You're an idiot and a certified troll... WHAT is an appropriate name for you because you don't know WHAT the hell you're talking about... i usually tune you out because you don't deserve responses... last time
I know what you mean, but is it really that easy to manipulate your win totals in FAVOR of winning? It's for damn sure harder than manipulating in favor of losing, the current system. If you run out a team of D-league players, you're still not going to be predicted to go 1-81, it'll settle in the neighborhood of 10-20 wins. If you somehow win 35 games with a D-league team and get the #1 pick, you still have a team of D-leaguers with a single star (maybe) and the oddsmakers aren't going to be fooled again, the line will be ~30-40 wins the next year. I see the problems in my approach too, but I'd argue they're redirecting the issues from professional basketball teams deliberately losing to teams deliberately trying to look nonthreatening and win anyways, which is a huge improvement to the game in my book.
hah who's fault is that.... MJ..... I bet you are president of Bismack Biyombo's fan club.... terrible GM.... terrible drafting....kemba, biyombo, etc.. terrible signings, t.thomas.... and you are a terrible Bobcats fan.... spending all your miserable life on Clutchfans...lmao add it up and it equals THE WORST FRANCHISE IN NBA HISTORY.....LMFAO ..... WHAT now?
They changed it because Orlando won twice, which people felt was somehow not right. Instead of changing the system, perhaps the league should have just said "Too bad. Deal with it."
I actually like your idea. Winning odds are not easily manipulated (unless you bribe Vega's dogs). And it is fluid. It adjusts itself much better than teams can adjust their rosters to manipulate the result. I think if you combined the "beat the odds" idea with financial incentives for players, coaches, and GMs of overachieving teams (but not the owners), that would guarantee maximum competitive efforts. The problem with incentivizing good teams by number of wins only is that FA players would want to sign with the good teams, making the rich richer. But if the incentives are for overachieving, that gives equal opportunity for every team to win financially.
It is true that the bobcats are in disarray. It is hard for me to see any continuity with them. However I do like Henderson and BB is actually a better player than I thought he was going to be. The Bobcats need a great pg or a big sf who can create his own shot and they can turn it around. I would focus more on a top flight pg at this point. If I were them I'd take Kendall Marshall or Harrison Barnes.
The NBA would never base it's lottery on a system handled by Vegas. First there's the image problem. Second, it would have all the drawbacks of the BCS system, which is sound mathematically, but involves so many contingencies that it's almost impossible to enjoy.
Another way to split the balls up would be to just separate it into tiers rather than making each position incrementally better - bottom 4 teams get 45% (~11% each) , next 4 get 30% (7.5%), and next 5 get 25% (5%). That way you wouldn't really see as much jockeying for losing positions other than around the margins.
