How would you fix the draft? (split)
- Thread starter Kingster
- Start date
That sort of thing has been suggested before, but usually for three years and not five. Five years would be a real long time to plant a team in the mid-high portion of the draft after a fall from grace, which can happen pretty quickly if all things go wrong at once (injuries, losing players to free agency, etc.). It would also mean that teams like the Cavs, who turn it around the other way quickly would get the benefit of high draft picks during their run of success.
Personally I think that while it's an interesting suggestion, five years is too long. Three would be better. But still, I feel like most people trying to tweak the lotto are doing just that - tweaking. I think we need to get more reductive than that. Go back to the basics. Ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish by setting the draft order, then ask whether this can be accomplished by means that are more tamper-proof than the current system. Get creative. What if win/loss record isn't the only way?
I have my own thoughts on this and I'm sure I've shared them here before, but it would be interesting to see if anybody goes back to basics and finds themselves going down the same road I did.
Personally I think that while it's an interesting suggestion, five years is too long. Three would be better. But still, I feel like most people trying to tweak the lotto are doing just that - tweaking. I think we need to get more reductive than that. Go back to the basics. Ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish by setting the draft order, then ask whether this can be accomplished by means that are more tamper-proof than the current system. Get creative. What if win/loss record isn't the only way?
I have my own thoughts on this and I'm sure I've shared them here before, but it would be interesting to see if anybody goes back to basics and finds themselves going down the same road I did.
I just split this into its own thread.
We've got a bunch of pretty clever and innovative people who post here at KF. Why not do some brainstorming and see what we can come up with? Post your idea with as much or as little detail as you like. Discuss/debate the other points already brought up. All I require is that you remain civil.
My idea? Make the draft order a year in advance. In other words, your draft position in 2019 would be based on your standing in 2017.
What's your idea?
We've got a bunch of pretty clever and innovative people who post here at KF. Why not do some brainstorming and see what we can come up with? Post your idea with as much or as little detail as you like. Discuss/debate the other points already brought up. All I require is that you remain civil.
My idea? Make the draft order a year in advance. In other words, your draft position in 2019 would be based on your standing in 2017.
What's your idea?
The current system in place is, in my honest opinion, the best system to prevent tanking. What does tanking really guarantee you? A top 4 pick at best. It doesn't guarantee the 1st pick. It doesn't guarantee the 2nd pick. Heck, it doesn't even guarantee the 3rd pick. A team, even if they tank, can still fall out of the top 3, and pick 4th. While your suggestion, @VF21, seems interesting, I am not quite sure that it will really solve the issue at hand. Because, if a team knows for a fact that they will guarantee themselves a top 4 pick 2 years down the road, then they're going to tank right then and there.
Another idea to maybe toss out there would be...
If a team gets a top 3 pick in consecutive years, then they're ineligible for a top 5 pick the next year (yes, I did say top 5, and no, that is not a typo). OR, if a team gets the top pick in consecutive years, they become ineligible for a top 5 pick for the next 2 - 3 years.
I do think, however, that the current process of holding a lottery is the best system to prevent tanking.
Another idea to maybe toss out there would be...
If a team gets a top 3 pick in consecutive years, then they're ineligible for a top 5 pick the next year (yes, I did say top 5, and no, that is not a typo). OR, if a team gets the top pick in consecutive years, they become ineligible for a top 5 pick for the next 2 - 3 years.
I do think, however, that the current process of holding a lottery is the best system to prevent tanking.
I maintain that the problem isn't the draft, it's that limits on free agency (and trades, to some extent) make the draft appear to some teams as their only means of getting better.
Zach Lowe alluded to this in his article about the possible playoff play-in tournament (which I think may make a lot of sense) the other day:
I think they should try the play-in system and shorten the first round proper to five games again. Fewer teams will give up on the season if they think they have a shot at an upset in the play-in, and then facing the 1 seed isn't as daunting in five games, as opposed to seven.
Zach Lowe alluded to this in his article about the possible playoff play-in tournament (which I think may make a lot of sense) the other day:
I think they should try the play-in system and shorten the first round proper to five games again. Fewer teams will give up on the season if they think they have a shot at an upset in the play-in, and then facing the 1 seed isn't as daunting in five games, as opposed to seven.
Last edited:
I want to see teams rewarded for trying to be competitive. That's one reason having some kind of end-season loser's tournament for draft order appeals to me.
Another thing could be giving teams 11-14 an equal chance as teams 1-4 in the lotto so that there is just as much incentive to win as there is to get a lotto spot? Maybe even have the odds go up once you get past the halfway point, so the 7/8th teams in the lotto have the worst overall odds, but that at least has teams fighting.
If they want to keep it a loser's game maybe do the lotto percentages based on games off the playoff hunt, not total placement order. So a 19-63 team might get good odds but if there are a bunch of teams hovering around the 20 win mark the team with 22 wins doesn't get locked into a 6th or 7th pick just because they won an extra game.
Another thing could be giving teams 11-14 an equal chance as teams 1-4 in the lotto so that there is just as much incentive to win as there is to get a lotto spot? Maybe even have the odds go up once you get past the halfway point, so the 7/8th teams in the lotto have the worst overall odds, but that at least has teams fighting.
If they want to keep it a loser's game maybe do the lotto percentages based on games off the playoff hunt, not total placement order. So a 19-63 team might get good odds but if there are a bunch of teams hovering around the 20 win mark the team with 22 wins doesn't get locked into a 6th or 7th pick just because they won an extra game.
Ah, but that's the beauty of "brainstorming"... You put the ideas out there without pre-judgment. Once you've got a good number of possible solutions, you start comparing/contrasting them.
As far as your first sentence goes, I heartily disagree. If the current system is the best to prevent tanking, then why are so many teams doing it anyway? I would posit that it's almost universally accepted that the current system ISN'T working.
As far as your first sentence goes, I heartily disagree. If the current system is the best to prevent tanking, then why are so many teams doing it anyway? I would posit that it's almost universally accepted that the current system ISN'T working.
forget the carrot, use the stick. penalize the worst team(s) with lowered lottery odds. that would put upwards pressure to win at the lower limit. to prevent secular bottom dwelling for teams that ARE truly just that bad, exempt a team from the above rule if it was the worst team 2 years in a row. the next team up then becomes the penalized one.
The draft slots need to be based on some type of voting system. Take record out of it. Either GMs would rank teams worst to first or owners or media. The incentive would be to have the best teams get worst draft order and for the very worst team to get top pick. Can't vote for own team. This way, teams like the sixers would be vjewed as more dangerous to get 1st pick as say the Kings.
while i like the general idea of this, it could be ruined by human nature: likes/dislikes, grudges, aliances, exchange of favors, bribery ( look at eurovision, figure skating, us congress ). take people out of it and have the voting be done by some algorithm that takes all kinds of data points into account.
Boom.
That's exactly what I was going for. Each front office ranks the other 29 teams. It's in every front office's interest to make sure that the best players stay out of the hands of the teams with the brightest futures. You could call it "mutually assured mediocrity, which is exactly what competitive balance should look like.
Think of it this way: If you had to assign the #1 and #15 picks in the draft this year (just those two, to make the thought experiment simple) and you had to give one to the Cavaliers and the other to the Lakers, what would you do? I for one would give the #1 pick to the Cavs and the #15 pick to the Lakers. Not because I hate the Lakers - I'm thinking in terms of my own interest rather than my own biases. And not because the Lakers are going to finish ahead of the Cavaliers in the standings this year - they obviously will not. But the reason is that the Lakers are poised to become a superteam again. They have a very good young core with Ingram and Ball and Kuzma (at least) and they have a ton of money ready to go to spend on big name free agents this year - perhaps even LeBron. The Cavs on the other hand are capped out and almost certain to lose LeBron to free agency. They're not a threat. The Lakers are. That, however, isn't reflected in their records this year, despite it being reflected in the thoughts of probably every front office in the league. Another thing not reflected in records that is reflected in FO knowledge is how good a free agent destination a team is. The Lakers? Yep. The Cavs? Nope, not without LeBron anyway.
Obviously this sort of reasoning could be extended to all 30 teams, and sure, not all front offices would rank things the same. But they WILL do a lot better at sniffing out the effects of tanking, they would do a lot better at accounting for injuries (think the Spurs and the one-season David Robinson injury that got them Duncan - wouldn't happen under this scheme because everybody would know that once the Admiral comes back, the Spurs are near the top again), they would tend to under-reward free agent destinations like the Lakers when they are in fact bad teams simply because they know there's a FA pipeline for talent to come in outside of the draft. And teams like the Sacramentos, the Phoenixes, the Memphises, etc. that aren't really free agent draws are going to be relatively rewarded, particularly when they are bad, because they are not threats.
I'm not too worried about bribery or grudges or whatever. Sure, you might have to take measures to make sure one bad team doesn't pay a bunch of FOs under the table to move them slightly up the rankings, but in general, teams are going to do what is in their own best interests anyway - and the sum of those best interests is "mutually assured mediocrity".
And of course, it takes a big incentive to tank away. First off, the other front offices know whether your team is bad or not. They know who they are scared of. You don't have to throw games to prove it. And of course, if you DO tank, there will be those front offices that will vote you down, out of spite. It wouldn't take much to convince a team that they need to play hard to avoid getting "demerits" in the draft position voting.
I like this solution because I think it would actually address the problem at hand, it would work, and it's a bit outside the box. We get stuck on the idea that win-loss record is the only way to seed a lottery, but in fact there may well be better ways. And if there are, this is probably among them.
That's exactly what I was going for. Each front office ranks the other 29 teams. It's in every front office's interest to make sure that the best players stay out of the hands of the teams with the brightest futures. You could call it "mutually assured mediocrity, which is exactly what competitive balance should look like.
Think of it this way: If you had to assign the #1 and #15 picks in the draft this year (just those two, to make the thought experiment simple) and you had to give one to the Cavaliers and the other to the Lakers, what would you do? I for one would give the #1 pick to the Cavs and the #15 pick to the Lakers. Not because I hate the Lakers - I'm thinking in terms of my own interest rather than my own biases. And not because the Lakers are going to finish ahead of the Cavaliers in the standings this year - they obviously will not. But the reason is that the Lakers are poised to become a superteam again. They have a very good young core with Ingram and Ball and Kuzma (at least) and they have a ton of money ready to go to spend on big name free agents this year - perhaps even LeBron. The Cavs on the other hand are capped out and almost certain to lose LeBron to free agency. They're not a threat. The Lakers are. That, however, isn't reflected in their records this year, despite it being reflected in the thoughts of probably every front office in the league. Another thing not reflected in records that is reflected in FO knowledge is how good a free agent destination a team is. The Lakers? Yep. The Cavs? Nope, not without LeBron anyway.
Obviously this sort of reasoning could be extended to all 30 teams, and sure, not all front offices would rank things the same. But they WILL do a lot better at sniffing out the effects of tanking, they would do a lot better at accounting for injuries (think the Spurs and the one-season David Robinson injury that got them Duncan - wouldn't happen under this scheme because everybody would know that once the Admiral comes back, the Spurs are near the top again), they would tend to under-reward free agent destinations like the Lakers when they are in fact bad teams simply because they know there's a FA pipeline for talent to come in outside of the draft. And teams like the Sacramentos, the Phoenixes, the Memphises, etc. that aren't really free agent draws are going to be relatively rewarded, particularly when they are bad, because they are not threats.
I'm not too worried about bribery or grudges or whatever. Sure, you might have to take measures to make sure one bad team doesn't pay a bunch of FOs under the table to move them slightly up the rankings, but in general, teams are going to do what is in their own best interests anyway - and the sum of those best interests is "mutually assured mediocrity".
And of course, it takes a big incentive to tank away. First off, the other front offices know whether your team is bad or not. They know who they are scared of. You don't have to throw games to prove it. And of course, if you DO tank, there will be those front offices that will vote you down, out of spite. It wouldn't take much to convince a team that they need to play hard to avoid getting "demerits" in the draft position voting.
I like this solution because I think it would actually address the problem at hand, it would work, and it's a bit outside the box. We get stuck on the idea that win-loss record is the only way to seed a lottery, but in fact there may well be better ways. And if there are, this is probably among them.
If you want to fix tanking scrap the draft all together. Institute a hard cap and let teams bid on all players including rookies.
The NBA has been trying to fix the draft since the 60’s when the institutes a coin flip between the two top teams. Anyone think they have found the right solution in the last ~ 50 years.
The NBA has been trying to fix the draft since the 60’s when the institutes a coin flip between the two top teams. Anyone think they have found the right solution in the last ~ 50 years.
I tend to dislike most ideas to fix the draft because many of them seem to have the assumption that every bad team is tanking, as in losing games on purpose. Picture this:
The NBA has made it so the lottery determines 1-14, not just the top three picks, therefore there is literally no incentive to tanking. Let’s say you are the Nets, no real young talent to win games and FAs won’t sign there because you’re not good. You’re bad because you’re bad, not to get a top pick. So you’ve won around 20-25 games for the last few years and have picked 7th, 14th and 10th because the lottery luck isn’t coming your way. You’re stuck in perpetual suckitude. Where do they go from there? How do they become a Playoff team?
The NBA has made it so the lottery determines 1-14, not just the top three picks, therefore there is literally no incentive to tanking. Let’s say you are the Nets, no real young talent to win games and FAs won’t sign there because you’re not good. You’re bad because you’re bad, not to get a top pick. So you’ve won around 20-25 games for the last few years and have picked 7th, 14th and 10th because the lottery luck isn’t coming your way. You’re stuck in perpetual suckitude. Where do they go from there? How do they become a Playoff team?
You are, technically, incorrect. The lottery, as it has been constructed for some time now, only determines the top 3 picks, while the rest of the 1st round is determined by inverse order of the record(s) of the remaining teams. Beginning next year (2019), the lottery will determine the top 4 picks, with the 3 teams with the worst record(s) all having the same odds at landing the number 1 pick.
Ah, but that's the beauty of "brainstorming"... You put the ideas out there without pre-judgment. Once you've got a good number of possible solutions, you start comparing/contrasting them.
As far as your first sentence goes, I heartily disagree. If the current system is the best to prevent tanking, then why are so many teams doing it anyway? I would posit that it's almost universally accepted that the current system ISN'T working.
As far as your first sentence goes, I heartily disagree. If the current system is the best to prevent tanking, then why are so many teams doing it anyway? I would posit that it's almost universally accepted that the current system ISN'T working.
But, I invite you to ask yourself one question...How many teams have gone on to land the number 1 pick with the worst record in the league (or the best odds at landing that number 1 pick)???? Actually, allow me to attempt to answer that for ya...
According to Wikipedia, "Since the weighted lottery system was introduced in 1990, only four teams with the worst record went on to win the lottery while only four teams with the second-worst record have won the lottery."
6 teams with the third-worst record have gone on to win the lottery...
That leaves 12 teams who went into the lottery with an outside chance (not in the top 3) of landing the number 1 pick that ended up winning the lottery, and the number 1 pick in the NBA draft.
I don't think 4/27 (14.8%) are numbers that scream "TANK! TANK! TANK! TANK!" to me like some on this forum may think they do. Especially when 12/27 (44.4%) are numbers that clearly tell me that "tanking" clearly doesn't work in the current system. Even more so when you take into consideration that 12 teams leapfrogged their way into that number 1 spot, from a spot 4th or worse.
If, at the end of the day, it is decided that the solution to "tanking" is to implement a system similar to that of the NFL (which I have seen being discussed before, btw), then this forum is going to explode worse than a dang pipe bomb in the middle of the Iraqi desert. Especially if that system ends up being the one implemented. You think teams are tanking now? Implement a draft order determined by inverse order of the records of all non-playoff teams, and all you'll ever hear about is how this team is tanking, that team is tanking and, oh, that team over there is tanking as well.
I think the NBA has it right. I don't see any need to change.
This is just a blatant disregard for how math works and enormous sample size issues. The result in this case is utterly meaningless; it doesn't matter if the team with the worst record never wins the top overall pick again in NBA history. It will still give that team with the worst overall record the best chance of any other team of landing the top overall pick.
I would say one way to fix the draft and tanking would be to give every team that misses the play offs the same chance of landing the first overall pick. Put every team's name in the hat and pick them one after the other. That system should prevent teams from tanking because they no longer get better odds by losing, and in turn it would force teams to actually be smarter with their scouting, free agent additions, and with the trades they make. It should also mean that teams actually try to be competitive and rebuild at a quicker rate rather than spend many seasons losing to acquire picks and become stuck in the lottery.
Now admittedly the downfall of this system would be that a terrible team could end up with the 14th pick this year, be terrible next year and get the 14th pick, and so on. Thus that team would be stuck at the wrong end of the league without having the ability to draft a franchise changing player because they keep on getting late lottery picks. However, rebuilding a team doesn't necessarily require top picks to rebuild a team. If they are smart they can find franchise changing talent outside those top picks. Donovan Mitchell is arguably the best player from the 2017 draft and he was taken outside the top ten. Myles Turner is one of the rising young players at his position, again he was taken outside the top ten. Nikola Jokic was taken in the second round and so was Marc Gasol. If a team scouts well, they can find those franchise centerpieces without losing on purpose and giving everyone the same odds should force teams to be smarter.
I read an article last night which was about the Chicago Bulls and the author was arguing that history shows the Bulls would be better off not tanking for the top pick. He had two main reasons. First, since the lottery was instated in 1985 only two teams have won an NBA Championship with their number one pick: Spurs (David Robinson and Tim Duncan) and Cavaliers (Kyrie Irving and LeBron James). His next reason was that since 1985, teams have finished with 25 or fewer wins on 137 occasions, and only five teams have won a championship within five years (Spurs 1997/1999, Heat 2003/2006, Celtics 2007/2008, Cavaliers 2011/2016, Warriors 2012/2015). He also argues that the Celtics wasn't really draft related because their boost came through the trades for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. Thus, tanking has a 4-132-1 record since 1985.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/bulls-tanking-nba-history/
I thought those stats were pretty interesting because a lot of the time we spend debating the pros and cons of tanking because that is the way to rebuild a team. This year we are happy to concede the rest of this season to ensure we get a top pick. Yet, as this article suggests tanking alone doesn't guarantee a team turns its fortunes around and becomes a championship team. I have always subscribed to the idea that tanking isn't the way to go because plenty of teams down the years have managed to build competitive to title winning teams without multiple top picks. And this point brings me back to how to fix the draft. If you give everyone the same odds in the lottery, it forces those teams to be smarter if they want to rebuild quickly and successfully. It stops teams deciding to replicate the 76ers and lose on purpose which is bad for the game, and instead those teams should make a greater effort to be competitive.
Now admittedly the downfall of this system would be that a terrible team could end up with the 14th pick this year, be terrible next year and get the 14th pick, and so on. Thus that team would be stuck at the wrong end of the league without having the ability to draft a franchise changing player because they keep on getting late lottery picks. However, rebuilding a team doesn't necessarily require top picks to rebuild a team. If they are smart they can find franchise changing talent outside those top picks. Donovan Mitchell is arguably the best player from the 2017 draft and he was taken outside the top ten. Myles Turner is one of the rising young players at his position, again he was taken outside the top ten. Nikola Jokic was taken in the second round and so was Marc Gasol. If a team scouts well, they can find those franchise centerpieces without losing on purpose and giving everyone the same odds should force teams to be smarter.
I read an article last night which was about the Chicago Bulls and the author was arguing that history shows the Bulls would be better off not tanking for the top pick. He had two main reasons. First, since the lottery was instated in 1985 only two teams have won an NBA Championship with their number one pick: Spurs (David Robinson and Tim Duncan) and Cavaliers (Kyrie Irving and LeBron James). His next reason was that since 1985, teams have finished with 25 or fewer wins on 137 occasions, and only five teams have won a championship within five years (Spurs 1997/1999, Heat 2003/2006, Celtics 2007/2008, Cavaliers 2011/2016, Warriors 2012/2015). He also argues that the Celtics wasn't really draft related because their boost came through the trades for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. Thus, tanking has a 4-132-1 record since 1985.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/bulls-tanking-nba-history/
I thought those stats were pretty interesting because a lot of the time we spend debating the pros and cons of tanking because that is the way to rebuild a team. This year we are happy to concede the rest of this season to ensure we get a top pick. Yet, as this article suggests tanking alone doesn't guarantee a team turns its fortunes around and becomes a championship team. I have always subscribed to the idea that tanking isn't the way to go because plenty of teams down the years have managed to build competitive to title winning teams without multiple top picks. And this point brings me back to how to fix the draft. If you give everyone the same odds in the lottery, it forces those teams to be smarter if they want to rebuild quickly and successfully. It stops teams deciding to replicate the 76ers and lose on purpose which is bad for the game, and instead those teams should make a greater effort to be competitive.
Bottom 8 teams play single elimination tourney for
#1 pick. Single elimination thrill of NCAA and guaranteed sellouts for teams that we're otherwise floundering. If ping pong show got viewers why wouldn't this? Play it during pre playoff "rest time".
Eighth worst record gets home court, so bottom tankers go on road.
#1 pick. Single elimination thrill of NCAA and guaranteed sellouts for teams that we're otherwise floundering. If ping pong show got viewers why wouldn't this? Play it during pre playoff "rest time".
Eighth worst record gets home court, so bottom tankers go on road.
This is actually the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy. It's a bit more pernicious than the Gambler's Fallacy because of the way that evidence works. The Gambler's Fallacy is easier to shoot down - ten heads in a row on a fair coin doesn't mean tails is "due". But the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy allows for the evidenciary interpretation of "ten heads in a row, maybe the coin is not fair". We like to use the past to predict the future (induction FTW!) but that's really only appropriate when we have to infer the odds. When we know the odds, the past means nothing.
(Though, starting with 2019 the worst three records will all have the same number of chances because the NBA is changing the rules.)
(Though, starting with 2019 the worst three records will all have the same number of chances because the NBA is changing the rules.)
Last edited:
I don’t think it can be fixed in a way that tanking can be avoided. Unless record considerations are removed for set amount of teams and they all have the same oppurtunity to draft 1st and everything else is random for non playoff teams. So the record doesn’t determine placement for non playoff teams and you can limit it to 8 teams or so. That might make more teams tank though and tanking or no..the worst teams at the end of the year are typically truly the worst teams and need the position. We don’t want them getting screwed.
It’s a matter of enforcement to make sure teams aren’t purposley managing the team to lose as many games as possible. Healthy players play. The best players don’t get benched because they might help win a couple more games than they’d win without him. Only a small minority of fans care about that stuff. Fans were going crazy the other night when JJ got the put back because the Kings might win the game. Nobody was thinking about draft implications. It’s an insult for them not to play the game to win. That’s where all of this is headed, no changes in draft.
How about if a team(say a 6-10) is tanking they get a draft penalty like removal from lottery(meaning they have no chance to budge from their position, like if they were a 13) or if they’re one of the worst teams(like a 1-5)that have desirable position they are removed from lottery and get dropped a slot wherever they land post lottery. It’s easy to tell when a team is tanking. Like when their owner admits it or your fielding a team full of G league players while every established player on your roster just coincidentally is injured.
It’s a matter of enforcement to make sure teams aren’t purposley managing the team to lose as many games as possible. Healthy players play. The best players don’t get benched because they might help win a couple more games than they’d win without him. Only a small minority of fans care about that stuff. Fans were going crazy the other night when JJ got the put back because the Kings might win the game. Nobody was thinking about draft implications. It’s an insult for them not to play the game to win. That’s where all of this is headed, no changes in draft.
How about if a team(say a 6-10) is tanking they get a draft penalty like removal from lottery(meaning they have no chance to budge from their position, like if they were a 13) or if they’re one of the worst teams(like a 1-5)that have desirable position they are removed from lottery and get dropped a slot wherever they land post lottery. It’s easy to tell when a team is tanking. Like when their owner admits it or your fielding a team full of G league players while every established player on your roster just coincidentally is injured.
Last edited:
I heard Scott Boras propose a similar idea on a podcast with Jonah Keri. It's an interesting idea. You could add another element to it by creating a separate salary cap for guys on their rookie deals (you'd have to do away with the strict rookie scale, though, given that there would be no draft pick to tie it to) so teams would have to be strategic in how they pursue rookies. And it would (presumably) prevent the same teams from getting the top rookie each year if they've already used up their rookie cap space on a top rookie the season before.
How about have the commisionr assign draft order? Then his ranking can be vetoed by the owners?
Or, can have a 3 part system that gets averaged.
A media vote for 1 ranking
An owner/gm vote for ranking
Commissioner vote for a ranking
Each rank is weighted 1/3
Makes it vety hard to do any backroom deals, lessons impact of personal bad feelings etc.
Then, once the ranking is established can still have a lottery system to randomize things a little more
Or, can have a 3 part system that gets averaged.
A media vote for 1 ranking
An owner/gm vote for ranking
Commissioner vote for a ranking
Each rank is weighted 1/3
Makes it vety hard to do any backroom deals, lessons impact of personal bad feelings etc.
Then, once the ranking is established can still have a lottery system to randomize things a little more