Author Topic: Anti-tanking suggestion  (Read 653 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anti-tanking suggestion
« on: March 26, 2018, 02:34:31 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Tommy Points: 442
A friend of mine had this suggestion, going to run it by you guys to see what you think about it.

The basic concept is that the lottery will be divided into two groups, top 7 and bottom 7 of the 14 lottery teams. Now, the order of the pick in each group will be determined by the team's record in their last few games (my friend suggested 15) and that tie breakers will be a knockout game between the teams.

Pros:

-Tanking will have a negative effect, as it means getting a lower pick
-More meaningful games at the end of the regular season

Cons:
-There will still be tanking to avoid getting into playoffs or going to 7th slot instead of 8th, slightly mitigated by lower chance of getting a good last 15 record
-more games, which could mean more injuries

You guys can add a few, these are just some of my thoughts on his idea.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2018, 03:28:38 AM »

Offline trickybilly

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3611
  • Tommy Points: 432
So like the #8 pick could very well be the 14th team? And the #1 pick could go to the 7th team?

But impossible that the 14th team could get, say, the #1 pick

All determined by winning record?

That sounds pretty good actually. TP.



"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2018, 03:40:46 AM »

Offline libermaniac

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1812
  • Tommy Points: 171
There would be SERIOUS tanking to get from 8 to 7 though.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2018, 06:15:31 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4091
  • Tommy Points: 364
Two thumbs down. 

Tanking would start earlier to try to be in the bottom 7. 

The last 15 games vary widely in difficulty between teams.  Some bad teams would have a big advantage just because of their easy late season schedule. 

With only 15 games, there would be a lot of ties to resolve.  Three or more team ties would be rather common.  Knockout games aren't realistic or desirable.  Ties would be settled by coin flip as they are today.  At the end of the season, the focus should be on the playoffs.  Tanking just isn't that big of a problem. 

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2018, 07:58:44 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Tommy Points: 442
There would be SERIOUS tanking to get from 8 to 7 though.

Yeah that was my concern as well, as I told my friend. The plus side though is if you tanked enough to drop from 8 to 7, you have a lower chance to go higher than 7, since you know, you intentionally lost games.

I think there are holes in this system, but I think its a fun discussion at least.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2018, 08:00:07 AM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
A friend of mine had this suggestion, going to run it by you guys to see what you think about it.

The basic concept is that the lottery will be divided into two groups, top 7 and bottom 7 of the 14 lottery teams. Now, the order of the pick in each group will be determined by the team's record in their last few games (my friend suggested 15) and that tie breakers will be a knockout game between the teams.

Pros:

-Tanking will have a negative effect, as it means getting a lower pick
-More meaningful games at the end of the regular season

Cons:
-There will still be tanking to avoid getting into playoffs or going to 7th slot instead of 8th, slightly mitigated by lower chance of getting a good last 15 record
-more games, which could mean more injuries

You guys can add a few, these are just some of my thoughts on his idea.

Nice attempt but bad idea. You missed a lot of cons that make it a terrible idea.

Sample Size - as pointed out, scheduled vary wildly and 15 games isn't nearly enough to get a representative sample size. I believe by record in the last 15 you mean that the BEST W-L record gets the 1st pick. So a team that is ravaged by injuries at the end of the year may very well end up with the worst pick because...well, because of this very arbitrary system. Not to mention that playoff teams that have secured their spots tend to rest starters, so that adds yet another layer of extreme variability that isn't generally present in a full 82 game schedule. In short, if a bad team drew a bunch of games against potential playoff teams from seeds 4-8 they'd be in an incredibly disadvantageous position compared to teams that weren't.

Tank Earlier - you're just pushing any tanking efforts to earlier in the year. If a team wanted to tank, they'd do so prior to the last 15 to guarantee a spot in the first 7 then play better.

Public focus - the NBA wouldn't like it because the focus would take away from teams trying to make the playoffs.

PR Disaster - the NBA also wouldn't like it because it would raise some serious issues. It is a certainty that a bad - bottom 7 - team would "win" the race to #1 by winning 10 out of their last 15. That's not even a question. That's a certainty. Then they'd win the #1 pick and the NBA would suffer a HUGE backlash because the appearance would be that the team tanked the first 67 games and could have actually been a playoff team but chose not to. It would be an epic PR disaster. I can't stress this point enough. There might even be lawsuits from disgruntled season-ticket holders that the team lost on purpose early in the year when they had the talent not to. It's a PR nightmare and would happen almost every season.

Mid-Bad Teams Losing More - and then finally you'd see some real tanking to get from 8 to 7 because of the chance of going from 8 to 14. In fact, I doubt you'd see many wins from any team from #6 to #8 as they all lobbied for that valuable #7 spot.

I've said this many times. There is no solution for tanking besides sheer randomness in draft position which opens up another HUGE can of worms that makes the system even more unfair.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2018, 08:15:46 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19563
  • Tommy Points: 927
I have no issue with tanking and think the system works just fine.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2018, 08:34:50 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Tommy Points: 442
A friend of mine had this suggestion, going to run it by you guys to see what you think about it.

The basic concept is that the lottery will be divided into two groups, top 7 and bottom 7 of the 14 lottery teams. Now, the order of the pick in each group will be determined by the team's record in their last few games (my friend suggested 15) and that tie breakers will be a knockout game between the teams.

Pros:

-Tanking will have a negative effect, as it means getting a lower pick
-More meaningful games at the end of the regular season

Cons:
-There will still be tanking to avoid getting into playoffs or going to 7th slot instead of 8th, slightly mitigated by lower chance of getting a good last 15 record
-more games, which could mean more injuries

You guys can add a few, these are just some of my thoughts on his idea.

Nice attempt but bad idea. You missed a lot of cons that make it a terrible idea.

Sample Size - as pointed out, scheduled vary wildly and 15 games isn't nearly enough to get a representative sample size. I believe by record in the last 15 you mean that the BEST W-L record gets the 1st pick. So a team that is ravaged by injuries at the end of the year may very well end up with the worst pick because...well, because of this very arbitrary system. Not to mention that playoff teams that have secured their spots tend to rest starters, so that adds yet another layer of extreme variability that isn't generally present in a full 82 game schedule. In short, if a bad team drew a bunch of games against potential playoff teams from seeds 4-8 they'd be in an incredibly disadvantageous position compared to teams that weren't.

Tank Earlier - you're just pushing any tanking efforts to earlier in the year. If a team wanted to tank, they'd do so prior to the last 15 to guarantee a spot in the first 7 then play better.

Public focus - the NBA wouldn't like it because the focus would take away from teams trying to make the playoffs.

PR Disaster - the NBA also wouldn't like it because it would raise some serious issues. It is a certainty that a bad - bottom 7 - team would "win" the race to #1 by winning 10 out of their last 15. That's not even a question. That's a certainty. Then they'd win the #1 pick and the NBA would suffer a HUGE backlash because the appearance would be that the team tanked the first 67 games and could have actually been a playoff team but chose not to. It would be an epic PR disaster. I can't stress this point enough. There might even be lawsuits from disgruntled season-ticket holders that the team lost on purpose early in the year when they had the talent not to. It's a PR nightmare and would happen almost every season.

Mid-Bad Teams Losing More - and then finally you'd see some real tanking to get from 8 to 7 because of the chance of going from 8 to 14. In fact, I doubt you'd see many wins from any team from #6 to #8 as they all lobbied for that valuable #7 spot.

I've said this many times. There is no solution for tanking besides sheer randomness in draft position which opens up another HUGE can of worms that makes the system even more unfair.

1) And why is that bad? If you are a team who became bottom 7 just because of injuries it means your team isn't as bad as teams who were bottom 7 despite being healthy. And those teams need a higher pick than you. Under that scenario, Duncan to Spurs can be avoided.
2) Playoff teams tend to rest starters. But what happens when we get tanking teams playing playoff teams that rest starters? Yep, very bad product with both teams not looking like they are trying at all.
3) If you draw potential playoff teams 4-8 that just means you have to try and win, or do you prefer that when this happens the tanking teams just lay down and accept the loss?
4) Tanking earlier- My concern as well, but it wont be that easy. 15 games is just a sample scenario. If you tank early and then start to play well, there's no guarantee you'd still be bottom 7. Tanking would be more risky because you have to take into account that you have to be bad, but still better than the rest.
5) Sure, but at this point Tankathon is drawing focus from the playoff battle as well. And I rather see teams fighting hard than intentionally lose.
6) I listed tanking in the 7-8 spot as my concern as well.
7) Oh sure, that could happen. But there's also a chance that another team is doing that as well and now instead of 10 wins you have to try and win 11. Plus teams that know they could get into playoffs try and do so. Why? REVENUES. There's a reason why teams who has very low championship chance still try to make the playoffs. MOST teams only tank when it is apparent they wont make the playoffs. Now if you're team is that bad that its safe to tank early because you have 0 playoff chance, you still have to try and win games because tanking early wont guarantee you a good pick.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2018, 08:49:00 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Tommy Points: 442

Mid-Bad Teams Losing More - and then finally you'd see some real tanking to get from 8 to 7 because of the chance of going from 8 to 14. In fact, I doubt you'd see many wins from any team from #6 to #8 as they all lobbied for that valuable #7 spot.


Actually I thought about it more, and it seems very risky to go for that no. 7 slot by tanking. Lets say 2 teams are tied for 7&8, they have 4 more games left, to have a higher chance to go to 7 you'd have to lose all those 4 games, which the other team can just as easily do. So you both go 0-4 last 4 games and end up tied. The mentioned tie-breaker is a knockout game. Now if you win, great you get no. 7 but if you lose, there's a huge possibility that due to your 0-4 last 4 games, you end up no. 14.

Now if you are those two teams, would you risk tanking to 7 with the a huge chance you drop to 14 if you fail, or just try to win as many as you can, and if you happen win enough that you drop to the second bracket, at least you have a decent record and most likely will pick 8-9?

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2018, 09:39:30 AM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
A friend of mine had this suggestion, going to run it by you guys to see what you think about it.

The basic concept is that the lottery will be divided into two groups, top 7 and bottom 7 of the 14 lottery teams. Now, the order of the pick in each group will be determined by the team's record in their last few games (my friend suggested 15) and that tie breakers will be a knockout game between the teams.

Pros:

-Tanking will have a negative effect, as it means getting a lower pick
-More meaningful games at the end of the regular season

Cons:
-There will still be tanking to avoid getting into playoffs or going to 7th slot instead of 8th, slightly mitigated by lower chance of getting a good last 15 record
-more games, which could mean more injuries

You guys can add a few, these are just some of my thoughts on his idea.

Nice attempt but bad idea. You missed a lot of cons that make it a terrible idea.

Sample Size - as pointed out, scheduled vary wildly and 15 games isn't nearly enough to get a representative sample size. I believe by record in the last 15 you mean that the BEST W-L record gets the 1st pick. So a team that is ravaged by injuries at the end of the year may very well end up with the worst pick because...well, because of this very arbitrary system. Not to mention that playoff teams that have secured their spots tend to rest starters, so that adds yet another layer of extreme variability that isn't generally present in a full 82 game schedule. In short, if a bad team drew a bunch of games against potential playoff teams from seeds 4-8 they'd be in an incredibly disadvantageous position compared to teams that weren't.

Tank Earlier - you're just pushing any tanking efforts to earlier in the year. If a team wanted to tank, they'd do so prior to the last 15 to guarantee a spot in the first 7 then play better.

Public focus - the NBA wouldn't like it because the focus would take away from teams trying to make the playoffs.

PR Disaster - the NBA also wouldn't like it because it would raise some serious issues. It is a certainty that a bad - bottom 7 - team would "win" the race to #1 by winning 10 out of their last 15. That's not even a question. That's a certainty. Then they'd win the #1 pick and the NBA would suffer a HUGE backlash because the appearance would be that the team tanked the first 67 games and could have actually been a playoff team but chose not to. It would be an epic PR disaster. I can't stress this point enough. There might even be lawsuits from disgruntled season-ticket holders that the team lost on purpose early in the year when they had the talent not to. It's a PR nightmare and would happen almost every season.

Mid-Bad Teams Losing More - and then finally you'd see some real tanking to get from 8 to 7 because of the chance of going from 8 to 14. In fact, I doubt you'd see many wins from any team from #6 to #8 as they all lobbied for that valuable #7 spot.

I've said this many times. There is no solution for tanking besides sheer randomness in draft position which opens up another HUGE can of worms that makes the system even more unfair.

1) And why is that bad? If you are a team who became bottom 7 just because of injuries it means your team isn't as bad as teams who were bottom 7 despite being healthy. And those teams need a higher pick than you. Under that scenario, Duncan to Spurs can be avoided.
2) Playoff teams tend to rest starters. But what happens when we get tanking teams playing playoff teams that rest starters? Yep, very bad product with both teams not looking like they are trying at all.
3) If you draw potential playoff teams 4-8 that just means you have to try and win, or do you prefer that when this happens the tanking teams just lay down and accept the loss?
4) Tanking earlier- My concern as well, but it wont be that easy. 15 games is just a sample scenario. If you tank early and then start to play well, there's no guarantee you'd still be bottom 7. Tanking would be more risky because you have to take into account that you have to be bad, but still better than the rest.
5) Sure, but at this point Tankathon is drawing focus from the playoff battle as well. And I rather see teams fighting hard than intentionally lose.
6) I listed tanking in the 7-8 spot as my concern as well.
7) Oh sure, that could happen. But there's also a chance that another team is doing that as well and now instead of 10 wins you have to try and win 11. Plus teams that know they could get into playoffs try and do so. Why? REVENUES. There's a reason why teams who has very low championship chance still try to make the playoffs. MOST teams only tank when it is apparent they wont make the playoffs. Now if you're team is that bad that its safe to tank early because you have 0 playoff chance, you still have to try and win games because tanking early wont guarantee you a good pick.

We're going to disagree. I think you're just glossing over the rather obvious issues. Look, I understand that no one likes being told their idea is bad. I could come up with half a dozen other issues with your suggestion, from the NBAPA complaining about players being rushed back to the system keeping bad teams from getting better. That's not a personal attack. It's just simply an idea that doesn't improve the tanking issue but does hurt the true reason for the draft - to promote some semblance of competitiveness (and perhaps even parity).

It doesn't matter what sample size you pick. You could pick 15, 20 or 25 games. The issue of a grossly unbalanced scale is still the same issue. One team is going to get a markedly easier road to the top pick than another. Given how predictable the NBA is at the start of the season (frankly, there are very few surprises in the NBA), that's going to create a negative running dialog from the time schedules are announced through the end of the year. There's going to be a team that everyone knows will be bad and will face a grueling end-of-year schedule. They're going to complain that the NBA has stacked the deck against them. And they'll be right.

Teams will just tank earlier. Every team will know the cut off on when the "run for one" (TM) starts, so they'll just accumulate enough losses to ensure they can end up with the 1st overall pick without bumping themselves to the different bracket. Under this scenario, there are more outright manipulations to lose to ensure that a team stays within that top 7. Let's say a team starts out that last sprint 0-10. If there's even a remote risk that winning a game will dump them to the 2nd group, they won't tempt fate. They'll do everything to lose at that point because there's no variability in this plan - unlike the current system. The more certainty you build into the system, the more manipulated it will be.

You entirely failed to address the recurring PR nightmare. Every single year it's going to be a black eye for the NBA. The same question every year, "why couldn't they play like that the rest of the year" is going to be asked and there's going to be no good answer. That issue will never go away and will magnify the tanking done earlier in the year. Do you think the NBA wants more light shone on tanking teams?

I appreciate the attempt. But it's a nonstarter, both for effectiveness and public perception.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2018, 01:04:08 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5164
  • Tommy Points: 345
My suggestion is to go back to the original method.  All those in the lottery have an equal chance at the top pick and all picks up for grabs.  Sure, you'll get some teams tanking out of the playoff picture but that's a tougher sell than trying to get from #5 to #1.  Some owners might actually want the money that comes with a playoff appearance.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2018, 11:50:36 PM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Tommy Points: 442
A friend of mine had this suggestion, going to run it by you guys to see what you think about it.

The basic concept is that the lottery will be divided into two groups, top 7 and bottom 7 of the 14 lottery teams. Now, the order of the pick in each group will be determined by the team's record in their last few games (my friend suggested 15) and that tie breakers will be a knockout game between the teams.

Pros:

-Tanking will have a negative effect, as it means getting a lower pick
-More meaningful games at the end of the regular season

Cons:
-There will still be tanking to avoid getting into playoffs or going to 7th slot instead of 8th, slightly mitigated by lower chance of getting a good last 15 record
-more games, which could mean more injuries

You guys can add a few, these are just some of my thoughts on his idea.

Nice attempt but bad idea. You missed a lot of cons that make it a terrible idea.

Sample Size - as pointed out, scheduled vary wildly and 15 games isn't nearly enough to get a representative sample size. I believe by record in the last 15 you mean that the BEST W-L record gets the 1st pick. So a team that is ravaged by injuries at the end of the year may very well end up with the worst pick because...well, because of this very arbitrary system. Not to mention that playoff teams that have secured their spots tend to rest starters, so that adds yet another layer of extreme variability that isn't generally present in a full 82 game schedule. In short, if a bad team drew a bunch of games against potential playoff teams from seeds 4-8 they'd be in an incredibly disadvantageous position compared to teams that weren't.

Tank Earlier - you're just pushing any tanking efforts to earlier in the year. If a team wanted to tank, they'd do so prior to the last 15 to guarantee a spot in the first 7 then play better.

Public focus - the NBA wouldn't like it because the focus would take away from teams trying to make the playoffs.

PR Disaster - the NBA also wouldn't like it because it would raise some serious issues. It is a certainty that a bad - bottom 7 - team would "win" the race to #1 by winning 10 out of their last 15. That's not even a question. That's a certainty. Then they'd win the #1 pick and the NBA would suffer a HUGE backlash because the appearance would be that the team tanked the first 67 games and could have actually been a playoff team but chose not to. It would be an epic PR disaster. I can't stress this point enough. There might even be lawsuits from disgruntled season-ticket holders that the team lost on purpose early in the year when they had the talent not to. It's a PR nightmare and would happen almost every season.

Mid-Bad Teams Losing More - and then finally you'd see some real tanking to get from 8 to 7 because of the chance of going from 8 to 14. In fact, I doubt you'd see many wins from any team from #6 to #8 as they all lobbied for that valuable #7 spot.

I've said this many times. There is no solution for tanking besides sheer randomness in draft position which opens up another HUGE can of worms that makes the system even more unfair.

1) And why is that bad? If you are a team who became bottom 7 just because of injuries it means your team isn't as bad as teams who were bottom 7 despite being healthy. And those teams need a higher pick than you. Under that scenario, Duncan to Spurs can be avoided.
2) Playoff teams tend to rest starters. But what happens when we get tanking teams playing playoff teams that rest starters? Yep, very bad product with both teams not looking like they are trying at all.
3) If you draw potential playoff teams 4-8 that just means you have to try and win, or do you prefer that when this happens the tanking teams just lay down and accept the loss?
4) Tanking earlier- My concern as well, but it wont be that easy. 15 games is just a sample scenario. If you tank early and then start to play well, there's no guarantee you'd still be bottom 7. Tanking would be more risky because you have to take into account that you have to be bad, but still better than the rest.
5) Sure, but at this point Tankathon is drawing focus from the playoff battle as well. And I rather see teams fighting hard than intentionally lose.
6) I listed tanking in the 7-8 spot as my concern as well.
7) Oh sure, that could happen. But there's also a chance that another team is doing that as well and now instead of 10 wins you have to try and win 11. Plus teams that know they could get into playoffs try and do so. Why? REVENUES. There's a reason why teams who has very low championship chance still try to make the playoffs. MOST teams only tank when it is apparent they wont make the playoffs. Now if you're team is that bad that its safe to tank early because you have 0 playoff chance, you still have to try and win games because tanking early wont guarantee you a good pick.

We're going to disagree. I think you're just glossing over the rather obvious issues. Look, I understand that no one likes being told their idea is bad. I could come up with half a dozen other issues with your suggestion, from the NBAPA complaining about players being rushed back to the system keeping bad teams from getting better. That's not a personal attack. It's just simply an idea that doesn't improve the tanking issue but does hurt the true reason for the draft - to promote some semblance of competitiveness (and perhaps even parity).

It doesn't matter what sample size you pick. You could pick 15, 20 or 25 games. The issue of a grossly unbalanced scale is still the same issue. One team is going to get a markedly easier road to the top pick than another. Given how predictable the NBA is at the start of the season (frankly, there are very few surprises in the NBA), that's going to create a negative running dialog from the time schedules are announced through the end of the year. There's going to be a team that everyone knows will be bad and will face a grueling end-of-year schedule. They're going to complain that the NBA has stacked the deck against them. And they'll be right.

Teams will just tank earlier. Every team will know the cut off on when the "run for one" (TM) starts, so they'll just accumulate enough losses to ensure they can end up with the 1st overall pick without bumping themselves to the different bracket. Under this scenario, there are more outright manipulations to lose to ensure that a team stays within that top 7. Let's say a team starts out that last sprint 0-10. If there's even a remote risk that winning a game will dump them to the 2nd group, they won't tempt fate. They'll do everything to lose at that point because there's no variability in this plan - unlike the current system. The more certainty you build into the system, the more manipulated it will be.

You entirely failed to address the recurring PR nightmare. Every single year it's going to be a black eye for the NBA. The same question every year, "why couldn't they play like that the rest of the year" is going to be asked and there's going to be no good answer. That issue will never go away and will magnify the tanking done earlier in the year. Do you think the NBA wants more light shone on tanking teams?

I appreciate the attempt. But it's a nonstarter, both for effectiveness and public perception.

Sure when you lose 0-10 you would do your best not to get into the second bracket. But you keep on forgetting one thing. Under the current system that team will just continue to lose and assure themselves of the best odds. A team going 0-15 intentionally will be rewarded 1st pick, you seriously prefer that?

Besides its not my idea, its an idea of my friend who's a Spurs fan. It has a lot of issues, and I actually suggested to him that I think its better if the placement will just alter the odds, rather than a fixed pick order. I just presented his general idea for a discussion as a respect, and rather than dismiss it outright because I prefer the current way of tanking, I tried to add to it and postulate from that

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2018, 01:42:28 AM »

Offline ChillyWilly

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 654
  • Tommy Points: 232
Only way to stop tanking is to get rid of the draft. The draft is the only hope some NBA fans have all season. Let teams tank away as long as it's not the Celtics!
Self proclaimed president of the fictional Troz3 fan club.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2018, 08:00:08 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
Sure when you lose 0-10 you would do your best not to get into the second bracket. But you keep on forgetting one thing. Under the current system that team will just continue to lose and assure themselves of the best odds. A team going 0-15 intentionally will be rewarded 1st pick, you seriously prefer that?

I'm not sure what you're talking about because no one has advocated that and under the existing system this isn't remotely true. A team that goes 0-82 isn't rewarded the 1st pick. They're rewarded the best odds which is currently a 1 in 4 chance and that drops to a 14% chance in 2019. Those aren't good odds at all.

I think the 15 game scenario is absurdly flawed so I don't care if a team goes 0-15 or 15-0. It's a bad idea.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Anti-tanking suggestion
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2018, 08:06:51 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
Only way to stop tanking is to get rid of the draft. The draft is the only hope some NBA fans have all season. Let teams tank away as long as it's not the Celtics!

Exactly. Imagine how excited the league would be right now under the wheel system if Golden State, Boston and Houston were the top 3 picks coming up.

If I were an owner in that scenario, I'd be like F-it and go full Donald Sterling.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.