Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
1. I believe that these changes should not happen. The league would be extremely uneven for eternity, and it would be hard to balance out any sort of talent level between the several teams with the new system.
ReplyDelete2. I think that while teams may now be motivated to play well, their talent will not meet the criteria needed to have a successful season. The reason they tank in the first place is because they are aware how poor their talents are, know they have zero shot at the playoffs, and want to focus on rebuilding their team
3. Yes, it is completely unfair to those teams. They sacrifice a season or two in order to look forward to the future of their programs. It is a strategic method to have a chance to win it all in a few years, rather than trying to break .500 in the current year.
4. I would say the ratings, and viewership. Fans aren't going to want to watch a bad game of basketball, the regular season kind of seems like a joke lately. The power house teams demolish other teams, and I notice a lack of effort lately.
I think the e changes are very fair. If a team is in the bottom 3 why would they not tank to get the first pick? It has been seen that teams do in fact go for last place if they are doing poorly. I think giving the bottom 3 even odds would not give teams the incentive to tank as much as before.
ReplyDeleteI think it will make the bottom 3 teams tank less, but any team in the bottom 6 or so now will be tanking to get into the bottom 3. In fact I think this may even cause more teams to tank as there are more places to try to tank for rather than just last.
Yes I definitely think it is unfair as that team isn't trying to bead they literally just have a bad team. A team like this is who deserves and needs a number one pick not a team that cheats and tanks to get it.
I think the NBA is vulnerable as sitting only 1 or 2 players can kill their team and make them tank. There are also so many dominant teams that are expected to win so nobody expects these bad teams to win which allows them to get away with it,
I think these new changes are great. They are fair and the greatly discourage tanking. Tanking is ruining the NBA so this new rule will help to keep teams fighting no matter what their situation is. Teams who do badly still have a better chance to get the first overall pick, but it is greatly diminished. This is the best way to keep the league fair and competitive.
ReplyDeleteI think this new policy will definitely dissuade teams from tanking. While it isn't perfect it is definitely a step in the right direction. Another step that could be added to this policy could be to have them only guaranteed a top 7 pick. This is still a good and high pick but teams won't tank if they aren't guaranteed a top 5 pick.
It is slightly unfair, however I believe this is the way it has to be. Even though the first overall pick might not be the worst team in the league, it will still be one of the bottom teams in the league. In the end it all works out.
The NBA is so vulnerable to tanking because the incentive is so high. Once teams realize that they have no chance of doing anything in the playoffs, they look to the future. They try to make their team better. What better way to do that then to get the best young player in the world.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteI think it is unfortunate that this had to happen, but the changes needed to be made. I like the new lottery system because it is a minor change but it will take away tanking for the first pick, which takes away from the game.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
I think that it will work to an extent because teams will not care about having the worst record in the league, although non contenders will still be fighting to be in the bottom three, so this may have just pushed the problem down a few spots and expanded the issue. However, I don’t think anything else can be put in place.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
Yes I think this is unfair but it is also part of the game and is becoming a strategy for rebuilding teams. Not everything is going to be fair in the NBA and I think this is an example of just that. It’s only so preventable and we will have to wait and see if the new rules put in place will make the league more fair.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
I think the NBA is vulnerable because of the draft format and the fact that non contending teams and their fans value a first pick more than winning when they are not a championship contender. Another reason is because players can come in and have an impact on their teams right away. This doesn’t happen in baseball because the players are years away from the MLB so there is not an immediate award for tanking.
I think that these changes should have not been made because there is a reason why teams in the NBA get the first pick in the drafts because they are the best teams and they want the best players. And if say a really good basketball player goes to a bad team then it is not helping his career.
ReplyDeleteI think the proposed lottery changes could have an impact on teams because a lot of good NBA teams need good players to compete on goods teams. Because if they are on bad teams they can't preform to their potential
I think that it is unfair for those teams because the higher ranked teams need those players not those teams that just tank there team for some good players
Because if one NBA team doesn't have a good season that could make incoming NBA players not want to go that team
I do believe that the new rules should be set in place. The worst teams should be able to have the biggest chance at new draft picks, and they have the right to those players. I believe that another big problem within the NBA is the presence of super teams, but that is a whole another argument.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in some ways it will turn teams away from tanking a season away from a draft pick, but it also gives the team a tougher change to rebuild. I is not the way a strategy should be put together, but for some teams this is the only way they can rebuild. Again, this has a big part in the presence of Super Teams such as the Warriors and Cavs, but this change will help teams, but also give them a tougher path.
I believe that tanking your season just for that one pick is silly to begin with, but for the other teams, it doesn't make them better or worse. Obviously it gives them an automatic win but does that really help the league develop as a whole? Not really. And does that one top draft pick really change the entire team as a whole in one season? And do you think a top prospect is going to want to play for a team like that? Personally, I wouldn't.
The presence of super teams. You know you can't beat them, so why not get something out of a bad situation. There is no chance that anyone can beat these teams besides themselves, so why go and waste a season without getting anything in return. It makes sense but it is not the way teams should conduct themselves in a professional sporting league.
1.I do believe that the NBA's worst record teams should be in place. For one, it creates the higher probability of those teams receiving a top-3 pick in the draft. These picks can be essential for a team's future success and can turn around a team. Hopefully this new rule will prevent teams from consistently having bad records. I do not believe, however, the resting players rule because some players do need a rest from the over 100 game season, which can really exhaust some.
ReplyDelete2.I do believe that it will prevent those bottom 3 teams from tanking because there is no advantage in doing so. But, It might encourage teams that are not far behind the bottom 3 to tank their seasons in order to draft higher. This might create an issue, but only time will tell if teams will start tanking. Maybe if a team has a trend of tanking, then the NBA could reserve the right to take away their top 10 draft pick.
3.Yes, I do believe that it is unfair, but the NBA lottery can't be a completely fair draft system if it stays the way that it is now. However, that is the current NBA draft system, it could switch to a NFL style draft where the worst teams overall get the first picks.
4.I believe that the NBA is very vulnerable to tanking because teams can do it in order to get a top pick covertly because multiple teams have the odds of getting that top pick because of the lottery system. While it may not look like a team is tanking because it doesn't have a top 10 worst record, but they might still be because there's still a chance for them to get that top pick.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteI do believe that substantial change was necessary so quality of worse NBA team’s games can be better. This will lead to less incentive to tank and become the worst team in the league in order to secure a top pick. Now, more teams have better chances of getting the first overall pick, though in the past it has not always been the worst team receiving the number one pick in the lottery.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
I think that the proposed changes will have little effect on teams choosing to tank. I believe it will be ineffective because of the recent history of tanking in the NBA. Teams will still have a chance of tanking regardless of whether or not they have a lessened chance of getting the first overall pick in the draft. Another way to keep teams from tanking would be to fine teams if they are actively caught tanking, or if the players report that coaches/front office administrators recommend tanking.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
I do believe that it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully to lose their pick, but that is an inherent danger of trying to make the playoffs every year. Also, teams who take are desperate for a draft pick to revamp their roster. This helps level out the playing field over a longer period of time. So, while tanking itself is unfair to fans, it is an attempt to eventually become better.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
The NBA is so vulnerable to tanking because one player can have a big impact on a teams win total. Unlike the NFL, NHL, and MLB, one successful player makes a world of difference, whereas in the other leagues, players have to compete harder for spots and often do not have as big of an immediate impact. Another reason teams tank in the NBA is due to the lack of repercussions for owners. This fosters an environment that makes it acceptable for teams to tank.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteThese changes absolutely need to be in place for not just the NBA but also for the rest of American sports. With the way the draft system works it inspires teams to preform either at a championship level or a strategically bad level where they luck out on a good lottery pick the next year. This type of system needs to be replaced or at least heavily modified to where there isn't such a big benefit of being the worst in the league. Without this benefit teams like the browns will be forced to preform on better some level.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
This change is nothing more then a minor improvement. It will have minimal results because the percentage changes really are not that great. A system that I believe is way more exciting for viewers and adds more pressure on teams to perform is a relegation and promotion system; one that most other worldwide sports use. In this system, the bottom three teams in the league would be relegated to the next league below them. So for example, if the 76ers absolutely suck and finish within the last three teams in the league. They would then be relegated to the G league (the NBA's official minor league) and compete there until they finish in the top three of that league. As far as the draft, all NBA teams that are to be in the same years league, are eligible to enter the drafts lotto. This is the type of motivation players and organizations need in order to not tank in hopes of a good draft pick, and would inspire harder work form organizations looking to broaden their brand coming from a lower level.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
It is slightly unfair because a team that wins a championship deserve the best pick theoretically, however, due to the monopolies that would form this is not always possible. This makes losing the number 1 pick cruel and a bit unfair but it keep the general balance of teams within the league fair.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
Because the NBA makes it too easy for teams to reap benefits for being the worst. In other words, the safety net is too broad, powerful, and easy to exploit.
1. I think the new rules are extremely fair. Tanking happens in every sport although, top teams like the Warriors and Cavs are too good to tank purposely. I think the NBA is so split into dominant teams and losing teams that the dominant teams are too good to tank and the losing teams don't have to tank purposely because they'll already be losing. Therefore, I think the new rule is fair.
ReplyDelete2. I do think this proposed change will dissuade teams from tanking because the bottom three teams will not have to tank in order to have more of a chance at a lottery draft pick. The bottom three teams will have an equal chance which is why they won't have to tank to try and claim last place.
3. I do think this is unfair because situations like these cause so many powerhouses in the NBA. It's not fair for a team that is trying to win games but somehow manages to have a better record than a team that's better and is tanking purposely. Teams should try to win games and enjoy the game of basketball rather than trying to lose a game.
4. The fact that there are only a couple dominant teams in the NBA causes teams to tank. Many teams know they have no chance at a championship or even making the playoffs so teams think it's better to throw away a season in order to rebuild their team. This is a very good strategy in my opinion but I think there should be better ways when rebuilding an organization.
1. I think these changes because it will make all the NBA teams more competitive. This hopefully will make the league more competitive from top to bottom. This new rule now make teams, hopefully, not try to make teams want to lose in order to get better players. In the long run, teams should become more even and the league should not just be known as the Warriors, Cavs and everyone else.
ReplyDelete2. I think that teams will be motivated to play better knowing that the worst team will not get an overwhelming chance of the number one pick. It isn’t perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Another step that could be added to this policy would be to have them only guaranteed a top 7 pick. This is still a good and high pick but teams won't tank if they aren't guaranteed a top 5 pick.
3. Yes, it is completely unfair to those teams. They sacrifice a season or two in order to look forward to the future of their programs. It is a strategic method to have a chance to win it all in a few years, rather than trying to break .500 in the current year.
4. I would say the ratings, and viewership. Fans are not watching the NBA as much right now because of the teams not playing up to their full potential due to their want of high draft picks over wins. And with the big teams demolishing the teams who don’t care, and the lack of effort is clearly evident.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDelete- I think these changes are definitely a good thing because it prevents team from tanking. Teams will be more competitive and in the long run, will prevent super teams from forming. If teams decide to tank, they will have 14 percent rather than 25 percent chance at the First pick. Therefore, nothing is guaranteed, and teams can't be sure about anything, preventing teams from tanking.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
- Short term, teams will still tank, but this new rule will even out the NBA in the long run, preventing super teams from forming. I think that the NBA should be vetoing more trades, for this to be really effective.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
- No. I don't think it is unfair. I think this happens for a reason. Teams should not rely on tanking, and it ruins the game. Therefore, to prevent teams from tanking, they should not rely on it because it is proven that nothing is guaranteed.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
- Teams who tank are taking advantage of the NBA system. The NBA is becoming less vulnerable with these new rules.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteI think these changes should be in place, as it evens out the NBA to some extent. The lottery will now be more interesting, bringing more buzz, and teams will be less likely to tank.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
I think that the way the NBA is currently structured, this will only discourage teams from tanking. Many teams are currently in rebuilding mode with lots of young guys, and are clearly 3-5 years away from being a contender. Because of this, they aren't necessarily tanking, but are not oblivious to the fact that they have no chance this season.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
To some extent it may be, but eliminating tanking is the best thing to happen to the league. You need guys playing hard every night, and coaches doing the same to increase competition, and because it is only fair for the guys who put in all the work over the offseason.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
Without a doubt, the forming of super teams. In the Western Conference, there are only 4 or five teams who can even somewhat consider themselves contenders, with even less in the weaker East. Teams have done this through trades, tanking, and free agent signings, everybody wants to beat the Warriors.
1.I believe the changes are a great thing for the NBA. The fact that all three of the worst teams now share the same chance of getting the first pick makes the NBA lottery very exciting to watch now. It also will discourage the bad teams from trying to be the worst team towards the end of the season. The NBA has become dominated by super teams and many teams have been trying to tank because they know they cant compete with them. I still think teams are going to tank to get good picks because they cant beat the cavs or warriors right now.
ReplyDelete2.I believe these changes will stop the bad teams in the NBA from trying to be the absolute worst. However I still believe teams that know they cant compete will try to get good picks to improve in the long run. They just wont try to be the worst team because theres no difference in finishing the 3rd worst. If a team knows they wont be making the playoffs why wouldn't they try to finish as one of the worst three teams for the potential 1st pick in the draft. Therefore I do not think this new rule will have a major impact because bad teams will try to squeeze into the bottom three for a potential 1st pick.
3.Yes this is very unfair for those teams who are bad enough but actually try. They are being robbed of a potential superstar player that can turn the entire franchise around. Every team should try to win as many games as they can or it ruins the game and who wants to watch a team lose on purpose? it's no fun.
4. Nobody wants to watch teams try and lose games so I would say it can hurt the ratings but the NBAs ratings are higher than ever. I think this is because people like watching the super teams. Even though many people will say they hate super teams you cant deny it has made the NBA more exciting and dramatic, especially in the offseason. This was the most exciting NBA offseason ever. Who saw any of these moves coming? Nobody really knows what to expect anymore, anything can happen and any player can leave at any given time. NBA ratings are always higher when we have super teams. For example Jordans bulls, the Celtics and lakers, and now the Warriors and Cavs.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteI think the change in the lottery will help deter teams from trying to fail in order to get good draft picks. By giving less of an incentive to be the bottom three teams will increase the amount of competition in the league. I don't believe that there should be punishments for resting healthy players because it takes away from the strategy in basketball and can result in players being over played.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
I think it will because the benefits of ending the season at a lower place is now smaller than what it was before. I think it will effect how teams play and the competitiveness of the league, but I don't know the magnitude of the change. If the NBA wants an even bigger change with the league they could open the chance of winning the lottery to more teams or increase the chance for the teams above the bottom three teams to win the lottery.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
It's not fair for those teams but since they only changed the percentages by a small amount it won't punish teams who don't try to tank less. And I feel that there is a greater risk of a team tanking and ruining the competition of the NBA than one team getting less of a chance to have the top pick.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
Drafts gives teams an incentive for teams to purposely fail because they get more of a reward than if they were to end middle of the league. As long as there is a draft while the far bottom teams get an advantage over the others there will always be a risk of tanking.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteI think changes should be in place because teams shouldn't rest their players because it ruins the product of the game. You go to see your favorite players but when they don't play the game isn't as enjoyable for the fans.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
I think it will do a good job of preventing teams from tanking, but there will be some games that players won't play in and they will just take the fine. It will be a pretty effective way to keep players from resting but players still will rest.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
Yes because teams like the Bulls will be terrible and that will happen not because they rest their star player (which they don't have this year) but because there is not one household name player on their team that can lead them to win over 20 games this season. Also, a team like the hawks will be bad. The new method makes it so the worst team probably won't get the number 1 pick which gives the 14 worst teams a chance at it.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
What makes the NBA so vulnerable for organizations tanking is how they try and make the players play back to back nights so often with no more than 2 days of rest, which is a lot when players play 40+ minutes a night.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteI think that these changes definitely should be in place because there have been a lot of teams who obviously start to tank when they have no shot at the playoffs. I don't think it is acceptable for an NBA team to win 15 games in a season.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
I don't think that they did enough. I think that people will still try to tank in order to get better players. I think something that the NBA should try to do is figure out a way to also penalize teams if they lose too many games. For example, maybe they lose a later pick in the draft.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
I don't think it is unfair. I don't understand why we reward teams for being bad with a high draft pick. I think that teams that finish last should get the last pick in the draft as punishment, so that they have an incentive to be better.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
I think something that makes the NBA so vulnerable to tanking is the fact that there are only 5 people on the court at one time. One player can make such a huge difference, which is why I think teams try to tank.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteThese changes should be in place because it is a good way to prevent teams from tanking. Professional athletes being paid millions to play at their level shouldn't be not trying to try and improve their odds at a top pick by losing intentionally. It ruins the sport to not have people trying.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
I don't think that this will dissuade teams from tanking because now the bottom 3 teams have the same chance at the number 1 pick, so teams will now tank more to compete for one of those 3 spots. It will actually encourage more teams to tank. Tanking will never stop, unless Adam Silver raises the fine for not playing the teams best players.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
It isn't unfair that teams could lose their number 1 pick, even though they actually are losing unintentionally because if they actually are losing, then they won't have the wins that the other teams have in the first half of the season that the other teams would have. The worst teams will be"tanking" for the full season, while the good teams that are actually tanking will be behind and only get half of the season.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
The NBA is vulnerable because they don't enforce it enough and they reward the worst teams more than the teams that do better than them. Even though they should be trying to make the worst teams better, the NBA needs a more efficient system to eliminate the good teams tanking and getting their rewards.
ReplyDeleteI think these changes are good because they will help teams not want to aim to be horrible and aim for the first pick, because it'll also help create fair competition throughout the whole season.
I think it will help teams not want to tank because it'll give them a closer chance for the draft picks they desire and it will not benefit teams as much from tanking.
Yes i think it is unfair because a super team or a team that is strong overall shouldn't get a top pick. However, I also don't think teams who purposely fail should be given the top picks.
I think that with how much high school students and college students are watched and desired create attention for NBA scouts and teams. Also, with NBA ratings at a very high point, tanking will lose some of those ratings.
I believe these changes should be in place and will play a pivotal role in the fairness and continuity of NBA play. For years NBA teams have been tanking when seasons are almost over before they start. The Sixers alone are enough of a reason to fix the tanking system. There is no reason that one team should encounter the amount a top picks in such a short period of time as they did.
ReplyDeleteThese changes will definitely minimize the tanking aspect of the NBA. Now that the chances of receiving a #1 pick are even less than they were before, expect teams to get on with there seasons without expecting a top pick in the upcoming draft.
It is still fair for all teams because they still have just as much a chance as the other worst of the worst. We must assume all teams are tanking to ensure the integrity of the draft even if some of those teams are not.
One organization that is synonymous with tanking is the Philadelphia 76ers. In just 5 years, they have acquired 3 top 2 draft picks and 2 other top 5 picks. Others have also participated in this strategy but none more successful than the Sixers organization.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about the issue other than this article, but Tanking in a sport like basketball is much easier to do than in a sport like baseball because it takes fewer good players to field (or court) a good team in basketball. Because of this the rules seem reasonable. Losing on purpose in a sport makes the competition unfair.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
The changes likely won't dissuade teams from tanking. They still have a high chance of receiving low level picks in the draft, making it a good way to farm talent. I don't think anything should be set in place to solve this issue because sports are more exciting when teams are good, so they should be allowed to do what they can to get better, even if it will take longer.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
Obviously it is unfair. A legitimately horrible team deserves a #1 draft pick to bolster their franchise. A potential solution to this would be to make trading away good players cause a decrease in a team's chance of receiving a high level pick.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
The fact that individual players have a much larger impact on how good a team is. In most sports, one or two players can't make an entire team successful, whereas it seems like that is possible in basketball.
Do you think these changes should be in place, or should things not have changed?
ReplyDeleteI believe that these changes should definitely be in place. In previous years, you have teams that deliberately try to lose in order to receive the number one pick. This new rule that was just implemented will limit teams trying to intentionally lose, and will allow NBA basketball to flourish. Instead of having teams resting their players and making it boring for fans, they will be trying to win more.
Do you believe that the proposed lottery chances will dissuade teams from tanking? If so, how effective is it? If not, what else can be in set in place?
I believe that the new lottery rules will dissuade teams from tanking. The reason it is so effective is because now even if you come in last, you have way less chances of becoming the first overall pick. Before these rules, there was a huge gap in your chances of getting the first pick when you were the third worst, but now it's all the same. This will improve the NBA in so many different aspects.
Do you believe it is unfair for teams who don’t tank purposefully and lose their potential number 1 pick to a team better than them?
I think that some parts of it is unfair and some aren't. If you have one of the best teams in the league, then there is no reason that you should be given a chance to have the number one pick. You already have an amazing team, so it wouldn't be fair if you got a top pick. The reason it is fair is because you had many teams in prior years, like the Sixers, who aren't trying to win games in order to receive top picks. Yes it's very strategic, but ruins the experience of NBA basketball. A team shouldn't be rewarded for purposely losing, so this is an attempt by the NBA to stop that from happening.
What makes the NBA so vulnerable to organizations tanking?
The reason the NBA is so vulnerable to tanking, more than any other sport, is the difference one player makes on your team. You only have five guys on the court at a time, and acquiring a future superstar is essential for a franchise. If you can get a guy that averages 25+ points per game, you already have a much better team than you did when you were tanking. Despite this rule, there will obviously be teams that still try and tank, because you will still receive and good draft pick. It's almost impossible to limit all teams from tanking, but this is definitely a step in the right direction for the NBA.