NBA Executives feel the NBA Draft was rigged

[magicbalala245]

The New Orleans Hornets won the draft lottery and get to pick one of the most transcendent prospects in years, Kentucky's Anthony Davis. The NBA-owned New Orleans Hornets, with a 13.7 percent chance, won the lottery. For over a year, David Stern pushed hard to get maximum value for his owners on the re-sale of the Hornets, and Tom Benson gave Stern an asking price and an assurance the franchise wouldn't leave New Orleans.

 

"It's such a joke that the league made the new owners be at the lottery for the show," one high-ranking team executive told Yahoo! Sports. "The league still owns the Hornets. Ask their front office if new owners can make a trade right now. They can't. This is a joke." The reaction of several league executives was part disgust, part resignation on Wednesday night. So many had predicted this happening, so many suspected that somehow, someway, the Hornets would walk away with Davis.

 

That's the worst part for the NBA; these aren't the railings from the guy sitting at the corner tavern, but the belief of those working within the machinery that something undue happened here, that they suspect it happens all the time under Stern.

[Lkr]

It was pretty obvious that NO would get the pick. I couldn't stop laughing when it happened. Such a shame that the media like ESPN and TNT are silent about shit like this.

[Real Deal]

The only argument anyone has against it being rigged (the draft lottery) is that each lottery team (14 of them) send a representative into the room for the lotto, and I believe there are six other randoms (from media outlets) that attend as well, everyone stripped of their cell phones and anything else that gives them access to the outside world. Basically, you would have to be convinced that these 14 lotto teams are all in on it, and they know that the Hornets are getting that #1...and that's almost hard to imagine. You would think SOMEONE would come out and say something over the last 20 years or so, at least one former executive...but I don't know.

[JYD]

It was pretty obvious that NO would get the pick. I couldn't stop laughing when it happened. Such a shame that the media like ESPN and TNT are silent about shit like this.

Idk if it's rigged though. It was ironic and shit but why would the NBA rig it so New Orleans gets Davis? Not like some huge market in N.O. or something. Having the Hornets have a star or be a competitive team is not imperative to the NBA's success.

[DunkinDerozan]

I don't see how they could rig it, so I doubt it.

[Makaveli]

The NBA has been rigged since the Knicks drafted Ewing.. maybe it goes back even further than that.

[Real Deal]

Idk if it's rigged though. It was ironic and shit but why would the NBA rig it so New Orleans gets Davis? Not like some huge market in N.O. or something. Having the Hornets have a star or be a competitive team is not imperative to the NBA's success.

Well, who knows...maybe Benson wanted to move the Hornets over to Seattle, and the sale (and keeping them in NO) depended on landing that #1.

 

Of course, I'll stick to my points a few posts up and say that I don't think it's rigged, but it's not impossible, either.

[Check my Stats]

If the NBA is rigged, it isn't in the draft lottery. I'll just say that.

[Built Ford Tough]

The NBA has been rigged since the Knicks drafted Ewing.. maybe it goes back even further than that.

 

I agree that the Ewing lottery was rigged.

 

However, the process is completely different now than it was then, so you can't really use the Ewing lottery as proof that since it is a completely different system now than it was then.

 

The only argument anyone has against it being rigged (the draft lottery) is that each lottery team (14 of them) send a representative into the room for the lotto, and I believe there are six other randoms (from media outlets) that attend as well, everyone stripped of their cell phones and anything else that gives them access to the outside world. Basically, you would have to be convinced that these 14 lotto teams are all in on it, and they know that the Hornets are getting that #1...and that's almost hard to imagine. You would think SOMEONE would come out and say something over the last 20 years or so, at least one former executive...but I don't know.

 

It is also worth mentioning Ernst & Young's involvment in the process as well.

 

The revenue they make from the NBA is miniscule compared to their other business ventures, so why would they volunteer to attach their name to the lottery if it was rigged? Basically, why would they run the risk of being exposed for fraud when the revenue they make from the NBA is nothing compared to the other companies they are involved with? It makes no sense.

 

 

 

Really though, if you want to, you can come up with pretty much a perfectly valid conspiracy theory for almost all the lottery teams.

 

Charlotte - Michael Jordan factor.

Cleveland - Lose James, give them Irving and Davis

New Orleans - League owned up until recently

Sacramento - Ownership turmoil and uncertain future in Sacramento

Brooklyn - New market, give them a face for the move to Brooklyn

Golden State - Major market, moving to San Francisco in a few years, give them Davis now to make them competitive for the move

Houston - Make up for trade veto, Davis replaces Yao in a major market

Detroit - Revitalize a sputtering franchise with a rich history

Portland - Oden didn't work, so here, have a replacement

 

That is 10 possible picks (counting New Orleans 2 chances) that can easily be spun as a consipracy and those are without putting any thought into it. I'm sure you can just as easily come up with theories for teams like Washington, Toronto and Phoenix as well. The only one I couldn't think of would be Milwaukee.

[Cleveland's Finest]

Really though, if you want to, you can come up with pretty much a perfectly valid conspiracy theory for almost all the lottery teams.

 

Charlotte - Michael Jordan factor.

Cleveland - Lose James, give them Irving and Davis

New Orleans - League owned up until recently

Sacramento - Ownership turmoil and uncertain future in Sacramento

Brooklyn - New market, give them a face for the move to Brooklyn

 

 

Good point.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Cleveland's Finest

[ChosenOne]

I have hated the lottery from day one. It should be done live and since it isn't done live it makes me believe that its rigged.

[Jenneral]

That is 10 possible picks (counting New Orleans 2 chances) that can easily be spun as a consipracy and those are without putting any thought into it. I'm sure you can just as easily come up with theories for teams like Washington, Toronto and Phoenix as well. The only one I couldn't think of would be Milwaukee.

Exactly why they should have rigged it for us to win.

[JYD]

This brings me back to my original point...The lottery is so stupid though in general. It brings questions such as this into play...Just avoid it and give the top pick to the worst team.

[SRT Spidey]

^yup, thats how the NFl does it and it works wonders for them. teams go from shit to playoff teams in one off-season, thats rare in the NBA.

[Real Deal]

Yeah, but giving the worst team a #1 pick...you're going to see more of what happened back in 1997, when the Spurs (who had a 59-win team the previous season) tanked by keeping David Robinson out of the lineup, even though everyone knew he was healed up far earlier than season's end. They landed Duncan, formed the twin tower duo, and eventually won four championships.

 

If you end up with a nice draft, with solid lottery players (like you're going to see this season), you run the risk of a lot of bubble playoff teams tanking.

 

I forgot who it was...but someone mentioned taking the lottery teams and handing them #1-14, by record, in reverse order. So, for example, the team that nearly made the playoffs...they get the #1 pick. The worst team in the league would get #14. I actually like that idea. It forces the worst teams in the NBA to actually play as good as they can, all season long...and rewards the "bad team" (lottery teams) for trying to make the playoffs.

[EastCoastNiner]

Yeah, but giving the worst team a #1 pick...you're going to see more of what happened back in 1997, when the Spurs (who had a 59-win team the previous season) tanked by keeping David Robinson out of the lineup, even though everyone knew he was healed up far earlier than season's end. They landed Duncan, formed the twin tower duo, and eventually won four championships.

 

If you end up with a nice draft, with solid lottery players (like you're going to see this season), you run the risk of a lot of bubble playoff teams tanking.

 

I forgot who it was...but someone mentioned taking the lottery teams and handing them #1-14, by record, in reverse order. So, for example, the team that nearly made the playoffs...they get the #1 pick. The worst team in the league would get #14. I actually like that idea. It forces the worst teams in the NBA to actually play as good as they can, all season long...and rewards the "bad team" (lottery teams) for trying to make the playoffs.

 

I've heard pretty much every idea for draft lotteries, including the one you just mentioned, but I really don't like that idea.

 

In this situation, you would really be screwing the teams that really do suck, and would be helping borderline playoff teams draft a franchise player. In your scenario, there would be no reason for the worst team to tank games, so if they do finish in last place, they likely really suck, and could use a top pick.

 

In a league where one star can take you to the next level, I think you would see those bottom teams staying there for a while because no great FA's will want to go to those teams that suck, and they won't be getting a high pick because of the proposed draft system.

[Jenneral]

 

I forgot who it was...but someone mentioned taking the lottery teams and handing them #1-14, by record, in reverse order. So, for example, the team that nearly made the playoffs...they get the #1 pick. The worst team in the league would get #14. I actually like that idea. It forces the worst teams in the NBA to actually play as good as they can, all season long...and rewards the "bad team" (lottery teams) for trying to make the playoffs.

I would really like to see this happen. A lot of people would hate it but it would definitely keep the league more competitive and pretty much get rid of tanking.

[The Fuhrer]

Idk if it's rigged though. It was ironic and shit but why would the NBA rig it so New Orleans gets Davis? Not like some huge market in N.O. or something. Having the Hornets have a star or be a competitive team is not imperative to the NBA's success.

 

The NBA still owns the Hornets essentially. Now the difference between revenue/interest with a Hornets team that features Anthony Davis compared to a Hornets team that has any other draft prospect instead is HUGE. This is all too perfect for them and it was already made clear the NBA was losing a ton of money with the Hornets last year. Without Davis it would be the same exact thing this upcoming year, but now the franchise has interest and will even get a few national tv games most likely. Point is fans in New Orleans will be excited. With any other prospect noone gives a shit. This was definitely rigged.

[TheNotoriousBANG]

Anthony Davis' family "disappointed" he won't be playing for Jordan's Bobcats.

 

:lol: :lol: their family must not watch basketball

it's family fortune it landed on NO insteand of Charlotte

[The Fuhrer]

I forgot who it was...but someone mentioned taking the lottery teams and handing them #1-14, by record, in reverse order. So, for example, the team that nearly made the playoffs...they get the #1 pick. The worst team in the league would get #14. I actually like that idea. It forces the worst teams in the NBA to actually play as good as they can, all season long...and rewards the "bad team" (lottery teams) for trying to make the playoffs.

 

Interesting concept, but I think that would just make low seeded playoff teams tank. Do you really think 7th and 8th seeded teams in the East would rather make the playoffs than barely miss it and get the number one overall pick?

 

I think the lottery is good as it favors the teams that suck the most, but still gives some excitement so that even though borderline teams could get lucky. I would probably make it so that all lottery teams get the same odds to get the top picks and every other pick, just like they used to have it.

[DunkinDerozan]

Yeah, but giving the worst team a #1 pick...you're going to see more of what happened back in 1997, when the Spurs (who had a 59-win team the previous season) tanked by keeping David Robinson out of the lineup, even though everyone knew he was healed up far earlier than season's end. They landed Duncan, formed the twin tower duo, and eventually won four championships.

 

If you end up with a nice draft, with solid lottery players (like you're going to see this season), you run the risk of a lot of bubble playoff teams tanking.

 

I forgot who it was...but someone mentioned taking the lottery teams and handing them #1-14, by record, in reverse order. So, for example, the team that nearly made the playoffs...they get the #1 pick. The worst team in the league would get #14. I actually like that idea. It forces the worst teams in the NBA to actually play as good as they can, all season long...and rewards the "bad team" (lottery teams) for trying to make the playoffs.

 

I don't mind that idea, but I don't think its a great idea. I'd rather them just give each team that doesn't make the playoffs equal likelihood of getting first overall pick. So pretty much just randomize. Then there isn't one spot you can go for. Every team plays there hardest knowing that it doesn't matter where they place, they still get same odds at getting first overall unless they make the playoffs.

[JYD]

I forgot who it was...but someone mentioned taking the lottery teams and handing them #1-14, by record, in reverse order. So, for example, the team that nearly made the playoffs...they get the #1 pick. The worst team in the league would get #14. I actually like that idea. It forces the worst teams in the NBA to actually play as good as they can, all season long...and rewards the "bad team" (lottery teams) for trying to make the playoffs.

I totally disagree. Although my idea of giving the worst team the number one pick may be flawed, and I actually agree, it really pretty much is, the one proposed that you heard of is just an awful idea. A team like Charlotte clearly needs the best player they can get, they are abysmal. Why continue killing their fan base and organization? Like ECN said, they are THAT bad, and in a league [and sport really] where one player makes such an impact, it's ridiculous if you gave, let's say, the Bucks the number one pick this season...

Edited June 1, 2012 by JYD

[EastCoastNiner]

Interesting concept, but I think that would just make low seeded playoff teams tank. Do you really think 7th and 8th seeded teams in the East would rather make the playoffs than barely miss it and get the number one overall pick?

 

I think the lottery is good as it favors the teams that suck the most, but still gives some excitement so that even though borderline teams could get lucky. I would probably make it so that all lottery teams get the same odds to get the top picks and every other pick, just like they used to have it.

 

No, if you are a borderline playoffs team, you have a chance, and owners will not want to let that extra revenue go.

 

Also, in the NBA in particular, one player can turn a franchise around in a year or two, which is tough to say in any other sport.

Those teams that finish last are going to end up in a never-ending hole they can't get out of.

[Built Ford Tough]

Bill Simmons and Chad Ford talked the lottery and draft in a podcast two days ago (taped Tuesday, aired Wednesday) and Ford brought up an interesting idea.

 

He said to take the teams past 3 years into consideration when determining lottery placing. His argument was that it would eliminate tanking because teams would have to commit to 3 years of it to ensure that they have the best odds and even then, it isn't a guarantee that you will end up the first pick. Teams wouldn't go out and tank for 3 years when so much can change in those 3 years. A can't miss prospect may not be as good as expected (look at Harrison Barnes high school hype and compare it to now for an example) and teams would just let things play out.

 

On the other hand, you may end up penalizing teams who end up losing a star player. Take Cleveland for an example. If this system was in place during last years lottery they would have probably the worst odds of all lottery teams despite being one of the worst teams in the league and it woudl be entirely because of how good they were when they had a player on the team who is no longer there (LeBron James in this case).

 

Anyways, what are your guys thoughts on this proposal?

 

PS: Personally, I'm fine with the system as is. Teams tank, but even then it isn't a guarantee you will get the pick you want.

 

PPS: Giving the first pick to the best non-playoff team would be a disaster. Teams that are legitimately bad would have basically no chance at ever improving. They wouldn't have any way of getting better. Free agents wouldn't sign there, their roster would suck and the only hope is that they strike gold with a 14th overall pick, which really, how often does that happen?

[Kenneth35]

No, I don't think the draft was rigged. And I like the current system as it is. Bad teams get a break and a chance to improve, but at the same time tanking doesn't guarantee a specif pick (which is good).