Ultimately, this will never happen because the league, in the end, is run by the owners. Instituting such a policy would hurt, by definition, 1/2 the league, so one would think at least 1/2 of the league owners would disapprove. The relegation policy would also not work because the league has too many teams as it is. Talent is spread too thin. Relegation would effectively increase the number of teams by 3 (or whatever # of teams get the boot). And how awful would those intermediary years be when you have true NBDL teams playing NBA teams on a regular basis? Ugh. I think the current system is just fine as it is. How many worst teams have actually gotten the #1 pick? Not as many as you would think, if I remember correctly. The chances of the worst team actually getting the #1 pick is much less than the chances of any other team getting the pick.
Yes and they justified my opinion by pointing out that JVG shouldn't be talking when his teams had ewing and yao on them. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
JVG is completely wrong on this one. How is a bad team supposed to get better? Usually the worst team doesnt even get the first pick, they get like the 4th. I think the nba has a great draft system.
We didn't really "tank" the 2001-2002 season, if you recall we had the 5th worse record in the league and only edged out the Cavs by 1 game and the Knicks by two for the 7th best record. Getting the first overall pick was lucky, not because we had the worst record and thus the best chance in the loterry. If we were really "tanking", we could've at least lost another game to let the Nuggets overtake us in the standings (they were only 1 win better than us)
See, this would make sense if the NBA was about competition, but it's not. It's about money. You give the worst teams (who will have the worst attendance) the chance to get a superstar which will help boost fans and merchandise. That way everyone has a chance to make money. pshh...fair competition? This is America, baby!
i dont have a problem with the current draft lottery. but if it was JVG's system then it would be better if all the teams that didnt make the playoffs had 3 balls to each playoff teams 1 ball. and everyone is in the lottery.
WOW what a smartass. Maybe the rockets should hire you to be the head coach instead of a stupid TV commentator.
The draft isnt the only mechanism preserving league equity. There is also the salary cap. I think JVG has a good point. Including the top teams in the lottery doesnt guarantee them the first pick. As one poster pointed out, the lottery would be weighted in a manner that gives the worste teams (calculated using complex formulas) the best chance to draft the best prospects. The best teams, on the other hand, would have the worst chance, but would give them a chance regardless. Now back to my point re: salary cap. Say that the best team ends up getting the best player. For illustrative purposes, lets say that Dallas gets Oden. Dallas is still regulated by salary rules that force them to manage their personnel efficienty. At some point, Dallas will have to pay Oden and other key members in order to keep their winning formula in tact. Whats preventing stars from walking to another team at the end of their contract? I understand that those franchises generating more revenue have the luxury of spending more for their players. But why not make cap rules more rigid while including all teams in the lottery? Wouldnt that be the best conditions for achieving parity? Salary can be controlled, the lottery is a gamble... yet the league is so restrictive with the draft whereas salary rules are lenient enough to allow execs to jumble-fudge their franchise (read NYK). IMHO, if you impose stricter salary rules and allow all teams to participate in a weighted lottery, you achieve greater parity, preserve the integrity of the game, and efficiently spread revenue across all teams.
yeah the european football system works in that it makes sure that the bottom teams fight for survival. but you don't mention the downside of the european system: NO PARITY. Everyone knows before the season that only 4 teams in England even have a chance at winning the title: Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United. The rest are just playing for UEFA Cup places. In Italy it's: Inter Milan, AC Milan and Juve (they'll get back to their previous status when the come back up next season) ... with Roma and Lazio having outside shots. In Spain it's: Barca, Real Madrid and Valencia ... with Seville adding themselves to the mix the last two seasons. If American Leagues had relegation written into its core then the great historic clubs would never get in trouble because they would have a monopoly on all the top talent like the Champions League clubs in Europe.
Exactly, the way soccer does it is terrible. Plus they don't even play a playoffs, so the championship was b/w man u and chelsea back in december when only half the season was done! That's terrible! What is the point in playing the season, when you know only man u or chelsea have a shot at the title. No playoffs is stupid. And what's so good about relegation? You just replace last year's bottom feeders with new bottom feeders and they don't exactly challenge for the title or anything.
Errr... That has nothing to do with the relegation system. Relegation doesn't make monopoly teams. Monopoly is caused by free trade with no salary cap etc.
I think this system would cause a monopoly of teams. Suppose they pulled this off. The bad teams would only get one of the top 3 picks maybe once every 10 years. Instead of pretty much every other year. So that means it will take them longer for them to get a quality player through the draft. So if they aren't getting that many good players through the draft, how are they getting good players? Through Free Agency? No one is going to want to sign with these teams. And their draft picks are just going to leave for some of the better teams because they aren't going to get any better because there is no weighted lottery system anymore. So that puts them back at square 1.
relegation is just one aspect of the european footballing system and if you're going to champion their way then i'll point out some negatives about their way. and the draft (which this thread is about) is all about parity, european football isn't about parity. baseball has free trade and no salary cap and it has parity.
I think free trade and no salary cap has something to do with being a monopoly. The Yankees and the Red Sox are always at the top of their division every year. But at the same time, thats baseball. One player isn't going to suddenly make their team good. In basketball, adding that one superstar can change a team from championship contenders to lottery bound.
