My idea to fix teams on tanking the lottery

[Duderonomy]

Have the lottery after 50 games. :eek:

[OldSkoolball#52]

Wouldnt be fair because different schedules can make teams look better or worse. Gotta wait till all the games are played.

Just give everyone not in the playoffs an equal chance. The current system is pretty dumb. Teams tank anyway. They want the best odds.

[Crystallas]

Not broken.

[gts]

Simple cure get rid of the lottery altogether, worse team gets the number one pick, second worse the second pick etc etc etc

The number one pick in the draft is free of any CBA contract restrictions the other first round picks are held to, he can demand as much money as he wants, if the player and team do not reach a contract within a preset time frame he becomes a free agent only available to the remaining bottom 9 teams in the league under the same contract terms.

If he does not reach a deal with one of those teams he becomes available to all the other teams under the same contract terms a second round draft pick would operate under.

[iamgine]

Just eliminate the lottery and set money incentive instead. Be worst team in the league? Get #1 pick but pay the league money worth 1% of that year's salary cap for every loss - wins. Be the best team? Get some of that money.

So for example Orlando's record is 20-62. They get #1 pick but have to pay (1% of '13 salary cap) * (62-20) which should turn out to be about $25 million.

Miami's record is 66-16. They get the last pick but gain (1% of '13 salary cap) * (66-16) which should turn out to be about $29 million.

[Sarcastic]

There is nothing wrong with tanking. It happens in every sport. The Cleveland Browns are tanking this year and no one gives a shit. But when teams do it in the NBA everyone loses their mind, and they make threads about it on bball websites.

[NewYorkNoPicks]

The system is fine

The team with the worst record can end up with the 4th pick in the draft...you dont think that encourages fair play? Historically many times the team with the worst record doesnt even end up with the 1st pick anyway

[andremiller07]

Limiting the number of top 5 picks a team can get over a certain period of time imo would be good.

e.g If you get a top 5 pick (without trading) say in 2014 you can't get another top 5/10 pick for the next 2-3 seasons (unless you trade for it e.g how Cavs got Kyrie) meaning you have to make the right choice or suffer. That would be the best thing, forces more pressure on franchise to get the correct pick and allows those who run successful franchises to move up a couple spots in the draft maybe.

So if we were to use this years draft as an example (lets assume non of the picks were acquired by trade cause I'm not sure if they were)
The Cavs, Magic, Wizards, Bobcats and Suns would at best for the next 3 years only get as high as the 11th pick in the draft regardless off there record this season even if they finish with the lowest win totals.

This would only allow for very temporary tanking imo which is fine cause it has to be done. To often the middle tier teams get completely ****ed by the draft e.g those than finish consistently 9-11th in there conference this would allow these teams who are run better than the pathetic ones to move up in the draft.

[deja vu]

Just relegate them to the D-League or suspend them for a season. :lol

[ILLsmak]

There is nothing wrong with tanking. It happens in every sport. The Cleveland Browns are tanking this year and no one gives a shit. But when teams do it in the NBA everyone loses their mind, and they make threads about it on bball websites.

I think it's the sheer amount of teams that are tanking that is bothersome.

-Smak

[Haymaker]

Limiting the number of top 5 picks a team can get over a certain period of time imo would be good.

Exactly. It's wrong when the Cavs get the #1 pick twice in the span of 3 seasons. If a team gets the #1 pick, they should wait for 5 years before being able to do it again.

[andremiller07]

Exactly. It's wrong when the Cavs get the #1 pick twice in the span of 3 seasons. If a team gets the #1 pick, they should wait for 5 years before being able to do it again.
With the Cavs but it's fine cause they traded for it, but if they didn't trade for it I agree.

[DukeDelonte13]

Exactly. It's wrong when the Cavs get the #1 pick twice in the span of 3 seasons. If a team gets the #1 pick, they should wait for 5 years before being able to do it again.

technically one was the clippers' pick.


system is fine. Many small market teams have refused to tank. A few do. If its not your team why do you even care? Only people that should care are fans of that partiular franchise. Lots of fans in cleveland were unhappy with the tanking and were demanding the cavs make moves to get to the playoffs in kyrie's second year which i think is completely stupid. Teams should have the freedom to tank and risk losing their fan base.

[Doranku]

technically one was the clippers' pick.


system is fine. Many small market teams have refused to tank. A few do. If its not your team why do you even care? Only people that should care are fans of that partiular franchise. Lots of fans in cleveland were unhappy with the tanking and were demanding the cavs make moves to get to the playoffs in kyrie's second year which i think is completely stupid. Teams should have the freedom to tank and risk losing their fan base.


Honestly, you don't even need to say technically.

How can you blame a system for something that had less than a 1% chance of happening?

[Living Being]

Just relegate them to the D-League or suspend them for a season. :lol
Who's that in your avatar?:applause:

[Akrazotile]

Bump