instead of ping pong balls, an idea to eliminate tanking.

[Moranis]

I should care about tanking why exactly?  I want my team to tank if they can't make the playoffs. 

[johnnyrondo]

I should care about tanking why exactly?  I want my team to tank if they can't make the playoffs. 

You enjoy rooting for your team to lose? I'd rather not have to sell off their better players and vets and instead try to win as many games as possible. For some reason I prefer rooting for the Celtics to win   The current system makes that difficult. Rooting for losses in 2007 and 1998 and other years wasn't much fun imo.

[wdleehi]

I should care about tanking why exactly?  I want my team to tank if they can't make the playoffs. 

You enjoy rooting for your team to lose? I'd rather not have to sell off their better players and vets and instead try to win as many games as possible. For some reason I prefer rooting for the Celtics to win   The current system makes that difficult. Rooting for losses in 2007 and 1998 and other years wasn't much fun imo.

How many years in between were the Celtics true contenders?


If the Celtics are not contenders and not really young, then I want them to be really bad.  It is the only way to get better.

[johnnyrondo]

Or do you start all over again with the 30 teams and go by decade? Because if you do is that fair to a team that got selected early one decade and late another decade making it 17-19 years between top three picks?

Again I never said each team was guaranteed one and only one top 3 pick a decade, but how many top 3 picks have the C's had in the past few decades. I can only think of the #3 pick in 1998.

You could always trade for a  draft pick in my system and that wouldn't affect your two top pick max (For example Gerald Henderson for 1986 first rounder).

[johnnyrondo]

I should care about tanking why exactly?  I want my team to tank if they can't make the playoffs. 

You enjoy rooting for your team to lose? I'd rather not have to sell off their better players and vets and instead try to win as many games as possible. For some reason I prefer rooting for the Celtics to win   The current system makes that difficult. Rooting for losses in 2007 and 1998 and other years wasn't much fun imo.

How many years in between were the Celtics true contenders?


If the Celtics are not contenders and not really young, then I want them to be really bad.  It is the only way to get better.

Yeah and I'm not a big fan of a system where the only way to improve is to be "really bad." According to the current system the NBA has that's a route you many teams have to take and I think its unfortunate and flawed.

[wdleehi]

I should care about tanking why exactly?  I want my team to tank if they can't make the playoffs. 

You enjoy rooting for your team to lose? I'd rather not have to sell off their better players and vets and instead try to win as many games as possible. For some reason I prefer rooting for the Celtics to win   The current system makes that difficult. Rooting for losses in 2007 and 1998 and other years wasn't much fun imo.

How many years in between were the Celtics true contenders?


If the Celtics are not contenders and not really young, then I want them to be really bad.  It is the only way to get better.

Yeah and I'm not a big fan of a system where the only way to improve is to be "really bad." According to the current system the NBA has that's a route you many teams have to take and I think its unfortunate and flawed.

It's what happens in a league built around superstars instead of teams. 

[crownsy]

even though the idea is great so that teams try to not tank on purpose to get a better chance at #1, like many have disputed it really wouldn't help genuinly terrible teams.

The lotto idea is really good imo. You have seen the celtics not get the 1st pick already when they should have in theory.

It wouldn't eliminate tanking, teams would just tank earlier to get eliminated with  more games to try to win, as a poster above said.

I appreciate the effort, but to me the draft system is the least of the NBA's problems.

[bdm860]

3. Use a weighted system mentioned by someone else here based on an average of the past 2-3 years.  Picks are based on the worst combined record.  That actually seems like a decent idea.  Prevents a good team with a 1-time dip from getting a top pick (hello SA grabbing Duncan).  That system would hopefully put an end to perenial losers and put a premium on GM skills to keep a team at a high-level without having to stink for several years to get a good pick.

At first I liked the idea of the weighted system, but there are negative effects too.  The weighted system would make it take much longer for some teams to rebuild. 

'99 Bulls had 13 wins (in a 50 game season) and the third worst record in the league.  Truly a pitiful team, definitelty deserving of consideration for one of the top picks in the draft.  But all the previous years their record was great (62, 69, and 72 wins), wouldn't the weigthed system theoretically make rebuilding take even longer for them, till they were far enough removed from the Jordan teams?  They were rebuilding for 6 years as it was, but the weighted draft could make things even worse.  Even knowing how bad it was after Bird, Parish, McHale, and Lewis left, think how much worse it would have been had there been a weighted system inplace.  Think how bad it could be after this current team is disassembled.