Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifleman
I've always said, give the team that finishes highest and misses the playoffs the first pick. It's not something teams can "tank" for, and owners would hate losing out on millions just to have a chance at some kid that MIGHT help the team. And if you do end up with the first pick, you're already a team on the verge of making the playoffs. Second pick would go to the second highest non-playoff team and so on. Finishing last overall will net you the 14th pick (not bad) and reason to improve next year.
|
It's not really feasible because then there's no mechanism for bad teams to get better. They need to have some advantage in order to create parity or teams will see much longer downswings.
For example, let's say Kipper retires for next year and Iginla doesn't re-sign. Calgary is destined for 13-15th position in the conference and they would stay there for the foreseeable future unless they were able to get top talent through the draft.
Yes some teams do not take advantage of the high draft picks and continue to flounder but you can't really blame the draft lottery for that. Certainly giving good players to bad teams is a lot more likely to create parity than by motivating teams by giving the top draft pick to the best team outside of the playoffs. Teams are already motivated to win just by that competitive drive.