Bunks wrote:
Donstuie wrote:
camelboy wrote:
woof wrote:
camelboy wrote:
No draft = No tanking.
It's pretty simple really.
No draft = No hope for some of the 16 clubs soon to be 18.
No hope means no club.
Clubs go missing means less money for TV rights.
Less money means etc. etc. etc.
Salary cap and draft must stay.
Priority pick is the tank carrott and needs to go.
You really can't get more simple than that.
Why is there an incentive to tank? To get the earliest pick possible so a club can select the best kids possible.
Okay, say the priority picks are removed ... you reckon if 15th and 16th are playing off in R22 with the result to determine who gets #1 that there won't be a mention of tanking?
Maybe the lottery system has more merit than I first thought, but either way, having a the current draft system as the only real means of injecting new talent into a club's playing list puts clubs in a position where losing can provide more benefits than winning.
I hate to say it, but the NRL has a salary cap and no draft. How much tanking talk do you hear about in the NRL? While their system is far from perfect, it at least saves clubs from being in a severely compromised position.
If we adopted the NRL system we'd still be having contractual arguments mere weeks before the start of the season (ie. Israel Folau).
I've never been a fan of the whole lottery thing, but I see little choice but to now adopt it. But that presents another problem. What if the team who finishes 13th finishes on 7-8 wins and draws the #1 pick, while the bottom team who might finish with 4-5 wins gets #4? Would that be fair?
Do you give the bottom 4 equal chance, or do you get more chances based on where you finish? If so, would it be inconceivable a team might 'tank' for more chances?
The NBA system in the U.S. is probably the fairest. The bottom team might get 16 balls in the lottery (out of 136), second bottom 15, third bottom 14 and so on......the top team would get only one ball. Balls are picked out and that team gets the draft pick from 1 onwards.
I think its much more weighted to favour the bottom team than that - in the NBA 14 teams qualify for lottery with the following % chances
1. 250 combinations, 25% chance of receiving the #1 pick
2. 199 combinations, 19.9% chance
3. 156 combinations, 15.6% chance
4. 119 combinations, 11.9% chance
5. 88 combinations, 8.8% chance
6. 63 combinations, 6.3% chance
7. 43 combinations, 4.3% chance
8. 28 combinations, 2.8% chance
9. 17 combinations, 1.7% chance
10. 11 combinations, 1.1% chance
11. 8 combinations, 0.8% chance
12. 7 combinations, 0.7% chance
13. 6 combinations, 0.6% chance
14. 5 combinations, 0.5% chance
A similar system for the AFL where only 8-10 (due to comp expansion) teams would mean the lower ranked teams could have higher % chances for #1 pick.