah, Phoenix, Minnesota, Charlotte, who have had plenty of 9th, 10th, 11th place finishes amongst them the last several years would benefit.

I mean sure if this system was in place in 2014, and New York or LA won it all, everybody would hate it.  But I don't see the how the new system puts the odds in their favor and benefits them more than any other team.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 10:41:00 PM by bdm860 »

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #80 on: October 22, 2014, 10:59:51 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Why don't they punish the teams via revenue sharing?

Ok. How?

In English Premier League

Quote
English broadcast income for clubs is generated in three parts: 50% shared between the 20 clubs equally, 25% in facility fees and 25% in merit payments which depend upon where a club finish in the league table. Facility fees are paid to each club every time their matches are shown on UK television

NBA could do something along the same lines. Everyone gets an equal share on first payment (largest sum - to provide enough money to stimulate competition). Then a second payment dependent on team's regular season record (place in final standings - to reward good teams). And, if they so wish, a third payment based on number of TV appearances (again, to reward good teams + usually teams who play attractive style of play + have built larger fan-bases).

EPL also has deregulation, which would solve tanking (and never work, of course).
Great news that the change was not passed. Horrible proposal, mostly just because of Philly. It would have been a disaster for small market teams.

This part I don't understand, and I've seen it mentioned before (like in Woj's article).  So someone explain to me how this unfairly hurts small market teams?

Small market teams struggle to attract star players, so their only hope is to draft them.  Okay I get it so far.  But why would they be less likely to get a good draft pick in the proposed system?  Why would this help large market teams?

I mean look at this last season.  You had one large market team (NY) and one small market team (Phoenix) finish 9th in each conference, and one large market (Philly) and one small market team (Milwaukee) finish with the 2 worst records in the league.  Why would the proposed reform help NY more than Utah, Phoenix, or Minnesota (unless of course the lottery is rigged  ;))?

The big market teams have actually done pretty well in the lottery, winning almost half the lotteries in the last 20 years ('95, '96, '98, '99, '01, '02, '07, '08, '09, '10).  I just think this would help the small market teams more (since there's more small market teams in general, and there tends to be more small market teams in the lottery).  It seems like teams like Utah, Phoenix, Minnesota, Charlotte, who have had plenty of 9th, 10th, 11th place finishes amongst them the last several years would benefit.

I mean sure if this system was in place in 2014, and New York or LA won it all, everybody would hate it.  But I don't see the how the new system puts the odds in their favor and benefits them more than any other team.

The basic idea is that larger markets have an inherent advantage over smaller market teams in terms of visibility, so they'll be more attractive to free agents, as well as increased TV rights and licensing costs (which is why the Knicks are still so valuable despite the fact that they're awful) that would help them continue to make enough money to keep running the franchise/go full Brooklyn and attempt to assemble a total contender from free agents.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #81 on: October 23, 2014, 12:01:22 AM »

Offline loco_91

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
  • Tommy Points: 145
too bad. It would've been great for the C's, assuming we pick 5th-10th this year.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #82 on: October 23, 2014, 12:32:57 AM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5945
  • Tommy Points: 4586
The basic idea is that larger markets have an inherent advantage over smaller market teams in terms of visibility, so they'll be more attractive to free agents, as well as increased TV rights and licensing costs (which is why the Knicks are still so valuable despite the fact that they're awful) that would help them continue to make enough money to keep running the franchise/go full Brooklyn and attempt to assemble a total contender from free agents.

Right, but how would the proposed draft reform affect any of that?  I'm not seeing how it hurts small market teams.  It doesn't make small market teams less desirable, it doesn't make large market teams more desirable.  It doesn't help New York win the lottery any more than it would Minnesota.

I'm just looking for an explanation on how it would be a disaster for small market teams, because the way I see it would give teams more of a chance to escape the NBA purgatory of being stuck in the 30-40 win range, and to me it seems like more small market teams get stuck there the most.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #83 on: October 23, 2014, 03:17:36 AM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
  • Tommy Points: 156

Right, but how would the proposed draft reform affect any of that?  I'm not seeing how it hurts small market teams.  It doesn't make small market teams less desirable, it doesn't make large market teams more desirable.  It doesn't help New York win the lottery any more than it would Minnesota.

I'm just looking for an explanation on how it would be a disaster for small market teams, because the way I see it would give teams more of a chance to escape the NBA purgatory of being stuck in the 30-40 win range, and to me it seems like more small market teams get stuck there the most.

While being stuck in 30-40 win purgatory is not desirable, this new lottery would've made it easier to get stuck in the hell that is multiple 50-60 loss seasons.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #84 on: October 23, 2014, 09:04:06 AM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
I would do a simple reverse the finishing order , first place picks last and so on.  To prevent tanking ....the first three picks of the lottery go to the back of the line for the following year .  Then after this they may return to the lottery the next year.  This keeps teams from tanking more than one year in a row......but still allows a rebuild .

Well said. I've often thought the most bogus thing about the lottery is not that an above average team wins once in awhile (Chicago with Rose, Cleveland with Wiggins) but rather when certain teams beat the odds multiple times within a timespan of say, 5-10 years.

It's annoying that the Magic won the rights to Shaq and Howard, two of the better big men of their respective generations. Similarly, the Spurs got two HOF big men in Robinson and Duncan in a span of 8 years. It's annoying that the Cavs won two years in a row, and after they got the best player of the aughts, LeBron James 5 years earlier.

There are many fan bases (Boston included) that haven't had a top overall pick in decades. It's fine to be rebuilding but the fact that you're in position to win the lottery again so soon is most often due to the fact that your organization sucks and/or your star left. Meanwhile, organizations that are well run may dip their toes into the lottery once in awhile, but since they are too competent they will never sink record-wise to the bottom of the pool for very long.

Anyway the main problem is still that there are too many teams. Basketball is a superstar sport and doesn't work with 30 teams that are all supposed to be competitively "equal." You've got the top few picks in an average draft having more value than anything the bad teams have on their roster and you expect them not to tank? And the top pick in a year where there's a Duncan is worth more than the entire rosters of half of the teams in the league.

With so many teams, there's really not a huge difference between the mediocre and bad teams in terms of their actual chances of someday competing for a title. And since this group is already so large, the mediocre team is penalized for being mediocre and not horrible. The horrible team doesn't even have a great shot at winning the lottery either but what other option do they really have? And at least after the first three picks they're guaranteed a spot based on record.


Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #85 on: October 23, 2014, 09:07:43 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
The basic idea is that larger markets have an inherent advantage over smaller market teams in terms of visibility, so they'll be more attractive to free agents, as well as increased TV rights and licensing costs (which is why the Knicks are still so valuable despite the fact that they're awful) that would help them continue to make enough money to keep running the franchise/go full Brooklyn and attempt to assemble a total contender from free agents.

Right, but how would the proposed draft reform affect any of that?  I'm not seeing how it hurts small market teams.  It doesn't make small market teams less desirable, it doesn't make large market teams more desirable.  It doesn't help New York win the lottery any more than it would Minnesota.

I'm just looking for an explanation on how it would be a disaster for small market teams, because the way I see it would give teams more of a chance to escape the NBA purgatory of being stuck in the 30-40 win range, and to me it seems like more small market teams get stuck there the most.

It means they can survive not winning the lottery because, in theory, they'd be better equipped to get out of being one of the worst teams in basketball even if they don't grab a top pick. If you're a team like Milwaukee, you need that guarantee that you're not going to finish outside the top four in order to get out of the basement. The Lakers don't -- they can just trade for Dwight Howard.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #86 on: October 23, 2014, 09:44:32 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
The basic idea is that larger markets have an inherent advantage over smaller market teams in terms of visibility, so they'll be more attractive to free agents, as well as increased TV rights and licensing costs (which is why the Knicks are still so valuable despite the fact that they're awful) that would help them continue to make enough money to keep running the franchise/go full Brooklyn and attempt to assemble a total contender from free agents.

Right, but how would the proposed draft reform affect any of that?  I'm not seeing how it hurts small market teams.  It doesn't make small market teams less desirable, it doesn't make large market teams more desirable.  It doesn't help New York win the lottery any more than it would Minnesota.

I'm just looking for an explanation on how it would be a disaster for small market teams, because the way I see it would give teams more of a chance to escape the NBA purgatory of being stuck in the 30-40 win range, and to me it seems like more small market teams get stuck there the most.

  The lottery is something of an equalizer. Trades, free agency and more spending money all favor certain teams. If they were guaranteed the same return from the lottery as everyone else you'd just be looking at a league where a few top teams regularly dominated the league. Conversely you'd have teams that don't attract FAs and don't have a fortune to spend that would average about 1 likely impact player from the draft every 5-6 years. It would get ugly in those towns. What if you're a team like Milwaukee from a year or two ago and you're 4 years away from your next top 5 pick? Ugh.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #87 on: October 23, 2014, 09:44:48 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
I have read that the average NBA team makes around $1 million in revenue for each home game they have in the playoffs. That's definitely incentive to finish in the playoffs rather than just out of the playoffs given the lottery odds of finishing with the 12th, 13th or 14th worst record
Yup, think of how hard team's avoid the luxury tax to get that 3-4 million dollars payment from taxpaying teams. Tons of roster moves are made for a few million dollars.

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #88 on: October 23, 2014, 10:16:29 AM »

Offline CFAN38

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Tommy Points: 420
Had another thought to add to this.


It maybe to complicated complicated but what if the league set up lottery bonus points? This system would be similar to training in association mode of NBA 2k. Through out the season team have goals to try to achieve and at the end of the season these goals become added percentage points in the lottery.

Using the current odds it could work like this.


    1  250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the #1 pick
    2  199 combinations, 19.9% chance
    3  156 combinations, 15.6% chance
    4  119 combinations, 11.9% chance
    5  88 combinations, 8.8% chance
    6  63 combinations, 6.3% chance
    7  43 combinations, 4.3% chance
    8  28 combinations, 2.8% chance
    9  17 combinations, 1.7% chance
    10  11 combinations, 1.1% chance
    11  8 combinations, 0.8% chance
    12  7 combinations, 0.7% chance
    13  6 combinations, 0.6% chance
    14 5 combinations, 0.5% chance


The points could come from the following.

5 game winning streak +1
10 game streak             +2
5 home wins in a row    +1
rookie of year                +4
1st team all rookie         +2
all defense player          +2
all nba player                 +4


10 game losing streak    -2
10 20+ pt loses              -2


I would do this along with my previous suggestions. (Make lottery for top 5 spots not 3 and prohibit consecutive trips to the top 3).



This system should create incentive for bottom dwelling teams to compete at the end of the season. Teams would ideally want to fall to the lottery get a top 3 pick then the next year build a team good enough to go on a few win streaks, not get blown out, and create a winning environment. A blatant tank like Phili's D-league roster of last seasons end would likely lead to some loss of combinations and there for a drop in %.


Mavs
Wiz
Hornet

Re: WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.
« Reply #89 on: October 23, 2014, 10:26:06 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
Points based on win streaks with arbirtrary end points is no way to run a business, its somewhat annoying in video games.

Adding media awards is also bad, you don't want media perception and lobbying to influence actual draft order.