I like your curve, but perhaps you should slow the rate of increase for teams after 7&8. Maybe slow it to where the team that finishes 14th has an 8% chance and then everyone between 8 and 14 is crammed somewhere between. I do like your idea in general of proving incentive for teams to try to make the playoffs when the season starts. I hate that the current system rewards being horrible for years in a row.
Under basically any scenario, teams would strategically try to lose, at least with it the way it is, it's really only the bad teams. It would be terrible to watch if teams near the 7th or 8th seeds started trying to lose. In the end, it's just management of which teams will be trying to lose to maximize the spectacle.
I don't agree with the "U" shaped lottery odds. It's important to make the spots just outside the playoffs unlikely to garner a top 3 pick, so that teams don't avoid the playoffs for a better chance in the draft. The OP's suggestion would actually hurt the NBA's competitiveness even more by increasing the number of teams looking to tank. You would still have your bottomdwellers looking for the worst record, and then you would have teams good enough for the 6/7/8th spots in the playoffs avoiding a first round exit in lieu of a MUCH better draft pick. That just doesn't work. I have a simple solution to the problem, reduce the disparity in the lottery chances and improve the system by adjusting the odds. Here it is: Code: Seed Current New 1 25 14.5 2 19.9 13.5 3 15.6 12.5 4 11.9 11.5 5 8.8 10 6 6.3 9 7 4.3 7.5 8 2.8 6 9 1.7 5 10 1.1 4 11 0.8 3 12 0.7 2 13 0.6 1 14 0.5 0.5 Total: 100 100 It's a simple step down system that gives a very slight edge to being one of the 4 worst teams, and makes the difference between 10 and 14 a negligible 3.5%. No team will skip the playoffs for ping pong balls, and the difference from 1 to 6 is only 5.5%. It will discourage teams from tanking because the reward will be little. I would also recommend expanding the lottery to at least the top 5 picks to reduce the effectiveness of tanking. The worst place would only be guaranteed at least the 6th pick overall, which is not worth it.
This is probably the best solution. Code: Seed Current New 1 25 20 2 19.9 15 3 15.6 12.5 4 11.9 11.5 5 8.8 8.8 6 6.3 6.3 7 4.3 4.3 8 2.8 2.8 9 1.7 1.7 10 1.1 1.1 11 0.8 0.8 12 0.7 0.7 13 0.6 0.7 14 0.5 0.5 Total: 100 86.6 I took 13.4% away from the top 4 teams to include the 8 teams that do not get home court in the playoffs and the teams that finish between 9 to 14.
I like the idea of lowering the disparity between the worst team and the 14th worst team, but I don't really have a problem with the system now. Tanking only works for certain markets. If a player is good enough (LeBron) he will inevitably leave the small market team that drafts him if the team doesn't win. If the #1 draft pick does take a team to the next level, they will not stockpile picks. The draft has not made the league particularly unbalanced.
I'm all for all teams having an equal chance to win the lotto. Sure, Miami could end up with both Wiggins AND Lebron on the same team but it's worth it so we stop seeing teams tanking on purpose. You truly just have to take all tanking incentives away.
No, it can be done. You just have to make things like playoff revenue (even if it is just two home games) or home court advantage more coveted than x amount of ping pong balls. I am sure teams understand winning is what makes your team attractive to free agents.
What if they had a 19 team lottery system for the top pick? All 22 teams without home court are in, but you're ineligible to get the pick if you picked first over the past three years.
