The NBA’s radical new idea to stop teams tanking during the regular season to get a lottery pick might be completely out of left field, but it also might just work.
The new proposal, initially reported last week by Grantland’s Zach Lowe, completely eliminates the draft lottery in favour of a set draft order for every team for the next 30 years.
The plan would have each team slowly cycle through the draft slots and be guaranteed a top-six pick every five years. They’d have the number one pick once in a thirty-year cycle.
For example, a team picking 30th in the first season of this plan’s implementation would have the 19th, 18th, seventh and then sixth pick over the course of five years.
You can see the wheel itself in the above link.
Before we lose our heads, this plan can be considered something of a longshot. It would take years to implement, and the approval of three-quarters of the NBA’s ownership (although some, such as the Celtics’ Danny Ainge, are already on board).
Some major questions need to be answered.
How do you determine the starting positions for all 30 teams? Surely some teams will be unhappy with where they are slotted.
When should this new system be implemented? It couldn’t really begin until 2020 when all current draft pick trades have been finalised anyway.
There are numerous criticisms too.
Wouldn’t this punish bad teams? If they drafted a bust with their early pick they’d have to wait another five years for one.
Wouldn’t the best teams benefit the most? Imagine if the Heat, Spurs or Thunder got a first overall pick heading into this season.
These are fair criticisms, but they are also overblown.
A bad team will always draft poorly, regardless of how many lottery picks they have. Even if they hit on a winner, having one superstar surrounded by subpar talent is not a recipe for success (see: the Cleveland Cavaliers).
Likewise a good team will always make the most of their selections, regardless of where they are picking.
In short: well-run teams will still win, and poorly run ones will still lose.
Of course, this argument cuts both ways, if well-run teams will still win, why worry about them being punished with late picks for their success and just keep it as it is?
Then there’s the worry that the top-tier college prospects might hold off declaring for the draft if they know that a bad team is picking first and opt to stay in college for another year.
A concern. RT @spncrrr: @[me]Wouldn’t this system allow top college players to “aim” for certain teams and stay in school as long as needed?
— Zach Lowe (@ZachLowe_NBA) December 23, 2013
This would be even more of an issue if next year’s number one team was a winning one.
But that’s a little far fetched. Realistically, the vast majority of college prospects have no idea where they’ll be picked. Even Andrew Wiggins’ draft stock has fluctuated this season, and he’s no longer a slam-dunk number one overall pick.
Talked to a bunch of NBA guys before the game. The gap has closed between Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker for the No. 1 pick.
— Jeff Goodman (@GoodmanESPN) December 20, 2013
The point of these changes are not to make it easier for bad teams to get good players or harder for good teams to remain competitive, it’s to completely eliminate tanking from the game.
In that goal alone, this new plan would be completely successful, as it removes all incentive for a team to throw the season.
In fact, the less competitive teams might benefit from these changes, as they would enjoy more fans coming to their games in the second half of the season if they knew their team was trying to win.
The fact is tanking exists in the NBA, and it’s not hidden or hinted at like it is in other American pro sports leagues, it’s painfully obvious.
When an anonymous NBA general manager directly states to ESPN that their plan is to tank this season, it’s clear that there’s an issue.
“This season we want to develop and evaluate our young players, let them learn from their mistakes — and get us in position to grab a great player. The best way to do that is to lose a lot of games,” the anonymous GM reportedly told ESPN’s Jeff Goodman.
It’s a stain on the Association, and this plan, as flawed and crazy as it seems, would completely eliminate tanking from the game.
That’s good enough for me.
What do you think Roarers? Would this radical system work?
Dominic is a US sports editor and writer based in Maryland, USA. You can follow him on Twitter @AussieAudible
Cameron Mee
Roar Guru
One suggestion raised for the NHL draft that could translate across to the NBA Draft is determining the Draft order based on teams winning percentage once they've been eliminated from playoff contention, team with the highest winning percentage in that period gets the number one pick. Obviously a few flaws, if a team is eliminated with one game to go and they win that match, their 100% win record should not give them the Number One Pick, but if the flaws are ironed out, it would encourage teams to remain competitive once eliminated from playoff contention
mushi
Guest
I don’t know people always look at sports leagues as if the teams are competing with each other in a business sense. Remember that the NBA is the overall business/cooperative and the teams are individual franchises. The NBA as a whole cares about competing with other forms of entertainment, not do the Lakers make more money at the expense of the Grizzlies. If you ran a company that had 30 fast food franchises would you encourage them to use resources to compete against each other or would you structure the allocation of resources so that as a unit the 30 compete better against other fast food outlets in your market? Everyone that introduces capitalist competition concepts to sports leagues keeps missing the point that they are all part of the same company. Then you might say ... why would you want weak divisions! Because in real life businesses you have synergies, scale and other benefits that aren't quantified on a direct revenue/profit return. In sports leagues you need opponents for games, there might only be 16 “strong” markets but if you get 14 more “weak” teams you just created an opportunity for 15 “strong” events versus 8. The key is to have the “weak” teams as competitive as possible so that the match up still attracts attention. Also as a side note one of the biggest economic myths perpetuated, is that the US is a free market capitalist meritocracy. I remember undergrad lecturers repeated explaining to us fundamental economic concepts and then saying but the US doesn’t work like that As to the “pyramid” the restrictions on drafting age still apply and why would the league as a whole want it? At the moment they have a free farm system.
Bob Anderson
Guest
Completely STUPID idea. I prefer something more along the lines of having a reverse order for the bottom six teams with the team finishing with the 24th best record picking first, 25th picking second, etc, and the 30th best team picking sixth, then 23rd picking seventh, 22nd picking eight, 21st picking ninth, etc. This would not completely eliminate the possiblity of teams tanking but it would make it far less prevelent. Honestly, though, if its such a big deal, there's always promotion and relegation. Works for soccer.
Norfolk
Roar Rookie
So weird that one of the most capitalistic game or 'market' upholds values in socialism. Maybe that could form a basketball pyramid and force teams to have academies (ala european football). College basketball teams can offer college and Boston can offer millions of dollars. Haha, wait for the abuse...
mushi
Guest
The three year thing has been kicked around and for mine seems the most obvious solution that retains the "purpose" of the draft
mushi
Guest
Cynical yes but in an all else being equal kind of world the only two way to differentiate talent is free agency or coaching both of which typically go towards money and exposure.
Ryan
Guest
I think the NBA could potentially look at expanding the lottery to include the last say 3 (or more) years performance therefore making it hard for sides to perform at approx .500 one year, tank the following year for a deep draft and than continue on their merry way; which i think is the major concern. Sides who perform poorly over an extended period of time will get what they currently recieve, and a little bit of help just as they improve. It would make it virtually impossible for a side like 76ers to completely tank this year as they have previously finished 16th and 19th overall; therefire reducing the ability and temptation to tank. Sides would also not be punished for sudden improvements on a generally fragile roster as they know they are likely to recieve a top 5-10 pick based on previous years performance e.g Phoenix or Pelicans It could potentially make it harder to tank, or have the opposite effect of long-term tanking which would be disastrous. But i feel that may be unsustainable for many clubs trying to hold onto players such as Rondo at Boston or Wall at Wizards who would surely leave if they knew the side was activately tryng to be bottom 5 for 3-4 years. Although I believe the current system is satisfactory, still worth a thought.
Mark Pybus
Roar Guru
Agree is wasn't necessarily new but it has certainly been talked about earlier in the season than previous years. It also takes the mystery/uncertainty out of the team building process if GMs can plan their 2020 team in 2015 with a good amount of detail.
Dominic Davies
Expert
You've hit the nail on the head here mushi, what's lost in this proposed change is the fact that the draft at its most basic level is supposed to promote competition by giving the less competitive teams a chance to get better. This new system would undermine that, as Ryan above states. It's kind of cynical to suggest that the biggest franchises would still stay on top because they're more attractive to free agents, but it's also very true. Perhaps I will revise my position on this, let me think about it some more.
Dominic Davies
Expert
Not sure I'd agree that tanking only became a thing this season, but your point is well made. However, while it might all be blown up out of proportion when a team's GM admits to the practice it's pretty distressing.
Adam Smith
Guest
Terrible idea, leave it the way it is.
Brent Ford
Roar Guru
I like the idea I hate the look of teams getting rolled by 20-30 points because they want draft picks, been pleasantly suprised early by the 76ers who play hard "sometimes". I think the system is fair and could work well, but then if a team up top gets the number 1 pick it would be ludacris. Will have to wait and see!
Tony Loedi
Roar Guru
Wouldn't it be easier to put every team in the lottery with the same chance of getting the no1 pick?
Mark Pybus
Roar Guru
I think the NBA is trying to solve a problem that doesn't really need to be solved. Not every team is going to be competitive all the time and if they continue to struggle then free market forces do their thing and the team gets sold and/or moved. The Suns were meant to be tanking this season but I don't think their are many Suns fans complaining about their position now. I really hope the league doesn't make a knee jerk reaction and alter the draft process because the word "tanking" became a thing this season.
mushi
Guest
All of those are zero sum games though wooblies. So if everyone “gets” better no one gets better, meaning it is not an option for every team to simply improve. The end game here is pretty obvious that attractive free agent and/or big market teams will big winners under this type of scenario, which is why Ainge is happy, as a team like Boston has a natural advantage in terms of exposure and revenue that small market teams can’t compete with. If you need only 8 guys to say no or abstain to stop it then I can’t see this one getting up.
WoobliesFan
Guest
You get better at making trades, you trade for talent, you get better management, top-tier coach, etc. .....you simply get better at business or you deserve where you always end up.....
Ryan
Guest
I think Its one of the most ridicoulous systems suggested in a long time. I cant believe people can support a system where potentially a team at the top can get pick 1 and teams struggling can get low lottery picks; supporting their irrelevance for years to come. How do you get people to support a struggling team when they know very little elite talent will be coming into the side for 3-4 years? At least now fans of struggling team have renewed hope each yeah. I could go on and on but you have listed several critiscms that I think are the main issues , and really I think it simply undermines what the draft is intended to do.
Doug
Guest
Sounds reasonable. The purpose of a draft is to allow fair access to talent for all teams. There doesn't need to be a propping up of incompetent teams by rewarding them for being bad.
gurudoright
Guest
An easier way would be for all the teams that didn't make the play-offs go into a random draw for draft picks, once those clubs have had a draft pick, the play-off clubs can pick in order of being knocked out from the play-offs. This way there is no need to tank unless you want to miss out on the play-offs.