The National Basketball Association, like all of the major professional sports leagues, has its own set of challenges. One of the more pressing ones involves the perception, at least, that more than a few of its teams go into the regular season with the goal of winning as few games as possible to secure a better draft position, while other teams adopt a similar philosophy once it becomes clear that their season is going nowhere. The result is a product that doesn’t always present the best of what the league has to offer, especially during the latter portions of the regular season. This has prompted many NBA writers and fans who’d like to see the league function at its highest level to offer some quality suggestions on how to reduce tanking in the NBA.
TRUSTING THE PROCESS
Under the current system where the worst teams record-wise are rewarded with a greater chance of securing the rights to the highest-rated players in that summer’s NBA Draft (assuming Billy King didn’t trade the pick away), one can hardly blame a franchise for using this method of rebuilding and in some cases it has proven to be effective, especially if the team doesn’t deviate from the plan. The Philadephia 76ers made a point of hitting rock-bottom (at least they were honest about it) in hopes of landing a series of high draft picks while subjecting the diehards among their rabid fan base to several years of unwatchable basketball at unaffordable prices.
Now they’ll enter the 2018-19 NBA season as one of the favorites in the Eastern Conference.
THE PROCESS CAN’T ALWAYS BE TRUSTED
Of course, this method doesn’t work for everyone. A combination of skill and luck is needed. Even the Sixers struck out on a couple of their high picks before hitting their targets. Other teams just can’t seem to get it right and are regulars at the annual NBA Draft Lottery while playing their home games in empty buildings unless Lebron James is in town.
In a 30-team league, there will always be franchises that consistently underperform. But when you have a situation where losing is considered a wise strategy while winning 15 games is considered “smarter” than winning 40, it’s problematic. There appears to be no easy solution should the NBA decide to act. But with the understanding that a) there will always be some level of tanking as long as there is a draft and b) any new plan implemented will have to endure constant attempts to circumvent it, here’s my suggestion on how to reduce tanking in the NBA:
NON-PLAYOFF TEAMS ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO SELECT COLLEGE SENIORS
Wait, what?
Hey, gotta start somewhere. With the college senior diminishing in importance on draft night, why not reward their years of sacrifice by giving them first dibs at being selected by an NBA team, and at the same pay scale that exists now? If a player does four years of college and is NBA-caliber, why should someone one year removed from high school get selected earlier and, as a result, paid more — at least at the beginning — even if the “upside” is greater?
If the 19-year-old lives up to the hype, his career earnings will far exceed that of the 22-year-old, anyway. And it’s not like the draft would be closed to the youngsters; they’d just have to wait a bit longer — maybe 90 minutes — on draft night to hear their name called.
And those who bring us the draft proceedings on television would embrace that sort of buildup and drama (aka: torture).
Meanwhile, since the top prospects are only going to school for one year anyway, it would be in every team’s best interest to make an honest effort at qualifying for post-season play have a chance to select one.
To summarize, the non-playoff teams — or the team that owns their pick — select numbers 1 thru 14 and would be limited to college seniors only, while the playoff teams select 15 through 30, with all remaining draft-eligible players on the board available for selection.
WINNERS WIN, LOSERS DO NOT
Will the rich get richer? Yes, but they already do anyway. In this scenario, the non-lottery team with the worst record gets to pick whomever they wish, which likely includes the player who would be selected first under the current system. This eighth-seeded playoff team gets rewarded for qualifying for the post-season (assuming Billy King hasn’t traded the pick) and a nice consolation prize for getting swept out of the first round of the playoffs. The team with the league’s best record ends up with a player who would go mid-first round in the current system, as the lower-rated playoff qualifiers walk away with the higher-ranked incoming players.
And it’s not a total loss for the non-playoff teams limited to selecting college seniors in Round One. They’ll get a shot at redemption in the second round of the draft, with players who would ordinarily go mid-to-late first round still available.
BUT WHAT ABOUT PARITY?
What about it?
The salary cap. The luxury tax. Draft position in reverse order of regular season win-loss record. All were instituted for the purpose of creating a level playing field, yet we still end up with a) superteams and b) seasons where fewer than five teams have a legitimate shot at winning the championship. This method gives the lower-seeded playoff teams a chance at closing the gap between themselves and the higher playoff seeds, resulting in more competitive first-round playoff pairings.
The lottery teams limited to using their first-round pick on a college senior will have to find other ways of getting out of the basement if there are slim pickings within that classification. Doesn’t seem fair, but neither is spending hundreds of dollars watching a game where winning isn’t a priority for at least one of the teams.
NOT THE PERFECT SOLUTION, BUT…
As with any system, this one would need some tweaking, but it’s a start. Perhaps upperclassmen or their equivalents (21 years old and up) could be included instead of limiting choices to just college seniors. But that would come later. Let’s stick with the seniors for now.
With fourteen lottery teams and only eleven of the sixty draftees classified as college seniors selected in the 2018 NBA Draft, there’s the possibility of a player who wouldn’t otherwise hear his name called on draft night being selected in the lottery and ahead of a player ranked much higher.
Doesn’t seem fair, but neither is spending hundreds of dollars watching a game where winning isn’t a priority for at least one of the teams.
OTHER POTENTIAL TWEAKS FOR LATER
There can still be a lottery for the non-playoff qualifiers to reduce tanking on the off-chance that a senior is actually rated as one of the top players in the entire draft, which hasn’t happened in years.
Playoff qualifiers will now have to make a choice between securing better seeding or putting themselves in a better position to land a top one-and-done player. If there’s evidence of playoff qualifiers “tanking” (sub-tanking?) after securing a playoff spot, an additional lottery can be added for those teams, as well.
The league and its television partners would certainly jump at the opportunity to add yet another hourlong Draft Lottery show to the calendar.
And of course, by comparing draft position under the current and new system, restitution will have to be found for teams who traded for future draft picks whose value may have diminished under the new rules. But when a team makes a trade in 2017 that involves a draft pick in 2020, they don’t know what they’re getting, anyway.
GIVE IT A (TWO-POINT) SHOT, ALREADY
Losing teams will now have incentive — if not the personnel — to at least attempt to qualify for the post-season or figure out ways to get there other than via the draft. The well-managed teams will find a way to get it done. And as we’ve seen, mismanaged teams can return to the lottery for years and never show measurable improvement on the court.
The race for the final playoff spots should be compelling as it could mean the difference between having a chance at a top one-and-done player and selecting a college senior after most have already been selected.
Winning is rewarded and losing is no longer encouraged as the smart way to rebuild. More competitive basketball and more games after the All-Star break with playoff and draft position implications. Fewer teams fielding 21-and-under squads. It would change the way trades are made, particularly those involving draft picks.
No, it won’t suddenly compel the one-and-done type to suddenly decide to stay in college for four years.
But just like that, it’s now better to be a 45-win squad than a 15-win squad.
What a concept.
