Give me some new ideas for the Lottery.

[wdleehi]

Here's a crazy, off the wall idea.....how about the team with the worst record actually gets the first pick, the team with the second worst record gets the second pick, the third the third pick and so on all the way down the line.

I hope that's not too radical of an idea.

That would be the way I would do it. 


Bad teams are bad.  Tank or no tank. 

[fairweatherfan]

Do it the old way - all 14 teams each get one pingpong ball, and an equal chance at each pick.  No possible incentives for tanking unless tanking means deliberately missing the playoffs.  No propping up of perpetually lousy franchises. 

Reveal the order in reverse over the course of the 30 minute draft show - instead of spending the first 20 minutes talking about who the representatives are and showing viewers what a ping-pong ball machine looks like, show a few picks over the course of each segment and slowly build up the drama until revealing the #1 pick (skipping over the #2, of course) at the very end.  More fairness, a more exciting setup, and less chance of giving crappy franchises like the Clippers a chance to screw a good player up.

[guava_wrench]

 Tp Jssad. that's my greater point it's just a way to manipulate

 the system. Can't believe more people don't see this. It's too obvious.

And here I thought he was being sarcastic.

What is funniest about these conspiracy theories is the overwhelming amount of evidence against these views, such as San Antonio winning, etc.

These kinds of conspiracy theories are common problems due to the general illiteracy in statistics and critical thinking. No adjustments to the lottery will fix those problems. Perhaps 'NBA Lottery for Dummies' books and videos could help the challenged understand.

It would be nice to see some studies on the psychology of basketball fans and the lottery.

[nickagneta]

Here's a crazy, off the wall idea.....how about the team with the worst record actually gets the first pick, the team with the second worst record gets the second pick, the third the third pick and so on all the way down the line.

I hope that's not too radical of an idea.

I like the lottery, honestly.  It's entertaining, and it helps limit tanking.  Can you imagine how much tanking would have taken place if Duncan or Lebron had gone to the team with the worst record?

Honestly, in years in which an Oden/Durant or LeBron or Duncan are coming out, there's going to be a ton of tanking with or without the lottery. The 2006-07 season saw a embarrassing amount of tanking from the final five teams in the league as they all tried to get as bad as possible to have a better chance at getting one of the first two lottery picks. Boston tanked hooribly that year. The lottery didn't deter any tanking that year.

And in year's where there isn't a great class comng out, tanking doesn't happen that often. I think the quality of the players at the top of the draft determines just how much tanking there will be and regardless of a lottery, tanking will occur. If my premise is correct then why have the lottery other than to entertain and cause controversy that sparks talk about the product.

[guava_wrench]

 I think the lottery is Bogus. Shady Shady Shady. Cleveland gets Lebron James Wow big Surprise. This Year Blake to L.A.

 This year also after the announcer said only one guy knows whats in the envelope. He admitted Chris Webber already knew the results. The only sport that does it this way and I don't like it.

 I think at most there should be 3 teams with a shot at the #1 pick. If you want to tank your season for a top three pick than go ahead.

 Give me some ides people anything but how it's currently constructed. TP's for good Ideas.

Does anyone else question the plausibility of the idea that the lottery would be rigged for the Clippers to win? Considering how often they are in the Lottery, they should be expected to win some. Where is the evidence that the league would want the Clippers to get help considering they are in the exact same market as the Lakers, one of the leagues most popular teams?

This defies logic.

[bdm860]

How about some kind of contest:

A big game of 21, with one player from each team playing and with the tip-in-rule in full effect.  If you're at 19, miss shot and it gets tipped in, back to 0! NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Or a big game of Horse.  Send whatever player think gives your team the best chance.  Team with the worst record shoots first.

Or use the Horse idea, but instead of you picking a player from your team to send, the other 13 lottery teams (or 29 teams if you do everybody) get to vote on which player will represent you.  Just picture Shaq squaring off against Perkins, against Ben Wallace, against Dwight Howard in a game of Horse (no dunking allowed).  Good times.  Works well with any type of shooting contest.  Plus it makes guys who can't shoot even more of a liability to their team, which in turn encourages fundamental basketball which makes for a better NBA.  Everybody wins!

WWF Royal Rumble style?  All 30 teams represented, teams with the 2 best records send guys to the ring first.  Every 2 minutes after that another player enters with players entering in the order of their teams record, best record first.  Last man standing wins.  No guarantee tanking gets you anything, and everybody has a chance!

Just think if any of these were televised, and also think of how that would change rosters in the NBA.  Make a rule that a player had to play at least 300 minutes or something like that to make sure guys wouldn't sign some Horse stud (NEEEEEIIIGGGGGHHHHH) and just hide him with the 15th roster spot.

[fugazzi24]

How about this idea, the team with the best record that does not make the playoffs get the most ping-pong balls.  This would eliminate tanking because everyone would try to win as many games as possible late in the season to get a better draft pick.  

Imagine the last week of the season Golden State is playing Sacramento for a 5% better chance of getting Blake Griffin to the winner.  It would basically make the last two weeks of the season playoff style games for the entire group of lottery teams.  

Also think about next year, The Suns barely miss the playoffs, now they get the #1 pick and select Griffin to play the four.  They can work out a trade for Amare to another team and be a title contender.  

Or how about a team like the Bucks, who had some major injuries but still tried to win games.  If they could get a top pick and add Griffin to their Line-up.  With Redd, Bogut, Jefferon and Sessions that is a solid playoff team.  

I just like the idea of rewarding teams for trying harder and winning games late in the year.

[guava_wrench]

Here's a crazy, off the wall idea.....how about the team with the worst record actually gets the first pick, the team with the second worst record gets the second pick, the third the third pick and so on all the way down the line.

I hope that's not too radical of an idea.

I like the lottery, honestly.  It's entertaining, and it helps limit tanking.  Can you imagine how much tanking would have taken place if Duncan or Lebron had gone to the team with the worst record?

Honestly, in years in which an Oden/Durant or LeBron or Duncan are coming out, there's going to be a ton of tanking with or without the lottery. The 2006-07 season saw a embarrassing amount of tanking from the final five teams in the league as they all tried to get as bad as possible to have a better chance at getting one of the first two lottery picks. Boston tanked hooribly that year. The lottery didn't deter any tanking that year.

And in year's where there isn't a great class comng out, tanking doesn't happen that often. I think the quality of the players at the top of the draft determines just how much tanking there will be and regardless of a lottery, tanking will occur. If my premise is correct then why have the lottery other than to entertain and cause controversy that sparks talk about the product.

The lottery doesn't have to stop teams from tanking. It is more important that there is the possibility of not rewarding teams for tanking, like what happened to us in the Duncan lottery.

[cordobes]

Changes I'd like to see:

1) Televise the lottery.  I know it's a more complicated process than picking a ball with a team name out of it, but I'm sure fans could figure it out.

It would be less fun and entertaining though. I prefer it this way. It'd be like broadcasting the counting of the Academy Awards votes instead of just announcing who the winner is.

2) Randomize the numbers associated with a team's chances, rather than having them go in numerical order.  I'm sure a lot of people don't know what I'm talking about, but right now, there are 1001 potential four-digit lottery combinations that can be drawn.  Sacramento had 250 chances, but those chances weren't random.  Instead, Sacramento got all of the combinations that had a "1" in them, and I believe some of the "2"s.  Why go in order like that?  With computers, it would be very easy to randomize, and would end any suggestion that by manipulating the right ball, the NBA could guarantee who got the #1 pick.

The order isn't entirely sequential. Sacramento didn't get all the combinations with a 1 in them, they mix the combinations. Anyway, why would that make suggestions of manipulations less rare? Teams would still have combinations assigned to them, just different from the ones they'd get. I think that people who suggest the NBA rigs the lottery don't even know how the lottery works. Nothing will stop conspiracy theorists.

3) Give all teams with the five worst records equal chances, then teams #6 - #15 with a smaller number of chances, then teams #16 - #30 with an even smaller number of chances.

And run the risk of sending Griffin to Cavs? What would be the point? I'm fine with the lottery as a way to minimize blatant tanking, but in the end you still have to reward the worse teams, in order to keep the parity.

[guava_wrench]

How about this idea, the team with the best record that does not make the playoffs get the most ping-pong balls.  This would eliminate tanking because everyone would try to win as many games as possible late in the season to get a better draft pick.  

Imagine the last week of the season Golden State is playing Sacramento for a 5% better chance of getting Blake Griffin to the winner.  It would basically make the last two weeks of the season playoff style games for the entire group of lottery teams.  

Also think about next year, The Suns barely miss the playoffs, now they get the #1 pick and select Griffin to play the four.  They can work out a trade for Amare to another team and be a title contender.  

Or how about a team like the Bucks, who had some major injuries but still tried to win games.  If they could get a top pick and add Griffin to their Line-up.  With Redd, Bogut, Jefferon and Sessions that is a solid playoff team.  

I just like the idea of rewarding teams for trying harder and winning games late in the year.

Why not give the first pick to the team with the best record? They clearly tried hard.

[fugazzi24]

How about this idea, the team with the best record that does not make the playoffs get the most ping-pong balls.  This would eliminate tanking because everyone would try to win as many games as possible late in the season to get a better draft pick.  

Imagine the last week of the season Golden State is playing Sacramento for a 5% better chance of getting Blake Griffin to the winner.  It would basically make the last two weeks of the season playoff style games for the entire group of lottery teams.  

Also think about next year, The Suns barely miss the playoffs, now they get the #1 pick and select Griffin to play the four.  They can work out a trade for Amare to another team and be a title contender.  

Or how about a team like the Bucks, who had some major injuries but still tried to win games.  If they could get a top pick and add Griffin to their Line-up.  With Redd, Bogut, Jefferon and Sessions that is a solid playoff team.  

I just like the idea of rewarding teams for trying harder and winning games late in the year.

Why not give the first pick to the team with the best record? They clearly tried hard.

Parity that is what everyone wants and it will force teams to make better decisions and not keep dead weight coaches and GM's that cannot hack it.

[guava_wrench]

How about this idea, the team with the best record that does not make the playoffs get the most ping-pong balls.  This would eliminate tanking because everyone would try to win as many games as possible late in the season to get a better draft pick.  

Imagine the last week of the season Golden State is playing Sacramento for a 5% better chance of getting Blake Griffin to the winner.  It would basically make the last two weeks of the season playoff style games for the entire group of lottery teams.  

Also think about next year, The Suns barely miss the playoffs, now they get the #1 pick and select Griffin to play the four.  They can work out a trade for Amare to another team and be a title contender.  

Or how about a team like the Bucks, who had some major injuries but still tried to win games.  If they could get a top pick and add Griffin to their Line-up.  With Redd, Bogut, Jefferon and Sessions that is a solid playoff team.  

I just like the idea of rewarding teams for trying harder and winning games late in the year.

Why not give the first pick to the team with the best record? They clearly tried hard.

Parity that is what everyone wants and it will force teams to make better decisions and not keep dead weight coaches and GM's that cannot hack it.

Are you aware that it is impossible for all teams to have winning records? For one team to win, another team has to lose.

This does not mean the coach or GM is bad. It just means that we are dealing with a zero sum game.

[guava_wrench]

How about this idea, the team with the best record that does not make the playoffs get the most ping-pong balls.  This would eliminate tanking because everyone would try to win as many games as possible late in the season to get a better draft pick.  

Imagine the last week of the season Golden State is playing Sacramento for a 5% better chance of getting Blake Griffin to the winner.  It would basically make the last two weeks of the season playoff style games for the entire group of lottery teams.  

Also think about next year, The Suns barely miss the playoffs, now they get the #1 pick and select Griffin to play the four.  They can work out a trade for Amare to another team and be a title contender.  

Or how about a team like the Bucks, who had some major injuries but still tried to win games.  If they could get a top pick and add Griffin to their Line-up.  With Redd, Bogut, Jefferon and Sessions that is a solid playoff team.  

I just like the idea of rewarding teams for trying harder and winning games late in the year.

Why not give the first pick to the team with the best record? They clearly tried hard.

Parity that is what everyone wants and it will force teams to make better decisions and not keep dead weight coaches and GM's that cannot hack it.

How is giving Phx the best chance for the first pick encouraging parity then? You are going overboard.

[nickagneta]

Here's a crazy, off the wall idea.....how about the team with the worst record actually gets the first pick, the team with the second worst record gets the second pick, the third the third pick and so on all the way down the line.

I hope that's not too radical of an idea.

I like the lottery, honestly.  It's entertaining, and it helps limit tanking.  Can you imagine how much tanking would have taken place if Duncan or Lebron had gone to the team with the worst record?

Honestly, in years in which an Oden/Durant or LeBron or Duncan are coming out, there's going to be a ton of tanking with or without the lottery. The 2006-07 season saw a embarrassing amount of tanking from the final five teams in the league as they all tried to get as bad as possible to have a better chance at getting one of the first two lottery picks. Boston tanked hooribly that year. The lottery didn't deter any tanking that year.

And in year's where there isn't a great class comng out, tanking doesn't happen that often. I think the quality of the players at the top of the draft determines just how much tanking there will be and regardless of a lottery, tanking will occur. If my premise is correct then why have the lottery other than to entertain and cause controversy that sparks talk about the product.

The lottery doesn't have to stop teams from tanking. It is more important that there is the possibility of not rewarding teams for tanking, like what happened to us in the Duncan lottery.

So what you are saying is, if really bad teams try extra hard not to win somes games, then the lottery has the chance to screw them over because they didn't try 100% to win a game that they were more than likely going to lose anyway? I find that absurd.

Bad teams are bad teams. Is there any question whatsoever that Boston and Memphis were the worst teams in the league in 2006-07? None whatsoever as far as I am concerned. And yet because they didn't try to win games at 100% level late in the season they got screwed. You're the second worst team in the league and instead of getting Kevin Durant you get to chose Yi Jianlian? That seems pretty harsh punishment for not trying to win games that you were probably going to lose anyway.

[fugazzi24]

How about this idea, the team with the best record that does not make the playoffs get the most ping-pong balls.  This would eliminate tanking because everyone would try to win as many games as possible late in the season to get a better draft pick.  

Imagine the last week of the season Golden State is playing Sacramento for a 5% better chance of getting Blake Griffin to the winner.  It would basically make the last two weeks of the season playoff style games for the entire group of lottery teams.  

Also think about next year, The Suns barely miss the playoffs, now they get the #1 pick and select Griffin to play the four.  They can work out a trade for Amare to another team and be a title contender.  

Or how about a team like the Bucks, who had some major injuries but still tried to win games.  If they could get a top pick and add Griffin to their Line-up.  With Redd, Bogut, Jefferon and Sessions that is a solid playoff team.  

I just like the idea of rewarding teams for trying harder and winning games late in the year.

Why not give the first pick to the team with the best record? They clearly tried hard.

Parity that is what everyone wants and it will force teams to make better decisions and not keep dead weight coaches and GM's that cannot hack it.

Are you aware that it is impossible for all teams to have winning records? For one team to win, another team has to lose.

This does not mean the coach or GM is bad. It just means that we are dealing with a zero sum game.

I am well aware but it gives bad teams a reason to play hard every night.  Starting the seaons the Kings had no chance of winning the title but if they knew every game they won gave them a chance to get a better draft pick, rather than every game they lost it would make a difference.  

I am just looking for ways to keep teams from tanking and get teams to play hard all year.

How great was the game last night between LA and Denver!!  That was probably the hardest both teams have played all year.  

I want the last two weeks of the season when New Jersey plays Memphis for those games to be just as intense as last night.  It may not be the same talent level but it would make for a better overall NBA product.