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.
Bump, we have to have a solution that discourages/eliminates losing on purpose while giving the teams that most need talent the highest draft picks.
jom2003
Well-Known Member
Insert the Jazz/Spurs clause. If a team moved up/down by a X number of spots in the lottery, the cause would forbid them from moving up/down again for X number of years of lotteries they are participating(if they make the playoffs and skip the lottery, that year won't count).
This is to solely prevent teams from consistently getting shafted like the Jazz, who never moved up even a single spot in the 40 year history of NBA lottery. Or teams like the Spurs who consistently moved up(including the three in a row they just had from 23-25) and never moved down even once in their history. It is a broken system if two teams can have such different "luck" over 40 years just by pure "chance".
This is to solely prevent teams from consistently getting shafted like the Jazz, who never moved up even a single spot in the 40 year history of NBA lottery. Or teams like the Spurs who consistently moved up(including the three in a row they just had from 23-25) and never moved down even once in their history. It is a broken system if two teams can have such different "luck" over 40 years just by pure "chance".
Last edited:
I also think the lottery isn't meant for teams like Dallas/PHI who missed the playoffs due to injury. I've proposed an "All NBA" clause as well, that if you have a player on your team that has made All NBA in the past however many years that you are not eligible to make the lottery as well.
Strutter
Well-Known Member
I feel like I posted this elsewhere, but assuming you want to keep both goals, I think there should be a lottery carryover system. So similar system (flatter odds, lottery for 1-4, playoffs mean you get no lottery balls) but if you don't "win the lottery" you get to keep your lottery chances for the next season you're in the lottery. If you win any of the lottery picks, you lose those chances. And that should stack for multiple seasons (probably with some type of 3-5 year cap. So with a 5 year cap, if the Jazz were the worst team again next season, they'd be looking at around a 40% chance for each lottery draw (14+14+4+4). With multiple lottery picks in one year, the second you win a lottery pick, that extra advantage disappears.
Biggest issue here is how to grandfather it in.
Interesting. I think this definitely helps to even out the luck of the lottery, I'm not sure how it helps tanking, except for the fact that the benefit is likely delayed.
jom2003
Well-Known Member
Or just lock the lottery odds and even conduct the draft lottery midseason. Like 1-2 weeks before the season ends. So we don't have teams pivot half way knowing playoffs is out of reach so they intentionally throw games away like the Spurs and Sixers(which unironically is "tanking" by definition, as opposed to teams like us and WAS/CHA that were horrible from the start). So teams would be more willing to make a final push to make the play-in cuz the odds were already set and had no bearing on how they finish the season. And it also rewards teams that play the hardest towards the end of the season cuz they can essentially be locked for a lottery spot while going on a late run to all the way make the playoffs. And also punish teams for load managing their players towards the end of the season in anticipation for the playoffs cuz all teams will have incentives to play harder now.
Last edited:
However things shake out with changes, this lottery was absolutely an example of why the current system is the most absolutely worst thing they could possibly do, aside from a system that further flattens the odds.
All the teams that got bumped out of the top slots are now just going to continue to perpetuate their tanks until they get lucky. Rich got richer and broken teams in need of help didn't get it. Isn't going to discourage tanking in any way, just increase the number of teams trying to tank at once, and increase the length of time teams tank until they can rebuild. Lot of the ideas in this thread are flawed, but most would still be better than this.
All the teams that got bumped out of the top slots are now just going to continue to perpetuate their tanks until they get lucky. Rich got richer and broken teams in need of help didn't get it. Isn't going to discourage tanking in any way, just increase the number of teams trying to tank at once, and increase the length of time teams tank until they can rebuild. Lot of the ideas in this thread are flawed, but most would still be better than this.
Strutter
Well-Known Member
I think it helps tanking about as much as the system does now (which obviously doesn't 100% discourage tanking). But it also flattens the curve a bit so the results aren't so spikey. With the proposed format, it's not as damning to end up as a bad but not terrible team for a few years. You still have a higher chance at a lottery pick than a team that mega-tanked for a single year.
I can see the benefits, but I just think there needs to be more.