Here's a thought, make teams ineligible to receive the top pick or top 3-4 picks if they already have an all NBA first team or maybe first or second team player.
Solving For Tanking, We're smart, let's figure it out
- Thread starter SoberasHotRod
- Start date
Also tie revenue sharing to a minimum number of games won.
More ideas:
Teams 1-5 all have equal odds at picks 1-5.
Teams 6-10 get two draft picks in the top 15 (6-6,11 7-7,12, 8-8,13, 9-9,14, 10-10,15). The draft moves on from there with picks 16 to 35.
All teams 11 and higher make the play-in. Teams that make the play in, but lose in the play in get revenue sharing equal to the amount of a 7 game playoff series.
Teams 1-5 all have equal odds at picks 1-5.
Teams 6-10 get two draft picks in the top 15 (6-6,11 7-7,12, 8-8,13, 9-9,14, 10-10,15). The draft moves on from there with picks 16 to 35.
All teams 11 and higher make the play-in. Teams that make the play in, but lose in the play in get revenue sharing equal to the amount of a 7 game playoff series.
Last edited:
Interesting. If I'm understanding right, these are not fully getting rid of tanking incentives, but rather having revenue sharing and tanking incentives be mutually exclusive or at least compete against each other more than currently, thus lowering the number of teams that will tank.
Probably could have some success with this.
Yes. I strongly prefer a solution that removes any incentive to be bad, but since those ideas are not likely to ever gain traction, I'm considering alternatives, or in other words ideas that greatly reduce tanking, or at least the very worst forms of tanking like the Jazz executed this year where they sat young healthy players for the sole purpose of losing games.
The main reasoning with that last idea is to smooth out the difference between tiers. If there is a generational or maybe even just consensus #1 pick available, this probably isn't enough to dissuade teams from tanking. I'm not sure I love it, but it is just something I'm throwing out there.
Chargers Jazz Angels
Well-Known Member
I have thought of this way more than I should. My first thought is hit the teams in the wallet. Maybe penalized the eligible teams on the shared payout for teams under the salary cap.
Maybe penalize the bottom 5 or so teams, in a descending amount.
In addition if you win the lottery you are not eligible the following year or you are not eligible for that pick for a years. They can still win other one just not that pick.
Maybe penalize the bottom 5 or so teams, in a descending amount.
In addition if you win the lottery you are not eligible the following year or you are not eligible for that pick for a years. They can still win other one just not that pick.
Tanking tax. Interesting proposal.
It would have to not count against the cap tho. Otherwise it would limit those teams in FA (making it harder for them to build up) while also helping them reach minimum salary floor with lower player salary totals.
Also it shouldnt work as a honey trap for teams to stay mid and cash in on both luxury tax and tanking tax. So the money shouldnt go to the other lottery teams missing out on the top picks.
Would it cause some money grubbing owners to force trade their looming top pick away just to avoid getting taxed? That could cause some wild "unfair" trades and also further emphasize imbalances between teams who have cheap owners and those who dont.
Not that anyone else cares, but I was thinking about this idea the other day and I think you would have to put a time limit on how long you can carry over cap space that you trade for. I think probably somewhere between 3-5 years. That way teams aren't just hoarding it and waiting for the generational talent to come along.
I also go back and forth on whether there should be a max bid for the top 4 picks. If you keep it at a set amount then teams know they just need to have a certain amount of cap space saved up in order to be in the running for the top pick, it would prevent hoarding by too much. On the other hand if it was just the maximum amount, teams could get really strategic and the picks wouldn't be based on luck at that point, which I like. It could be really interesting if the bid ends up as the players' salary, because you could end up with a guy like Wemby making more than anybody in the NBA (Which maybe he should), but would also really hurt that team's ability to build around them, which again makes it an interesting choice for a team to consider.