IIRC, JVG had an interesting solution to the problem of tanking to for a better draft pick. Have it so that the order of the draft for the lottery teams is dependent upon the win-loss record of the teams starting from after the All-Star Break. In other words, the better their record in the second half of the season, the higher their pick. That way, even the lottery teams would be going full out until the very end.
I think the salary cap is more important for parity. Otherwise New York would be much more successful than they have been with their massive contracts. They're stuck now with the bad deals they had the privelidge to afford in the first place. Just look at MLB and how much NOT having a cap has caused disparities between teams. The draft isn't nearly as important.
Get rid of the draft??? You have to be kidding. The two teams in the champions league finals were from the English Premier League. In the Premier league there is only 4 teams out of like 25 that have a chance to win it every year; Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Arsenal. Imagine an NBA were every year the final four would be, NY, probaly both LA teams, and Chicago maybe Philly. That would be great wouldn't it??
And Jeff's idea was highly bashed everywhere with good reason. That just means the best teams, who usually do about the best at the end of the season, will always get top picks while genuinely crappy teams don't. It just doesn't even out the playing field. The draft should stay as is.
Well let`s see CL again: This years Final: ManU-Chelsea Last year: Milan-Liverpool 2 years ago: Barcelona-Arsenal Other winners from the years just before: Real Madrid, Juventus Turin, Porto, Bayern Munich...
Big deal - that's a knock-out tournament with something like 50+ teams in it and hundreds of teams in theory eligible for it. Picking just winners gives the illusion that its more diverse than it is. Do this same analysis with the EPL - 13 years of just 3 teams winning it, with Blackburn in 1995 being the last (and only, since the start of the premiership) other side to win it in 18 years of competition.
Well actually its 32 teams in the CL... It is true, that there are mostly the same teams at the top (let`s say a grop of 10 to 15 teams), but there is still variety and competition. I like the way with a draft, because it gives every team the chance to get the best players. The way it is in Europe the players just get more and more money, and if a team trades a player, that could cost up to over 100 million dollars. But mostly, the teams that are up there are the teams with the biggest fanbases in the major cities. There is still the leagues of every country with its own cups, there is still the UEFA Cup, so there is actually even a lot for the smaller teams. So the system in Europe might be less fair, but if you look at the big picture, there are a whole lot more teams playing in the major leagues (about 20 per country) with the chance, to get to the CL. And if you look at the NBA more closesly, are there really that much more teams winning it all, than in Europe? The last years it`s been mostly SA and Detroit, before that LA and Chicago... you get the picture.
A chance to get more international players? Maybe certain teams want that but most fans really don't care in all honesty...Thats David Stern's dream to globalize the game. If no international players came over it'd take the fans 8 weeks to notice.
I think Van Gundy's draft scheme would exclude the non-lottery teams. It would be the battle among just the crappy teams to have the best record after the All-Star Break. Or maybe it could be modified to the team that shows the most improvement before and after the All Star Break. Again, excluding the good teams.
You're not including the qualifying stages - it's a lot more than that. You're alos not including that every team in the first division in all UEFA leagues in theory has a chance to qualify, there are literally hundreds of participants. Yet the last few stages tend to be the usual suspects. Since 1995, 6 different teams have won NBA titles compared to just 3 in the EPL.
Yeah, but look at it kinda like this: Every European League is a league of its own with its own championships, which to many teams are almost worth the same as an international title. So there are hundreds of teams, which each have its own league. Then their is the Champions League for which you have to qualify by taking one of the first places in your league. The CL is similar to the NBA, just with fluctuating participants. So even the smaller teams have a chance to make it to the CL. Sure, the big teams are usually in it every year, and usually one of the big teams wins it, but the smaller teams still have the chance. So in the NBA, there are 30 teams which are in the league every year, even if they play really bad. If you live in Kansas for example you won`t see NBA basketball. In Europe, even a small team like Porto can win the CL, or a small town (and team) like Leverkusen can make it to the finals. Although the system is flawed (especially with italian, spanish and english teams throwing around with money, without caring about actually making money), it still really works, and gives every team, no matter how small it is, a theoretical chance of going to the CL and eventually winning it all.
Not necessarily. They could be like how Real Madrid when they had superstars like Zidane, Ronaldo, and Beckham all in one team. It's just like the Yankees.. sure you might make it to the semi's or sometimes finals, but you still need the right combinations and players to fit together. Like someone said before, the draft is not a broken system, but in the event that the NBA thinks about changing it.. I wouldn't be against it.
Scouts have a big role already. After the Spurs managed to get Parker and Ginobili for next to nothing, more teams are sending out scouts in order to find those kinds of players. Of course, teams have to have good scouts that can help them weed out the good from the great but no one can say scouting in today's NBA is just an afterthought. Yea and for every Tony Parker, there's a V-Span. For every Dirk, there's your Darko. Scouting and drafting European players has as much risk (if not moreso) as drafting a kid out of college. This is where, if you're the owner, the people you hire come in. You need to have guys that know what they're doing in terms of scouting, drafting, and getting the right players. Ainge and Isiah Thomas are pretty good at drafting players whereas Jordan can't do nothing right. It's about the people you put in charge. The draft helps out teams that are floundering in that the league says to them: Look, your team is obviously a mess, we'll give you a better chance to field a better team by giving you a chance to get a top pick so your ass won't be in the cellar in a few years. Tanking hasn't hurt the NBA aside from 1997. What, only 2 teams in the past decade or so with the worst record ended up with the top pick? As for Sabonis, he WAS drafted early (1985 I believe?) and Scola was already picked by the Spurs years ago. But due to their own circumstances, they couldn't leave. And no one forced Yi to play in Milwaukee--it was his choice to enter the draft and the NBA. You can live with that? Stick to soccer then. Even though there are probably 3-4 truly elite teams and even though the East is an afterthought compared to the West, there is still parity and enough wiggle room for teams to compete. Boston went from last to first because they took a risk and made moves to get there. The Pistons, with no real SUPERstar, has gone to 7 straight Conference Finals. The Spurs, a middle-market team, has 4 championships in 9 years. Asking Stern to overhaul a multi-billion dollar commodity isn't smart decision making. It all boils down to who your owner puts in charge. You got to have guys that know what they're doing even if you've never heard of them in your life. When you start putting name guys like McHale and Jordan in charge of your franchise who has no business of being there, that's when your team continues to be in the lottery. The lottery works for those that know how to use it. The system isn't flawed--it's the GMs that don't know how to draft that makes the system look bad.
Hey, I fixed up your post a little bit; doesn't seem so scary now does it guys? However, for basketball, I'm not in favor of a promotion/relegation scheme at all, considering the fact that the NBA is barely popular enough to sustain itself in its current model; if Gary Bettman hadn't happened, it could easily be fighting for the #4 position with hockey after the lockout. Add to the fact that such a system removes the rookie wage scale, probably one of David Stern's greatest accomplishments as commissioner, will automatically kill any team that is relegated, and turn about 75% of the league into farm teams for the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, Heat and Mavericks means that it will drive away all the hardcore fans, in hopes of bringing in casual fans. Not a good idea.
The draft might be one of the greatest equalizers in sports, outside of salary caps, trade restrictions (prohibited from trading players or talent with very heavy disparity salaries), and possibly Free Agency (where a player can go where ever for what ever). Shouldn't the worst teams have a chance to get the best young players, since they are absolutely horrible...San Antonio and Boston do not need draft picks. They are already good teams, can't say the same for Memphis and Miami.
Non-Lottery teams are not included. I actually like JVG's idea, lottery teams going all out for higher pick....hmmm, sounds exciting.
