As the NBA considers implementing new rules aimed at deterring tanking prior to next season, the National Basketball Players Association has proposed a three-pronged approach to the issue, reports Jake Fischer of The Stein Line (Twitter link).
The NBPA’s suggestions are as follows:
1. Flattening the draft lottery odds
The players’ union is generally in favor of the first of three lottery reform proposals that the league reportedly presented at the NBA’s Board of Governors. That proposal would expand the lottery field to 18 teams – folding in the four play-in teams who earn playoff spots – and would give the bottom 10 teams identical odds at the No. 1 overall pick.
However, the NBPA suggested some modifications to that concept, according to Fischer (Twitter link). Rather than each of the bottom 10 teams having an 8% chance to land the top pick, the players’ union would like to see those odds reduced to 7%. And instead of using descending odds for the No. 11 through No. 18 teams in the lottery, the union has proposed flat odds (including a 3.75% chance at the first overall pick) for each of those clubs.
2. Strictly enforcing meaningful tanking penalties
Reporting earlier today indicated that the NBA would like to expand its ability to enact penalties on teams who manipulate player availability and rotations in an effort to lose games. The union is in favor of that idea, Fischer reports (via Twitter), writing that key members of the NBPA are pushing for “additional penalties to punish blatant tanking.”
Fischer confirms that moving a team’s pick to the end of the lottery or the end of the first round – or even taking it away altogether – are among the more extreme measures that have been suggested. Reducing a team’s lottery odds is another potential penalty that has been floated, Fischer adds. Earlier reporting from The Athletic stated that larger fines – into the millions – have also been discussed as an anti-tanking measure.
3. Financially rewarding wins and penalizing losses
The most interesting NBPA proposal mentioned by Fischer is one that hasn’t otherwise been reported to this point. According to Fischer (Twitter link), the union has suggested that teams who perform better in the regular season should be entitled to larger shares of the NBA’s national television revenue.
This is a system used in the Premier League — Philip Buckingham of The Athletic provides an explainer on how these “merit payments” work in Europe’s top soccer league, where top clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal received exponentially higher distributions last season than last-place finishers Southampton.
That sort of change would be far more significant than just altering the draft lottery rules. It would also conflict with the NBA’s current rules related to revenue sharing, so it’s perhaps no surprise that it’s not a concept we’ve heard the league advocate for to this point. It sounds like a longer shot than the other two aspects of the NBPA’s plan.
The problem with two is how do you enforce strict enforcement? Because who would trust the league to be fair and consistent with the way that would be applied? It would make a little more sense if there was a neutral arbitrator appointed who would ultimately decide whether a) the league’s punishment was appropriate, b) the league’s punishment was consistently applied. But even then, what about all of the teams who break the rules that the league would choose not to punish for one reason or another?
Perhaps the mere threat of being hit with the sledgehammer might make teams a little more willing to play nice, or perhaps it would take the league (unfairly) picking a specific offender and making an example out of them to send a clear message.
I really want to know what the NBA is going to do about teams sitting injured players? Are they going to have a Doctor at every game examine people before the games? During the games? Spying in the Clubhouse? Tapping phones? Who exactly gets to decide who CAN play and who Can’t? Silver? Make me laugh. Who is gonna pay for that?
The only people who are going to stop tanking are the fans. When they stop buying tickets, Streaming rights and stop caring it’ll stop. Not before. But it sounds like the fans are already getting sick of it by their ratings.
The problem with that take is that NBA viewership is up.
30 neutral (rotating) doctors vetted by the teams (but each team doesn’t know which doctor it will get); each one assigned to travel with a different team each month, to review player medicals, sit in on coaches’ meetings where medical decisions and DNPs are made, take copious uneditorialized notes for other doctors to review after the fact, and over time determine whether or not players are legitimately being held out of games. They have no stake in the team’s success or failure, but they are judged by their peers — other doctors and other teams’ doctors — on whether or not their note-taking and judgment decisions are sound, impartial medical decisions i.e. if whether their deemed legitimacy is indeed medically sound.
The rotation over time and the peer grading should weed out partial doctors and balance overly conservative with looser.
It’s less cut-and-dry when it comes to DNP-coaches’ decisions, but maybe there are ex-coaches that can sit in on those discussions, attend practice, and document/take notes for others to review, that would make the decision more impartial; if they attend practice and see a star player is clearly not himself over days, it might justify that.
That’s 30 health professionals and 30 coaches. Not some gargantuan ordeal in the grand scheme. Their notes would become the basis to determine whether teams have made questionable decisions to sit or shut down players, and, if given multiple warnings by multiple doctors, deserve punishment.
I’ve thought about this idea myself, but I’m not sure the teams would go for it.
Neutral, vetted doctors sound nice in theory, but that doesn’t there still wouldn’t be disagreements between those doctors and individual medical staffs (though the use of an arbitrator might alleviate some of that concern). Moreover, teams will generally trust their own medical staff more, as they would be more intimately familiar with their players. Doctors are not infallible no matter how credentialed or vetted they may be, and this type of rotation could decrease overall accuracy and performance.
I also question how fit peers would be to judge one another after the fact as well as the exact form this would take. And wouldn’t this significantly increase the caseload of the involved doctors if they have to not only handle their own team, but review the work of 29 others?
Finally, this would be introducing another series of costs to the league. Not massive ones mind you, but that will always wrinkle a few feathers. And as mentioned above, a peer review system would seem to add a lot more volume, whether handled by the same vetted doctors or by bringing another set of doctors into the fold.
Not saying your idea wouldn’t work, as I think it could on some level. But it’s probably smarter for the league to stick with more straightforward changes for the time being and reassess in a year or two.
Still think a tournament for the draft odds makes the most sense
Give every non playoff teams the same odds to begin with but winners increase their odds each round while losers decrease their odds each round
Instead of the stupid in season tournament they should have the draft tournament the week after the regular season ends and then begin the playoffs after draft lottery week
Single eliminations
16 teams (8 games) Monday Tuesday
8 teams (4 games) Thursday Friday
4 teams (2 games) Saturday
2 teams finals Sunday
Pick a city to host the tournament among nba cities rotate it around
Use it as a kick off to the nba playoffs
So your solution for the teams to sit players for games is to play more games? Did you really think that all the way through?
Well considering all non playoff start with the SAME ODDS in the tournament making their RECORDS MEANINGLESS……SITTING players during a play in tournament would DECREASE their odds of acquiring 1st 2nd 3rd overall pick…..
Did you think your half baked response through all the way?
I’ve got a solution to the crime problem All convicts when they leave jail get a free gun and 2 clips of ammo. Yeah, Yeah that’s it. That’s the ticket. Is it a four day Holiday or something. People have started drinking early today.
Bad analogy is bad analogy
1 Solution to a crime problem would be help all convicts find stable work and affordable housing to help them get back on the feet considering majority of crimes are linked to poverty, unemployment, and inability to afford basic necessities like food and rent
2. Your analogy doesn’t account for the increasing and decreasing of odds mechanism
Bad analogy is bad analogy
Went from a half baked response to a quarter baked response
They working way to hard on this. It’s going to happen, not like the teams that suck are guaranteed to be successful.
The league wants the tanking teams to strive to be like the Bulls…yeah lame.
The problem is, on a contender there are always guys who are playing through injuries cos they want to win. So whether a guy “can” play is subjective, and no doctor would sign up to a system where they’re telling a guy that he has to play. Something like hamstring tightness won’t show up on a scan, but if you force someone to play through it, he might tear the muscle. It would be nice if things were black and white, but it just isn’t.
Utah is the only target on the tanking and the NBA will either give them their guy at #1 or keep punishing them forever.
The rich will get richer, then what. I mean after seeing last draft process I’m not sure what Silver is worried about.
Anybody actually see how said draft process worked, lols.