Exstatic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2025
- Messages
- 1,681
- Reaction score
- 1,226
I kind of like that, because allowing other levels of protection gives the teams two payoffs. They can jump into the top 4 OR slide in under the top 8 or top 10 protection, and keep a pretty good pick. If they know it’s top 4 or bust,they may think twice. Even finishing in the top 4 is only a coin flip, 52%, to stay there, post lottery. How good of a pick do you really want to give the other team? It would also prevent shit like Dallas tanking the last week, and keeping that Top 10 pick that eventually became Lively, plus another pick.Idea makes economic sense / rationality but will be shot down in the first hearing by the players' union. Maybe even by owners of small market teams.
I agree with you that losing in order to improve is a viable strategy across sport. Which is incentivized in the NBA by the draft lottery. But blatant tanking by nearly half the number of teams for a talent rich draft raises integrity questions that affect the image of a sport. What is the point of watching a Utah Jazz game after Feb 6 if all they do every year is to try to maximize their odds by sitting their best players. Multiply that by 14 and we have a severe problem.
So a reform is definitely necessary. Check my idea in the previous post on increasing draft lottery to 18 with some weights for play in teams for the top 4 pick odds. Plus protections not allowed except for top 4 and Top 18. And continuation of flattened odds. What could go wrong?
Last edited:

