Debate #1: Draft Order

[Guest]

Welcome to the Debate Room! An area where I put a new debate every week to increase the talk and opinion around here. Tell us your thoughts and let us know why you feel that way. If you have a debate suggestion drop me a PM!

 

This week we discuss the report that the NBA wants to move to a 30-Year cycle wheel for the draft's #1 pick

 

 

The notion that a team might deliberately lose games in order to get a franchise player in the NBA draft lottery is as old as the NBA draft lottery itself.

Every year, the idea grows more brazen. Look no further than the suggestion last week that the Los Angeles Lakers should start tanking when they lost Kobe Bryant to a knee injury.

But now there’s a movement to eliminate that by replacing the lottery system with a draft wheel, according to Grantland’s Zach Lowe.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Kendrick

[8Ovechkin8 262]

There is good and bad for all draft pick systems. Its almost impossible to eliminate all problems with one way though.

For W/L record. Tanking ----> teams that actually suck may not get a top pick they need to begin a rebuild. Teams with decent markets will obtain players more likely to fill the "star" role, while struggling marks which NEED to win to gain revenue can't get top players from the draft because they didn't tank or "suck" enough.

Lottery - Same thing applies as above. Decent teams tank, more decent teams in the lottery pool than actually struggling teams, less likely a chance of getting a player they can build around.

I'm not really familiar with the cycle system. Someone care to explain?

(when I describe a team in meant to describe them as a franchise not performance)

[frescoelmo 1,282]

Grantland is ESPN's venting site where they take credit for ridiculous claims and theories because they are ESPN.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Is this our opinion about these ideas in general or how they would apply to the VHL?

[Ball 453]

I like the whole lottery aspect that the NBA has, but I feel like if you have the worse team in the league, you should get the first pick. In sports there really isn't a way to tank, because if you don't put fans in the seat, tanking or not, your gonna lose your job. And either way your gonna see teams tank because with the lottery, being the worst team doesn't guarantee you the first pick, but you do get the best chance at it and some teams are ok with that. Draft Wheel sounds stupid

[Guest]

Is this our opinion about these ideas in general or how they would apply to the VHL?

General. Not VHL! VHL may be used in the example but doesn't reflect your opinion necessarily.

[Guest]

Grantland is ESPN's venting site where they take credit for ridiculous claims and theories because they are ESPN.

I know, it was just that story that sparked a cool thing to do here anyways. Not that the Grantlund thing holds any merit.

 

808, basically the cycle thing they are saying is a 30-Year cycle where every 30 years you'd get the #1 pick, and teams would rotate in order. Aka no performances/standings come into play.

[frescoelmo 1,282]

I know, it was just that story that sparked a cool thing to do here anyways. Not that the Grantlund thing holds any merit.

 

808, basically the cycle thing they are saying is a 30-Year cycle where every 30 years you'd get the #1 pick, and teams would rotate in order. Aka no performances/standings come into play.

 

Right on.  I like their assumption of how they determine the NFL's best home-field advantage when they don't even mention the fact that it's largely based on SOS and what divisions you are facing in the 4-year rotation.  Going back to 2002 hardly completes three cycles.

[Guest]

Right on.  I like their assumption of how they determine the NFL's best home-field advantage when they don't even mention the fact that it's largely based on SOS and what divisions you are facing in the 4-year rotation.  Going back to 2002 hardly completes three cycles.

I agree. Strange

[Da Trifecta 1,902]

Rotation seems spot on imo

[CowboyinAmerica 2,911]

Grantland is ESPN's venting site where they take credit for ridiculous claims and theories because they are ESPN.

 

I would argue that they have a decent amount of autonomy. The top writers for sure - of which Zach Lowe is one - aren't simply parroting talking points and are much more analytical than the typical ESPN writer.

 

Anyway, I don't like the wheel rotation thing for a couple of reasons.

 

1. I feel that the anti-small market teams argument has merit, and I'm also typically never a fan of situations where the rich get richer. How are you going to achieve more interesting outcomes? It's not through propping up a wide variety of teams in the draft, which is an arbitrary promotional tool as it is and doesn't hold as large of an audience as it does for the NFL. It's through propping up teams during the regular season so that teams are evenly matched. That's why I'd much rather see a change such as an MLS-style hard cap (hard number + exception for one superstar) instead of any change to the draft.

 

2. There was an argument made on Reddit that I saw that I think makes sense: You're going to see many more players staying in school to wait for a team that they want and manipulating the draft. What if Andrew Wiggins knows this year, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he's going to be going to some terrible situation that he doesn't want to go to like the Kings. Why not just wait in school for another year until, say, the Heat have the #1 pick? At least with the lottery, there's a wider variety of teams that a player could go to.

[frescoelmo 1,282]

2. There was an argument made on Reddit that I saw that I think makes sense: You're going to see many more players staying in school to wait for a team that they want and manipulating the draft. What if Andrew Wiggins knows this year, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he's going to be going to some terrible situation that he doesn't want to go to like the Kings. Why not just wait in school for another year until, say, the Heat have the #1 pick? At least with the lottery, there's a wider variety of teams that a player could go to.

 

Someone pointed this out in the ESPN comments section.  This actually brings up a bigger point, which is the NCAA being dumb and consistently changing how long players are required to stay in college.  1-year minimum is useless...  Make them stay for the majority or not at all. 

[8Ovechkin8 262]

Rotation would be a horrible idea then. You have 10 years of having a good team followed by 10-15+ years of having a team in the gutter.

Teams that get destroyed in FA also may have already had their picks so they can't draft new talent. Way too many flaws n waiting 30 years to potentially get a star on your team.

[Guest]

Someone pointed this out in the ESPN comments section.  This actually brings up a bigger point, which is the NCAA being dumb and consistently changing how long players are required to stay in college.  1-year minimum is useless...  Make them stay for the majority or not at all. 

Also not to mention (and sorry to be a grandpa) they should finish their degree in case of injuries closing their athletic career short. How many athletes have we heard of that go bankrupt after their short/long careers?

[frescoelmo 1,282]

Also not to mention (and sorry to be a grandpa) they should finish their degree in case of injuries closing their athletic career short. How many athletes have we heard of that go bankrupt after their short/long careers?

 

Well that's kind of how I feel too...  And adversely what does one year do for you in college, or rather the school that you use as basically a launch pad?

[Guest]

Well that's kind of how I feel too...  And adversely what does one year do for you in college, or rather the school that you use as basically a launch pad?

Yeah.

 

1. They don't gain any knowledge that would allow them to do anything after their athletic career.

2. There academic workload isn't that high to start with (I know from my freshman year).

3. Basically using a schools roster/equipment/facilities for one season is an insult to the program.

 

Aka Andrew Wiggans is an asshole haha

[CowboyinAmerica 2,911]

That kind of works both ways though. John Calipari at Kentucky actively recruits those guys, knowing the likely one-and-dones are supremely talented but are less sought after. That way, he can chew them up and spit them out like the basketball factory UK is without ever having to worry too much about having them maintain academic eligibility for more than a semester. Believe both sides can be at fault here, the players for not wanting more and the schools for not caring enough to push them further.

 

Although with that said... fuck the NCAA and their terrible system of ineffectively mixing academics and athletics in general.

Edited December 24, 2013 by CowboyinAmerica

[Guest]

That kind of works both ways though. John Calipari at Kentucky actively recruits those guys, knowing the likely one-and-dones are supremely talented but are less sought after. That way, he can chew them up and spit them out like the basketball factory UK is without ever having to worry too much about having them maintain academic eligibility for more than a semester. Believe both sides can be at fault here, the players for not wanting more and the schools for not caring enough to push them further.

 

Although with that said... fuck the NCAA and their terrible system of ineffectively mixing academics and athletics in general.

I disagree to an extent. You can't fault the player really. In such an economic shithole, why would you choose 4 years in college when you only have to go one year and get an automatic job as a 1st rounder with big cash. I think the system should change so their is no choice. Might even see smarter pro ranks because of it...