2012 NBA Draft Order: Why This Year's Results Prove We Need a Better System

You know a draft system is broken when the team with the worst record hasn't picked first since 2004. I'm as happy for the Hornets as anybody, but it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have the first pick. 

I get the idea behind the lottery. It's supposed to discourage tanking. The problem is teams are going to tank no matter what. Just because having the worst record means only a 25 percent chance at the first pick rather than a 100 percent chance isn't going to keep teams from trying to lose. 

The bottom line is that the Bobcats should be picking first. They were the worst team in NBA history. I can't remember a team with less pure talent ever. If ever there was a year where we shouldn't have had a lottery, it was this one.

Meanwhile, teams like Chicago in 2008 and Orlando in 1993 have stolen star players when they really should never have been in such a position. If Chicago had picked where they should have, they'd have Joe Alexander right now instead of Derrick Rose.

Giving a player like Rose to a team that was already good basically creates an instant contender. That's not the point of the draft. The point is to allow the worst teams to replenish their rosters. 

Unfortunately, we're never going to have a perfect system. Tanking will always be prominent, and while it exists some form of lottery will always have to happen. But luckily, I have several solutions to fix it. 

Solution one: the coin toss

This was the pre-1984 method of determining the first pick. Unfortunately, the league decided to institute the lottery after Houston, Portland and Chicago tanked for Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon and (presumably) North Carolina's Michael Jordan. Houston won the toss and took Hakeem, Portland lost it and took Sam Bowie and Chicago missed it entirely and ended up with Jordan.

The old system only had a coin toss for the first pick. I say we expand it. Let's put a coin toss in place for every set of picks. 

The advantage of this system is that it ensures that teams pick roughly where they should, but aren't guaranteed a great player by tanking. 

It would also create the single most entertaining coin tosses in the history of the world. Can you imagine the message boards after the Knicks blew a coin toss for the No. 1 pick? "HOW COULD DOLAN PICK HEADS!!!!! TAILS NEVER FAILS!!!!!!" It'd be great. 

Finally, think of the gambling implications. There is nothing more random and fun than betting on a coin toss. I'm in favor of anything that creates more opportunities to do it.

Solution two: rock-paper-scissors

This is not intended as a serious solution, but wouldn't this be the greatest half hour of television history?

Each lottery team sends a representative to compete in a single elimination rock-paper-scissors tournament. The seven teams that lose in the first round are given picks in order of their records. The team with the worst record left out of the seven finalists gets a Round 2 bye. Then they play until only a single victor remains.

I would pay money to watch this. Would teams hire professional rock-paper-scissors players as hired guns? How much would those guys be worth? Would they count against the salary cap? Could we somehow arrange for JaVale McGee to play against Abe Pollin's wife? I don't care what you say, this would be the most entertaining television program of all time. 

Solution three: record-weighted lottery

The logistics of this would be nearly impossible because records change every year. But here's the basic premise: Teams' lottery positions are just weighted by where they finish in relation to their opponents; they're weighted by their records.

Here's an example. This year's Bobcats were the worst team in NBA history. Logically, then, they should have had the best ever chance to win the lottery. Under this system, the fact they were not only the worst team in the league, but astronomically worse than every other team would give them a better chance at winning the first pick.

Here's the problem: This would encourage tanking more than anything short of eliminating the lottery altogether. That's why a system like this would never work, but if the NBA found a way to make it consistent I think it'd be a great way to balance a lottery with fairness.

Solution four: the attendance solution 

This one sort of goes against the point of this article, but I think it'd be cool. Half of your lottery chances are determined by your record. The other half is determined by your average attendance. 

I like the idea of rewarding the most loyal fanbases. A system like this might also encourage owners of losing teams to lower ticket prices, allowing more people to actually go to games. 

The problem here is that this system is completely unfair and almost defeats the purpose of a lottery. The Knicks are always going to sell out, that doesn't mean they deserve the best chance in the lottery every year. I wish there were a way to reward loyal fans, but this just isn't it. 

Solution five: multiple lotteries

This is my favorite solution, and one that could actually work. 

Here's how it works. Rather than one big lottery, we have three small ones. The first would consist of the three worst teams, the second would consist of teams four through eight and the third would have all of the remaining teams. You can only pick as highly as your group allows.

The system would also weigh heavily in favor of the worst teams in each group. For group one, the worst team would have a 50 percent chance of winning, the second team would have a 30 percent chance of winning and the third team would have a 20 percent chance of winning.

This system allows you to move up, but not too much farther than where you reasonably should be. It gives the worst team the best chance to win the first pick, but also doesn't guarantee that tanking will get you the best available player. It's not perfect, but I think it's better than what we have now.