New Lottery Rule suggestion

[mmmmm]

i would also add in - scrap the one and done rule

You're right, you should be eligible at 18 years old or after completing high school, whichever comes first.

Enough of forcing these kids to go to college.  And the ones that do choose to go should be paid.

You [dang] well better bet if you are making millions off of my talent I am demanding to be paid for my labor.

This^ is the only proposed idea in this thread I agree with.

Young athletes that are good enough such that people want to pay tickets (& giant TV broadcast rights contracts) for to see them should get paid for their work.   The one-and-done rule is a form of restraint-of-trade and serves no purpose but to line the pockets of the NCAA executives and coaches.

If the NBA truly feels that some players need more development before they are ready for the NBA, then they should implement a stronger, better development league and stop putting their future talent at risk in the NCAA exploitation machine.

As for the lottery - since the last tweaking of the weighted lottery system, it has done it's job just fine.   It is not broken and does not need fixing.

[tazzmaniac]

I totally agree and have post a similar idea in the past.

Teams should not be allowed in the top 3 in consecutive years. I would make the rule work so that the team with the #1 pick is not top 5 eligible the following year and top 3 except the year after that. I would also carry that over to making the team draft #2 and #3 ineligible for a top 3 pick the next season.

This should give teams incentive to improve from season to season and not bank on a tank style rebuild. It will also help the middle of the pack lottery teams get a chance to grab elite talent and vault into playoff contention.   

So by your plan, we wouldn't be eligible for a top 3 pick this year because we got Jaylen at #3 last year.

I doubt they would write this in the language, but I think that if the pick is going to another team it is not really the spirit of a rule change. (I also kind of doubt we will see another trade like this anytime soon so it is unlikely to be a real issue).

 Related, I don't think we really need to expand it to the top 3. I think saying the same team can not win the number 1 pick in back to back seasons is a pretty reasonable suggestion that I could see the league considering. They certainly want the league to have a level of parity and having a rule that prevents the players that are most likely to be superstar prospects going to the same market in consecutive years wouldn't be that bad.

Also to be clear I don't think needs to be thought of only through the lens of Philly. It was pretty dumb when the Cavs won it back to back years (although Bennett was a complete bust). If Sacramento stays incompetent forever and started getting rewarded with back to back lottery wins I wouldn't be a fan of that either. 

Also some of Philly's struggles is just attributed to bad luck. If they took someone like Porzingas or Turner that could play with Embiid they would probably already be a competitive team right now with all their injuries.

Embiid's re-injury led to drafting Okafor and the 3rd season of tanking.  If they had taken Porzingis instead of Okafor, they would still have tanked last season, been the worst team and taken Simmons.  This year Embiid would still be on a minutes restriction and Simmons, Noel and Bayless would still be out injured so they'd still be a losing team with Porzingas but maybe with 4 or 5 wins instead of 3.  If they did have Embiid, Porzingas and Simmons to build around long-term, the whining around here would be earth shattering.   

As to the proposals, the consecutive #1 pick restriction wouldn't have impacted the Sixers tanking until possibly this year since Embiid and Okafor were both #3 picks.   The consecutive top 3 pick restriction would have meant the Sixers would have had the 4th pick in the Okafor draft and would have ended up the same (Okafor) or better (Porzingas). 

[Granath]

i would also add in - scrap the one and done rule

I like something like must be 3 years removed from high school, maybe require at least US high school athletes to go to college (instead of going pro out of seas for 3 years)

I think this is good for the NBA, athletes and NCAA, NCAA gets more revenue with these high recruits, the kids gets more time to develop and you get more "known" products coming into the NBA, I think it's also less likely to draft a bust early on

Now back to what every one is saying, I am also on board with this, makes the team who just drafted #1 to not be in contention for the #1 pick again

Giving up two years of their earnings to sit in college and risk injury without compensation isn't good for the athlete.

[manl_lui]

i would also add in - scrap the one and done rule

You're right, you should be eligible at 18 years old or after completing high school, whichever comes first.

Enough of forcing these kids to go to college.  And the ones that do choose to go should be paid.

You [dang] well better bet if you are making millions off of my talent I am demanding to be paid for my labor.

This^ is the only proposed idea in this thread I agree with.

Young athletes that are good enough such that people want to pay tickets (& giant TV broadcast rights contracts) for to see them should get paid for their work.   The one-and-done rule is a form of restraint-of-trade and serves no purpose but to line the pockets of the NCAA executives and coaches.

If the NBA truly feels that some players need more development before they are ready for the NBA, then they should implement a stronger, better development league and stop putting their future talent at risk in the NCAA exploitation machine.

As for the lottery - since the last tweaking of the weighted lottery system, it has done it's job just fine.   It is not broken and does not need fixing.

then I think it's fair then, i just think there should be a better way for more talent to be mixed into the pool, I think it's better for all the teams that are drafting beyond pick 3 or later. So whatever that idea is, I am all for it.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

No team should be allowed to be in contention for the #1 pick a year after they pick #1. This Philly tanking or incompetence saga is destroying the league. How can the fans in Philly even stand this absurdity.

We've tanked one more time than you in the last 20 years bud. And considering that your rule would in no way have stopped Philly from doing what they did since they've had the #1 pick once and it was in the last year of tanking... Good job on not fixing a problem that doesn't exist?

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

There really isn't any reason to make changes.  The system is working just fine.

There is a reason.  The changes would make tanking less likely.  You have quoted figures that indicate teams are not getting back to back #1s all that often but clearly the system is not preventing teams from tanking or from tanking being part of the discussion.  There is a website dedicated to tanking (at least one).  Tanking or even the perception of tanking is bad for the league.  That is the reason to consider a change to the rule.

You know what else is bad for the league? Teams that are terrible with no avenue to get better...

You've had awful teams the past few seasons in 3 of the top 5 TV markets, you want to strip the Lakers/Nets/Knicks/Sixers of draftpicks while they're bad?

I'm sure that'd be great for ratings.

[green_bballers13]

Do you also know what is terrible about the league?

The 76ers tanking, for years. They were trying to field a squad that would somehow get them close to 82 losses.

I would love to hear how the recent Hinkie approach resembles what the Celtics have done, at any point.

[guava_wrench]

i would also add in - scrap the one and done rule

I like something like must be 3 years removed from high school, maybe require at least US high school athletes to go to college (instead of going pro out of seas for 3 years)

I think this is good for the NBA, athletes and NCAA, NCAA gets more revenue with these high recruits, the kids gets more time to develop and you get more "known" products coming into the NBA, I think it's also less likely to draft a bust early on

Now back to what every one is saying, I am also on board with this, makes the team who just drafted #1 to not be in contention for the #1 pick again

How is NCAA revenue relevant? Why should the NBA restrict those players' ability to make money? Absurd.

It is one thing to say make them have to be a certain age. But those players should have full freedom to go play in Europe and earn a paycheck. If the NBA won't pay them, someone else might. If the NBA adds more years to minimum age, I hope a lot of players start going to foreign leagues.

And, no, it is not good for athletes. What is good for the athletes is to start their career when their value if high enough for it to be a sure thing. There is no reason to assume that college is better for development than the pros. The NCAA limits the amount of sports activity players can have. The NBA does not. The NBA has players playing most of the year with superior resources and superior opponents. Players are also not worried about making ends meet.

[guava_wrench]

Do you also know what is terrible about the league?

The 76ers tanking, for years. They were trying to field a squad that would somehow get them close to 82 losses.

I would love to hear how the recent Hinkie approach resembles what the Celtics have done, at any point.

Meh. Didn't really matter much those season they were losing.

[green_bballers13]

Except for developing a bunch of young talented guys in a losing environment.

I just think they were overly overt in showcasing a non-competitive product. I'd rather think that the team I follow would never try to lose games over the course of three entire seasons.

Easy to say, as the Celtics are collecting picks from an amazing trade with Brooklyn.

If I were a 76ers fan, anything short of a ring from Simmons/Embiid before they leave for another city would be a net loss.