Fixing the NBA lottery

[PtldPlatypus]

I think they should have a poker tournament, and the winner gets the #1 pick.

Great--The Blazers will finally give Sly that roster spot he's been begging for.

 

[Natebishop3]

Instead of a lottery, we have a poker tournament, and instead of money, they get chips based on their records. So even if you just barely missed the playoffs, if you're a good player you could still win the tournament.

 

[Boob-No-More]

It's kind of off the wall, but I like the YTW plan to fix the NBA draft:

How would it work? On the day before the regular season began, the NBA would hold a “You’re the Worst!” draft. Selection order for the YTW draft would be determined like any standard reverse-order draft—the team that had the worst win-loss record in the previous season would pick first, the team that had the best record would pick last. But the teams wouldn’t be drafting players. They’d be choosing the rights to another team’s position in the next NBA draft.

So, for example, the Minnesota Timberwolves, who finished this season with the worst win-loss record, would have the first YTW pick in the fall when the 2015–16 season started. One day before opening day, all of the league’s general managers would gather together in a room. The T-Wolves would look around that room and decide which team they thought would finish worst in 2015–16. (They would not be allowed to choose themselves, tempting as that might be.)

Minnesota general manager Milt Newton might predict that the Knicks would be the worst team next season. In which case he would shout, “You’re the worst!” while pointing at Knicks President Phil Jackson, stealing the Knicks’ position in the 2016 NBA draft. If the Knicks indeed finished worst next year, the T-wolves would then receive the top pick in the 2016 draft. If the Knicks finished with the third-worst record, the T-Wolves would receive the No. 3 pick. If they made the playoffs in the final spot, Minnesota would be stuck with the 15th pick, and Newton would probably be fired.

.

OK, since everyone is playing for someone else's draft pick, it removes the incentive to intentionally lose games. That's a step in the right direction.

I'd take it three steps further.

Ever since the last realignment, and with teams like Vancouver moving to Memphis and Seattle moving to the middle of a cow pasture, it seems like the NBA lacks real rivalries, specificly of the geographic nature. Temporary rivalries seem to come and go, usually based on meeting in consecutive years in the playoffs, but how many CLE fan are going to travel to Oakland to watch a regular season game against the Warriors. So, we need another realignment that helps foster geographic rivalries.

The NBA would also like to expand. Perfect, add two more teams (Seattle and Las Vegas) at the same time you realign the divisions. That gets us to 32 teams and now everything is in powers of two. That gives us four divisions of eight teams each. The top four teams in each division make the playoffs, the bottom four teams in each division have a Happy Summer.

In order to encourage geographic rivalries, the YTW would be done on a division by division basis. The YTW choosing order would still be based on the previous seasons records, but you can only pick a YTW team from within your division.

And to up the ante even further, all teams would play all other teams in their division 4 times per season (2 home and 2 away), and all other non-division teams twice a year (1 home and 1 away). That reduces the season to 76 games and would make it easy to eliminate all back-to-back games - which further reduces the need to "rest" players.

So, think about it, not only are you fighting your division rivals for the top four spots to make the playoffs, everyone would be playing their YTW team four times a year with the added incentive that beating them improves your own draft position.

Summary:
1) YTW draft methodology
2) Expand the league to 32 teams
3) Realign to 4 divisions of 8 teams each
4) Top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs
4) Play your division rivals 4 times a year, everyone else twice a year
5) Reduce the schedule to 76 games and eliminate all back-to-back games

Removes the incentive to lose on purpose. Removes reasons to rest players. Fosters geographic rivalries that will make regular season games more exciting and intense as there's more at stake. All teams in the division are battling to be in the top 4 to make the playoffs and trying to beat their YTW choice to improve their draft position.

BNM

 

[BBert]

what do you think of my idea?

I think it would be an improvement over what we have now.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It's kind of off the wall, but I like the YTW plan to fix the NBA draft:

.

OK, since everyone is playing for someone else's draft pick, it removes the incentive to intentionally lose games. That's a step in the right direction.

I'd take it three steps further.

Ever since the last realignment, and with teams like Vancouver moving to Memphis and Seattle moving to the middle of a cow pasture, it seems like the NBA lacks real rivalries, specificly of the geographic nature. Temporary rivalries seem to come and go, usually based on meeting in consecutive years in the playoffs, but how many CLE fan are going to travel to Oakland to watch a regular season game against the Warriors. So, we need another realignment that helps foster geographic rivalries.

The NBA would also like to expand. Perfect, add two more teams (Seattle and Las Vegas) at the same time you realign the divisions. That gets us to 32 teams and now everything is in powers of two. That gives us four divisions of eight teams each. The top four teams in each division make the playoffs, the bottom four teams in each division have a Happy Summer.

In order to encourage geographic rivalries, the YTW would be done on a division by division basis. The YTW choosing order would still be based on the previous seasons records, but you can only pick a YTW team from within your division.

And to up the ante even further, all teams would play all other teams in their division 4 times per season (2 home and 2 away), and all other non-division teams twice a year (1 home and 1 away). That reduces the season to 76 games and would make it easy to eliminate all back-to-back games - which further reduces the need to "rest" players.

So, think about it, not only are you fighting your division rivals for the top four spots to make the playoffs, everyone would be playing their YTW team four times a year with the added incentive that beating them improves your own draft position.

Summary:
1) YTW draft methodology
2) Expand the league to 32 teams
3) Realign to 4 divisions of 8 teams each
4) Top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs
4) Play your division rivals 4 times a year, everyone else twice a year
5) Reduce the schedule to 76 games and eliminate all back-to-back games

Removes the incentive to lose on purpose. Removes reasons to rest players. Fosters geographic rivalries that will make regular season games more exciting and intense as there's more at stake. All teams in the division are battling to be in the top 4 to make the playoffs and trying to beat their YTW choice to improve their draft position.

BNM

Love it. Winner. There is a potential for collusion (Suns and Lakers pick each other as their YTW teams and tank together), but it would be a major risk, so it'd be pretty unlikely.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Love it. Winner.

Thanks. It fixes so many problems and makes regular season games, even once teams clinch their playoff spots, more important, and therefore more exciting for the fans.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

So in that scenario, if you're a shit team AND the team that you pick ends up playing better than expected (like the Blazers last year), then your fans have literally nothing to get excited about.

Sounds pretty awesome to me.

 

[Boob-No-More]

So in that scenario, if you're a shit team AND the team that you pick ends up playing better than expected (like the Blazers last year), then your fans have literally nothing to get excited about.

Sounds pretty awesome to me.

Which causes you to fire your shit GM even sooner.

But, you're not 100% right. If your YTW choice is exceeding your expectations, at least you have four chances to beat them and improve your draft position. I would think your fans would get up for those games, or at least watch them with greater interest than your typical late season tank fest.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So in that scenario, if you're a shit team AND the team that you pick ends up playing better than expected (like the Blazers last year), then your fans have literally nothing to get excited about.

Sounds pretty awesome to me.

You would still have a draft pick, just not as good as you hoped, and you would have an opportunity to make a better YTW pick the next time.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It's kind of off the wall, but I like the YTW plan to fix the NBA draft:

.

OK, since everyone is playing for someone else's draft pick, it removes the incentive to intentionally lose games. That's a step in the right direction.

I'd take it three steps further.

Ever since the last realignment, and with teams like Vancouver moving to Memphis and Seattle moving to the middle of a cow pasture, it seems like the NBA lacks real rivalries, specificly of the geographic nature. Temporary rivalries seem to come and go, usually based on meeting in consecutive years in the playoffs, but how many CLE fan are going to travel to Oakland to watch a regular season game against the Warriors. So, we need another realignment that helps foster geographic rivalries.

The NBA would also like to expand. Perfect, add two more teams (Seattle and Las Vegas) at the same time you realign the divisions. That gets us to 32 teams and now everything is in powers of two. That gives us four divisions of eight teams each. The top four teams in each division make the playoffs, the bottom four teams in each division have a Happy Summer.

In order to encourage geographic rivalries, the YTW would be done on a division by division basis. The YTW choosing order would still be based on the previous seasons records, but you can only pick a YTW team from within your division.

And to up the ante even further, all teams would play all other teams in their division 4 times per season (2 home and 2 away), and all other non-division teams twice a year (1 home and 1 away). That reduces the season to 76 games and would make it easy to eliminate all back-to-back games - which further reduces the need to "rest" players.

So, think about it, not only are you fighting your division rivals for the top four spots to make the playoffs, everyone would be playing their YTW team four times a year with the added incentive that beating them improves your own draft position.

Summary:
1) YTW draft methodology
2) Expand the league to 32 teams
3) Realign to 4 divisions of 8 teams each
4) Top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs
4) Play your division rivals 4 times a year, everyone else twice a year
5) Reduce the schedule to 76 games and eliminate all back-to-back games

Removes the incentive to lose on purpose. Removes reasons to rest players. Fosters geographic rivalries that will make regular season games more exciting and intense as there's more at stake. All teams in the division are battling to be in the top 4 to make the playoffs and trying to beat their YTW choice to improve their draft position.

BNM

It also occurs to me that with your divisional restrictions, teams in stronger divisions could end up screwed. For instance the Pacific division you'd create (4 CA teams, 2 NW teams, LV & PHX) would have plenty of suckitude, but the other half of the west (which presumably would include DEN, UT, OKC, 3 TX teams, NO, & MEM) wouldn't have anyone worse than the Mavericks. Even if they were legitimately the worst team in the league, the best pick they'd be able to come up with would be New Orleans' #10 pick.

 

[Natebishop3]

What I think would be fun is if they switched to a zero sum DKP system. Each team is given the same number of points for the first draft.

Instead of having a lottery for pick position, you have a lottery for player position, and the draft order is a secret, so teams would have no idea when Fultz would be available to pick.

So instead of having a #1 pick, #2 pick, etc, it's possible that Fultz could go up 10th... or 15th. When Fultz is announced, teams do a silent auction style bid and the team that bids the most points gets to draft him. There would be a minimum bid for a player, and obviously a maximum bid based on available points.

This would make things interesting in a number of ways. Some teams might try to sit on their points for a chance at Fultz, while other teams might try to get talent for the minimum bid early on. So a smart team could potentially get a number of talented players in a draft for a low price. If two or three teams bid the same amount for a player, then the team with the worse record would win the bid.

Now here is where the zero sum would come into play: whatever points are spent would be redistributed among the other teams, so teams that spent very few points would have more to use in the next draft, while teams that used all their points would have very few to use in the next draft.

This would open up the possibility for some teams to be smart and spend very little to acquire good talent, while others might blow their entire load on one player and not have anything for the next draft.

 

[BrianFromWA]

What I think would be fun is if they switched to a zero sum DKP system. Each team is given the same number of points for the first draft.

Instead of having a lottery for pick position, you have a lottery for player position, and the draft order is a secret, so teams would have no idea when Fultz would be available to pick.

So instead of having a #1 pick, #2 pick, etc, it's possible that Fultz could go up 10th... or 15th. When Fultz is announced, teams do a silent auction style bid and the team that bids the most points gets to draft him. There would be a minimum bid for a player, and obviously a maximum bid based on available points.

This would make things interesting in a number of ways. Some teams might try to sit on their points for a chance at Fultz, while other teams might try to get talent for the minimum bid early on. So a smart team could potentially get a number of talented players in a draft for a low price. If two or three teams bid the same amount for a player, then the team with the worse record would win the bid.

Now here is where the zero sum would come into play: whatever points are spent would be redistributed among the other teams, so teams that spent very few points would have more to use in the next draft, while teams that used all their points would have very few to use in the next draft.

This would open up the possibility for some teams to be smart and spend very little to acquire good talent, while others might blow their entire load on one player and not have anything for the next draft.

I feel like this has Ted Stepien, Isiah Thomas and Billy King written all over it...

 

[BonesJones]

I like having a points system with the ten with the most points getting the best chance.

Something like 2 points for every loss before the all-star break, except for against teams within 5 games of you, where you get 1 point for winning those games.

After the all-star break, you'd get 1 point for every win. At the end, subtract the finishing position (1-14).

Then, make the lottery odds more even and draw for the top 10 teams, not top 3.

 

[Natebishop3]

I feel like this has Ted Stepien, Isiah Thomas and Billy King written all over it...

It would be so much fun to see some teams blow their load for a shitty player and then not have any points the following draft.