E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, October 31, 2014

NBA Draft lottery reform is dead... for now.

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Chris Mannix argues that the NBA made the right decision by voting against draft lottery reform, and he does have a good point. With any change as drastic as this one is, it is inevitable that there will be negative externalities and unintended consequences associated with that change.

The biggest potential problem is how changing the draft lottery to reduce the odds of the worst teams getting the top pick will impact small-market teams. While the Oklahoma City Thunder was the most vocal team in pointing this out, this is a particular item of concern for the Indiana Pacers. The big markets will always have an advantage in building through free agency, while the smaller markets are often forced to rely on the draft.

But while Mannix makes a good argument that the worst team rarely actually gets the #1 pick in the draft, the odds of getting that pick still present a strong incentive to intentionally lose games. When a team knows it has a one in four shot at getting a player that could transform the franchise by having the worst record in the game, it is difficult to pass that up - especially when that team already has a bad roster anyway.

The problem is that when a team is intentionally bad, it harms the integrity of the game and causes the fans to be cynical. Everyone knows that professional wrestling is "fake" in that the outcomes are predetermined. That should not be the case in a real sport with real competition. When a team like the Philadelphia 76ers are intentionally taking, the NBA looks a lot more like World Wrestling Entertainment than a legitimate sport.

Perhaps the proposal that was being considered by the owners was not the best solution, and a modified system can be put in place that will discourage tanking while not making things too difficult for small market teams to build a contender, or at least get into the playoffs. It is sensible to table this reform for the moment and try to build a better system, but the need for reform to preserve the integrity of the game is clear.

See previous articles here and here.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.