Draft system overhaul

[dread and might]

Ok. I've been mulling this one over for a while now. I am happy to have the fatal flaw in it exposed, I can't see it though....

Obviously no system is perfect, but this should reduce the attractiveness of tanking, which, despite all the protestations to the contrary, is obviously happening at present.

Priority pick: Gone

Divide the teams into 4 groups of four based on finishing position. So top 4,
5-8, 9-12, 13-16

The bottom four still get the top 4 picks in the draft, but a lottery system determines the order within that group.

Repeat for all the groups, throughout all the rounds of the draft.

This way the cyclical access to the top talent is maintained without making it attractive to lose games, as you wouldn't know exactly which pick you were going to end up with anyway.

Thoughts?

[AnnieH]

It's a start.

Personally, if you're a crap team you don't deserve the best pick.

He who finishes first, deserves the best pick.

Takes tanking right out of the equation.

[CureTheSane]

Ok. I've been mulling this one over for a while now. I am happy to have the fatal flaw in it exposed, I can't see it though....

Obviously no system is perfect, but this should reduce the attractiveness of tanking, which, despite all the protestations to the contrary, is obviously happening at present.

Priority pick: Gone

Divide the teams into 4 groups of four based on finishing position. So top 4,
5-8, 9-12, 13-16

The bottom four still get the top 4 picks in the draft, but a lottery system determines the order within that group.

Repeat for all the groups, throughout all the rounds of the draft.

This way the cyclical access to the top talent is maintained without making it attractive to lose games, as you wouldn't know exactly which pick you were going to end up with anyway.

Thoughts?

Doesn't actually sound too bad.

[goswannie14]

Ok. I've been mulling this one over for a while now. I am happy to have the fatal flaw in it exposed, I can't see it though....

Obviously no system is perfect, but this should reduce the attractiveness of tanking, which, despite all the protestations to the contrary, is obviously happening at present.

Priority pick: Gone

Divide the teams into 4 groups of four based on finishing position. So top 4,
5-8, 9-12, 13-16

The bottom four still get the top 4 picks in the draft, but a lottery system determines the order within that group.

Repeat for all the groups, throughout all the rounds of the draft.

This way the cyclical access to the top talent is maintained without making it attractive to lose games, as you wouldn't know exactly which pick you were going to end up with anyway.

Thoughts?

I was thinking along similar lines, but with 2 groups of 8 teams (ie those in the finals and those that miss out on the finals) instead of your 4 groups of 4.

[smasher]

I'm happier with that system,particularily the axing of the prioity pick.

[swantastic]

It's a start.

Personally, if you're a crap team you don't deserve the best pick.

He who finishes first, deserves the best pick.

Takes tanking right out of the equation.

The AFL wouldnt do that Annie,because they want an even competition.

[dread and might]

I was thinking along similar lines, but with 2 groups of 8 teams (ie those in the finals and those that miss out on the finals) instead of your 4 groups of 4.

Too high a possibility of a team having a good season, losing a few games on the trot at the wrong end of the season, finishing 9th and getting the #1 pick....

[AnnieH]

The AFL wouldnt do that Annie,because they want an even competition.

It promotes an even competition.
It means that every team has to try really hard.
You get rewarded for playing well - not for tanking.

[ShockOfHair]

I was thinking along similar lines, but with 2 groups of 8 teams (ie those in the finals and those that miss out on the finals) instead of your 4 groups of 4.


I'm with that.

Right now teams have every incentive to tank.

There would be no incentive, except to drop out of the eight.

And so the draft becomes a crapshoot.

But if you're recruiting 16 & 17 yo kids, rather than 18 & 19yos as Roos and others have suggested, you don't know what you're getting anyway.

[Mike_B]

I was thinking along similar lines, but with 2 groups of 8 teams (ie those in the finals and those that miss out on the finals) instead of your 4 groups of 4.

I'd just go with non-finalists going into a lottery, but the team that finishes 16th gets 8 entries, 15th gets 7 etc. For the top 8 just go on finishing position. This would be something along the lines of what they do in the NBA (albeit for the top 3 picks then go in reverse finishing order for the remainder). So the poorest team has the best chance of getting the top pick, but not guaranteed.

[CureTheSane]

Too high a possibility of a team having a good season, losing a few games on the trot at the wrong end of the season, finishing 9th and getting the #1 pick....

That would be a big risk.

You could finish 9th and get the #4 pick.
I don't think many teams would risk that.

[dread and might]

Not suggesting they would actually lose games on purpose to drop out of the 8. More saying if that happened and you ended up with the #1 pick it doesn't do much equalising, hence my suggestion to break into groups of 4 rather than 8.

So the comment was a reply to the post about halving the teams rather than 4 groups of 4...

[CureTheSane]

OK, got it