Revamping the NBA Lottery

With the Cavaliers winning the 2014 NBA Lottery, is it finally time for the NBA to consider changing the lottery format?

If the NBA community learned anything from last night's lottery it is that the lottery system is without a doubt flawed. As Bill Simmons suggested, why give the most "incompetent" team over the past five years another first overall pick in the draft. Personally, I would have liked to see any team besides the Cavaliers win last night. Their first overall selection this year will be the fifth pick Cleveland has had in top four since 2011. And yet, the Cavaliers have still remained as one of the Eastern Conference's worst teams.

Again, as Simmons alluded to, there are major mistakes Cleveland has made over the past five years. They've tried to make "sneaky" picks with Tristan Thompson and Dion Waiters which haven't panned out. They signed Andrew Bynum to only see the experiment blow up in the organization's face. They've failed to surround Kyrie Irving with a sufficient supporting cast (Lebron 2.0?). They drafted Anthony Bennett first overall. They signed Mike Brown to a five-year contract and fired him after one season. There is absolutely no reason to reward such a poorly run organization with another first overall selection.

That being said, the lottery system needs a nice revamping. Over the past year, two popular lottery formats have been suggested to the NBA.

The first scenario, publicized by Grantland's Zach Lowe, is the wheel format which pre-determines each NBA team's draft position for the next 30 years. Under this format, each team would select in a specific draft slot once, and only once, every 30 years. Simply put, the teams would cycle through the 30 draft slots year by year. The predetermined order is designed so teams would select within different parts of the draft each year, hypothetically creating a fair draft system.

This particular format is simpler to understand in pictorial form. The graphic below outlines the suggested formatting of the selections for the wheel system. The top-six picks are highlighted in red to show that each team would be guaranteed a top-six selection every five seasons. Additionally, each team would also be guaranteed at least one top-twelve pick every four years.

 

Following the graphic: If a team was rewarded the first overall pick in the system's inaugural season their selections over the first six seasons would be the following: 1st, 30th, 19th, 18th, 7th, and 6th. Just follow the wheel around clockwise depending on the particular starting position.

While a radical change, this system is designed to create a fair and impartial lottery system for the draft process. Essentially, this idea would eliminate tanking from the NBA all together. If teams knew their draft order beforehand, they would have no incentive to try and lose. However, there are some serious complications with the wheel system.

First, the wheel could create situations where teams are rotting away for six years, which could be extremely detrimental to the organization and fan base. Let's say you're a low-caliber team playing in a smaller market (insert Milwaukee Bucks, Philadelphia 76ers, Orlando Magic, Utah Jazz), if you draft a Greg Oden or an Andea Bargnani with your top pick you have nothing to look forward to over the next five to six years. If you're the Milwaukee Bucks, could you survive by adding Greg Oden to your roster and then drafting 30th, 19th, and 18th for the next three years? Not a chance.

On the flip side, a top-tier team could grab a top-six selection and add even more talent to its roster. Imagine Miami or Oklahoma City adding Joel Embiid this year. With the parity among teams already so high, is this what the NBA wants? While teams would have the chance to build a team with it's share of top-six selections, this system could add to the growing parity in the league at least for the time being.

Additionally, another problem arises in collegiate players leaving early for the draft. If you're Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker, and Milwaukee is picking first in 2014, but the Lakers are picking first in 2015, who's to say you don't stay another year? If the draft slots are pre-determined prospects could leave earlier or later depending on which franchise is picking when. Considering this, the system would give at least somewhat of an advantage to big market teams.

While I love the idea of the wheel system, I think there are too many questions at this point surrounding how and when the NBA would implement such a system. With some more work, this system would be something the league will definitely consider within the next couple of years.

Moving forward, the second scenario would be returning to the NBA's original lottery format that was created when the NBA adopted the draft lottery system in 1985. In this system, each non-playoff team has an equally likely chance of winning the lottery. While certainly not the most creative system,  it makes a lot of sense.

If the sole goal of a season is making the playoffs, then all 14 non-playoffs teams are essentially the same. Despite record or roster differences between the non-playoff teams, each team did not accomplish its goal of making the playoffs. Also, in giving each team an equal shot at winning the lottery, this system eliminates tanking. If you're the 76ers and you have an equal chance at the first pick as 13 other teams, there is no reason to lose 26 straight games. Or have Brandon Davies on your roster.

In fact, this system sort of propels teams to win games and play their hardest. Even if you're destined for the lottery, you would be much better off as an organization by at least attempting to establish a culture of winning rather than tanking.

There are some questions surrounding the "fairness" of this system. For example, say Phoenix, which barely missed the playoffs in a stacked Western Conference, won the lottery and Milwaukee was awarded the 14th pick. There is some apparent disparity there. However, as I mentioned earlier, I think the current system is unfair in the fact that Cleveland has been awarded three first overall selections in the past four years. I guess it's just how you look at the situation.

Overall, I think instituting the original system, while not particularly creative, is the most plausible option and could make for a far more interesting lottery. Under the currently proposed wheel system, there is just too much room for increased parity between small market and big market organizations. I would love to see the wheel  adopted sometime within the future because I do believe it is the most fair system if it is implemented in right way and at the right time. It will be very interesting to see how Adam Silver deals with this situation moving forward.