Speaker 1: What is up, fella, Sikos.
Speaker 2: I am Dana Valley coming at you with the one,
the only, the certify fantabulous mister Grant Hughes, who is
a static to talk about tanking once again. This is
We've we already did a tanking.
Speaker 1: Episodes months ago.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it was topical then, but this
is our version of last month tonight. It's where the
tanking discourse after the fines and the enforcements they've kind
of petered out. We want to get our thoughts on
the record, especially about some of the solutions that have
been proposed.
Speaker 1: First and foremost, though, mister Hughes, how the heck are you?
Speaker 3: I am unlike a lot of NBA teams right now
that produce this discussion. I'm not stacking losses. Uh so
you know, I'm just living my best life and just
trying to win every day. So try try it, Jazz,
see how it feels.
Speaker 2: So the kind of the impetus for this is, I
want to know do you think the NBA is going
too far with its mid season course correction? And by
this we're gonna get into the lottery reform that's coming
after this season. But there seems to be they've identified
the Jazz get the ire of more than any team.
It feels like, I mean, the half a million dollar
fine was huge, and they've probably been the most egregious
when because what's more egregious the Wizards just not playing
Trey Young, Anthony Davis seems legit injured, or the Jazz
at one point not playing Jared Jackson Junior and Loarry
Market in fourth quarters when when games are.
Speaker 1: On the line.
Speaker 2: But the NBA finding we're hearing more, at least intel's
being leaked, more informations being leaked about the process by
which the NBA's impartial doctors are evaluating players. There was
Rick Carlile's story about they had an NBA doctor appoint
The doctor ask can't you just medicate Aaron E.
Speaker 1: Smith one.
Speaker 2: The NBA did kind of come out and rebuke the
recollection of that, which, again, Rick Carlisle is the PACER's
head coach. He has a clear interest in that, but
it's also just kind of cringey. I'm sure it's been
asked before, but it's just could you medicate him.
Speaker 1: To rub some wind decks on it?
Speaker 2: And Ken is going to be ready to go, but
they're making like Adam Silver getting big mad at All
Star Weekend or as mad as you could picture him getting.
I understand that tanking is a problem, but this is
the system that the NBA is set up right now,
and if they're gonna enforce this and want to start
levying fines, can we do it across the board?
Speaker 1: Then why is it just in these certain instances.
Speaker 3: I think that's the best criticism of what's gone on
is that it's in that particular sense it is unfair
because the Jazz are being punished for behavior that is
either being directly copied or things are happening elsewhere that are,
though slightly different, just as offensive or just as big
of a problem. So to me, yes, it is unfair
that certain teams have been fined or had fingers pointed
at them in ways that like a third of the
league could could certainly be subject to the same kinds
of punishments, I guess, or the same sort of attention
from the league. That said, I think the mid season
course correction, which is like the league does this, by
the way, whether it's how they enforce certain fouls, We've
seen it several times where the rule is the rule
and then we decide we don't really care for foulbating
in this particular manner, and so we're gonna start calling
these fouls all the time. But we didn't tell the
refs to do it. We just made it happen somehow.
So that concept's not new. And I think in both cases,
like if it's on the court or if it's with
respect to how teams are behaving roster building wise, if
it's a problem, address it. And it's a problem, and
every maybe more than anything else, fans are talking about it,
and the news cycle is covering it, and it's a
bad look. I think everyone would agree the concept that
losing is good. Uh So I think it's it's within
the league's best interests to try to fix it as
best it can. And if the result is like this
is being unfairly enforced, the league is clearly okay with that.
But I think because it's such a hot topic and
it's it's I don't know, like of the big stories
of the twenty five to twenty six season is tanking
in the top five in terms of like calories burned,
words written, you know, hours discussed, it's up there. So
that's bad and so the league needs to do something
to address it, and if it's addressing it this way
midstream unfairly, I think that's better than pretending it's not
happening or not doing anything at all, Like does that
do you know what I mean? Like, I think it's
a big enough issue that you've got to at least
make it look like you care about it and are
gonna address it, which is like what the Adam Silver
regime has has like excelled in across the board is
like we're aware of the issue and we're studying it.
They always that's that's how they address everything, and now
it's like going a step farther. I do actually think
that he Silver and the league and maybe owners, I
guess care about it because when we talked about this
last time, the reason it's such an issue is that
it goes to the core of the value of the
NBA as an entertainment product, Like the integrity of competition
is so singularly important that if half the games after
a certain point of the season don't matter at all
because nobody's trying, Like that's that's unsustainable. You can't have that.
So that's a long winded answer. I think it's the
rules are being enforced unfairly. But I'm okay with it
because the problem is big enough that you have to
do something.
Speaker 1: I would agree.
Speaker 2: I agree that it's a problem, but I also just
I can't it feels as if selective outrage or it
is definitely selective enforcement, much like we've seen with tampering.
And you mentioned the fouls as well, and so why
aren't we seeing more fines now.
Speaker 1: Across the board.
Speaker 2: Why isn't it Why did you structure the player participation
policy to only encompass all stars but not all NBA players,
So like a Zubots can sit, that's that's fine, But
like Welle.
Speaker 3: So I think the reason I'm okay, I won't be
okay with what's happening right now if there aren't meaningful
changes made in the off season and that affect next year,
like immediately, which is what's been discussed, because then it's
just we're just trying to put the fires out, like
pr wise, we'll throw a FI, we'll throw a big
fine here, We'll like we'll do a couple of little
things that make it seem like we're taking the problem seriously.
Then if that's not followed up with like some of
the things we're going to discuss actually being implemented. Then
this has all been total bullshit, like and I'm I'm
like livid about it because it is a problem that
needs fixed. Is a messaging like they're going to fix
it that needs to get followed up on in a
big way.
Speaker 1: It's definitely a problem.
Speaker 2: Matt Ishbia had tweeted about it, and he wasn't wrong, Like,
tanking is a huge problem and it does bring it
into a question the integrity of the game. But why
wasn't the NBA's response similar to when we had let's
even just use the John Say Porter Junior or Terry
Rozier gambling scandals as to why isn't the solution Should
we maybe pull back get sportsbooks to pull back on
individual player props because those could impact the integrity of
the game. It's money, and it just this isn't the
business interest. I don't like to spin that this is
for This is for the fans who if you're paying
a lot of money to go to games, if you're
paying a lot of money to consume the NBA across
a bunch of different platforms. Yeah, I want the best
players to play too. I want, in an ideal world
that every team would be competing.
Speaker 1: Wire to wire.
Speaker 2: But I also am kind of sensitive to the fact
that we'll get into this with some of the solutions
that I don't look at the NBA for like as
a moral arbiter, but it just I don't I don't
like the like they're they're not picking it random, so
to speak, but the selection process behind, how it's being enforced,
or how they're addressing it in the middle of the season.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they should be allowed to make change.
Speaker 2: I don't think they should be allowed to make changes
to the lottery system in the middle of the year.
You can even argue for teams that traded away draft
picks out into the future did so under the current
lottery system, and so now you're about to change it
when they have still made certain deals. So again, I'm
all for addressing it. I just can't, is it you.
Matt Ishbia said that this is a bigger problem than
any gambling scandal scandal, and now when it gets into
the frequency of it, I agree, because tanking isn't I mean.
Speaker 1: I actually I hope I agree.
Speaker 2: If all these gambling scandals are happening with the frequency
with which tanking does we have a we have a
real problem. But if I'm a fan, as a fan
of the game, the idea that players could be manipulating
their own lines or their veil ability where there's money involved,
that like the common person is not just losing a ticket,
but if they've maybe you shouldn't or maybe do you
take the stands up? Well, I mean people make those
bets knowing that there's a risk now because players could
manipulate their lines. But you could also say, well, that's
why you buy a ticket. When you buy a ticket,
you kind of know, like I don't did this team
play a few days ago?
Speaker 1: It's the fans are the fans should come first. I'm
just sensitive to.
Speaker 2: The idea that that's not actually true here. I don't
believe that that's what this is really about. I think
that if I think that, if it didn't align more
so with the league wanting to just like when you're
looking at its actual interest with gambling companies who are
making these lines and trying to figure out which players
are playing, or there are individual lines in games where
do we cake in that lowry market is not going
to play in the fourth quarter and how much harder
does it get for that to do their job. I
really wonder if sports betting wasn't legal yet in the
United States, if the NBA would be as let's just
use it like as big mad and I mean the NBA,
or I don't even want to say proactive, let's say reactive.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so like let's let's like pull the threads on
that a little bit. Because my my gut reaction to
your question is, well, yeah, they'd still be just as
concerned with tanking if gambling were a factor or if
it weren't. Because to me, and maybe this is naive,
you can as you explain the link, maybe I'll change
my opinion. But to me, the the reason tanking is
a problem is because from the fans perspective, this isn't
about the fan that buys the tickets two months in
advance and shows up and their favorite player doesn't play.
Speaker 1: That to me is.
Speaker 3: Always like, yeah, that that happens.
Speaker 1: To me.
Speaker 3: The bigger fan related concern is if tanking is allowed
to just run rampant, people tune out and you lose
fans like en Mass because these these this huge subsection
of teams aren't trying, and it's not just like, oh,
I came to the game tonight and I didn't see
my player. It's like I'm not watching the last forty
games of my team season, I'm not buying league pass,
I'm not spending my money this way, Like the league
becomes less valuable as fan interest declines towards a product
that is substandard because nobody's trying their hardest for like
a large chunk of the year. That to me is
like the fan argument, and I think that exists whether
there's gambling or not. So I'm curious how you if
you think that gambling is more related to the tanking
concerns or faux concerns than I do. And if so, like.
Speaker 1: How to draw that are you saying? So?
Speaker 2: What are you saying is the biggest impetus for the
NBA behind its concern I.
Speaker 3: Think the league is most concerned with tanking because it's
a It is potentially going to cost it integrity and
ultimately money. If fans in large groups determine that there's
no point in paying at ten to this league for
a large chunk of teams for a large chunk of
the season, is that I think.
Speaker 1: I think that's it, and I would agree with I'm so.
Speaker 2: I guess my question more so was then why isn't
there because couldn't you argue that the scale at which
people would tune out if they think that games are
being manipulated and you don't. At least with tanking, it's
front and center and overt, you know who's tanking. But
when it comes to these gambling which again to be
to be fair, they are rarer. But because of like
the illicitness or the covertness behind it, you're going to
not have as much knowledge as to well, what game
is at risk or should I tune out of? And
it's it's not just as a sport's better that I'm
looking at it through the lens of I'm saying, if
the idea of a gambling scandal to me, or a
player manipulating their own prop lines brings into real question
just the integrity of the sport at large, don't you
risk tuning people?
Speaker 1: And the NBA didn't do anything to address that.
Speaker 3: So when when these things cropped up prop it's undeniably worse.
If if there's a broad but interception that games are fixed,
that's that's the worst possible sure, that's a bigger problem,
and so why aren't you Why wouldn't that And I'm
not here to debate really debate which one's worse. I'm
just I would say, at the least the idea of them,
wouldn't they be similarly urgent? Or is it just because
tanking happens at a larger scale right now even though
we know about it versus the idea of this, even
though we've witnessed what could happen?
Speaker 1: And I mean whether you think.
Speaker 2: That, Okay, Johntay Porter, Terry Rozier, those lines didn't necessarily
change the outcome of games, but it lays the groundwork,
the breadcrumbs for people to think that why didn't you
nip that in the bud beyond well, Johntay Porter's band, Well.
Speaker 3: What does that look like? So at first I would say,
I want to ask what that like?
Speaker 2: So the nc DOUAA has made they've campaigned a lot
to remove college player props because they think, even with
the nil rights deals, that those players are going to
be more the student athletes are going to be more
susceptible to maybe being bought off whatever itscribed, because they're
not making us most of these people are not making
it and they're younger.
Speaker 3: And stupider and don't assess risk correctly. Yeah, right, sure, And.
Speaker 2: So it's more because you could make the same argument
this stuff has happened, and there's that if anyone listening
to the Pabulatory finds out podcast recently where Antonio Blakeney
was apparently recruiting college players to like help on these schemes,
it's not you don't believe as of right now that
it's happening across every game, but it seems like the
idea of it is enough to have the NZ double
a concern. I'm not pro NC double A here, which
was I don't have a problem with, like if they
were gonna have a problem with college players getting played,
that's not something I had an issue with. I just
find it. I don't know if the word it's I
don't know what the word is. And I understand that
tanking is more prevalent as an issue, But if we're
really concerned about the integrity of the game, shouldn't the
league be making more of an effort to address every
nook and cranny of that integrity. And but you're never
gonna see them say like we can't have like sports
but like or, you're never gonna say have them excuse me,
You're never gonna say what MLB did in response to
I think I want to say it was Ohio maybe
where they came to a deal where they capped the
bets that could be placed on like per pitch wagers.
Speaker 1: It's like d NBA didn't do anything.
Speaker 2: To the best of my knowledge, Maybe I'm like, that's
a blind spot for me if I missed that. We
didn't see any type of reaction like that. And so
I look at what tanking is, which is teams legally
taking advantage of a system that.
Speaker 1: You put in place.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I find I don't find the reaction outsized. But
I do think that if you're gonna selectively not enforce
just tanking, but you're gonna selectively address issues of integrity
with the game, it just rings hollow to me. And
I say all this by saying, but I say all
this with the intention of admitting, yeah, there needs to
be like reform this offseason.
Speaker 1: For sure, there needs to be tanking reform.
Speaker 3: I think there's a there's a couple. So the cynical
take would be tanking does does not create a new
revenue stream for the NBA. Gambling does. So you're gonna
treat those pretty differently because your monetary incentives are one
has some and one doesn't. And so that's the reason
that gambling hasn't gotten the same kind of treatment that
tanking has.
Speaker 1: The other the same reason.
Speaker 2: If you really cared about the integrity of the sport
or wanted to maximize the integrity the competition level of
the sport, we will never talk We will never will
suggest it. We'll never talk about shortening the season. That'll
never be something. Well, that's not just the chin that's
a players union thing, sure too.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, and the other thing a couple other things. So
I also don't think the NBA believes that it has
a gambling problem, and I think that belief is probably wrecked.
I think there have been isolated incidents that have been uncovered,
and I think that if the problem we're bigger man
is there in interest in figuring that out and publicizing
it from journalists and from whoever? Right right? Like, I
think like it's just like any it's hard to keep
that stuff quiet because it takes a lot of people,
and there's a lot of So I don't think the
gambling problem is actually that big of a problem. I
think we're aware of the big stuff. Probably that could
be naive.
Speaker 2: I don't know, No, I would agree there's probably definitely
a ton of stuff are not aware of, But I
would agree with you it's more so the idea, the
spirit behind it.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, I think the last thing that's different is that, well,
I guess that would cut the other way, because what
I was gonna say is the tanking is different because
even if you view it as a problem as a
fan of a particular team, you can acknowledge that it's
like the career way to operate somehow, you know, Like right,
I bet there are a lot of Jazz fans that
are like, leave us alone. We're cooking, like we're trying
to lose. I want this, I want this to happen.
So that's that complicates it a little bit because there
is a pretty decent section of fans that are like, yeah,
I get it that this is okay by me. But
I think broadly, you just as a league, you've got
to figure out a way to incentivize winning and disincentivize losing.
It's a competitive endeavor, like the goal should be to win.
That's like the simplification of it to it's like, you know,
absolute bottom level. So should we talk solutions?
Speaker 1: Just so we came up.
Speaker 2: Everyone should go check out the tanking episode we did
where we proposed a but we must have went through
like twenty different solutions, but there was like seven or
so that we're mentioned in Shan Sharrania's piece for ESPN
about this. So let's go through them and see whether
you we like them or not. And some of them
could be made in conjunction with each other. But the
first one, and everyone just seems to assume this is
gonna happen, is first round draft picks in trades can
be protected only for top four selections or top fourteen
plus selections.
Speaker 3: What does that solve exactly? Just I mean, I know
we know it would solve.
Speaker 1: So what we've seen with the Jazz this year, there's no.
Speaker 2: Top eight right like pick the protection, so they're not
trying to keep that one, or with the Sixers last year.
My gut reaction and I think it's fine to do this,
but I said when we recorded that tanking episode, I
think I did it from a perspective. I'm kind of
tired of having to keep track of all these different
pick protections.
Speaker 3: That's that's that's a factor. Sorry.
Speaker 2: I I think if you have a top four protected pick,
it's not gonna dissuade me from tanking. If anything, I'm
gonna be more egregious about it to try and keep
the top four protected.
Speaker 3: But you're not gonna do it. You're what that does
the theoretically? Is it for who? For whom it makes
the most sense to tank? It makes so your jazz
the jazz, like you said, like the jazz situation is
less likely to occur, right, because it's either top four,
it's top fourteen. If you're going to be in that
middle chunk, it makes less sense to tank. Like that's
I guess that's the main You're You're trimming out a
section of potential tankers with that, right, is that it?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think what are you addressing more? Is it
are teams less likely to lean into mid season tanks
because it's so hard to actually get towards the bottom
of the barrel by the end of the season, that
if you have only a top four protected pick, Is
that what they're hoping they'll look at it? Or couldn't
teams just I think it might increase the number of
teams that go into any given season thinking they need
to be just awful from the start.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I mean so, I guess my reaction to
that one is that's probably a pretty good, straightforward component
for a few basic reasons, one of which is, like
you said, it's just confusing with all these like arcane
pick protections, let's just simplify it. And then the upshot
also is that, like you just have again, like I'll
say it again, you're trimming the field of teams for
whom it makes sense to tank in a certain way
that we really don't like I think is how I
put it. That's fine, I think I think you do it.
Speaker 2: Next one up is lottery odds freeze at the trade
deadline or a later date.
Speaker 3: So this is just any any type of anti tanking
measure like this to me, just makes a different section
of the season meaningless. Does that make like it moving
the date? I feel like I make the case for
it because to me, it's just kind of like you're
not solving the problem. You're just changing when teams are tanking.
Speaker 2: If it's if you're straight locking them, I actually don't
understand it. Because I think what you're doing is front
loading the most egregious tank jobs. And then after the fact,
if you're only dealing with the threat of fines, why Okay,
losing won't help your lottery odds, but what is winning
gonna do?
Speaker 1: Would you rather pick up a few extra wins.
Speaker 2: Or rest lowry market and Jared Jackson Junior is that
they don't get injured before next season when you plan
on mattering.
Speaker 3: Yeah, don't don't care for it. It doesn't It doesn't
seem it's not a solution really to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't like although we do have a spin
on it, and we came up with it, but we've
expanded upon it, so we'll drop that at the end.
This one next up no longer allowing a team to
pick in the top four in consecutive years and or
after consecutive Botto three finishes.
Speaker 3: I don't love this kind of approach either, because it.
Speaker 2: Got extended to at least give them two years before
considering anything like this, right.
Speaker 3: So I don't know, just in general, like, is this
addressing the kind of tanking we don't like, because because
sometimes it takes multiple years to rebuild, right, and sometimes
the Wizards.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't the Wizards be a good example here to where
Now it's because they made these acquisitions at the trade deadline,
and there it seems as if they're holding one or
both of them out even though maybe they could play.
But before this, it was it didn't matter who the
Wizards benched or played. They were just going to be
organically terrible relative to the rest of the league.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so what's read the phrasing one more time, just
because I don't want to speak on it without.
Speaker 2: Making allowing a team So you can't have a top
four pick in consecutive years or after consecutive bottom three finishes,
and that's brutal because what if you just have consecutive
bottom three finishes but never had a top four pick.
Speaker 3: So the other issue with this one that gets trotted
out a lot, which I think has some resonance, is
if you know, as Team X, that Team Y is
going to be disqualified terrible team why is disqualified from
picking high in the draft, and you're, as Team X,
like better than that, aren't, you may be more incentivized
to tank than you would otherwise be because you don't
have to like there's that open and.
Speaker 1: Say, oh, there's two teams that can.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for sure, you have a pretty decent, relatively decent
team that says, here's our here's our opportunity. That's not great.
I don't think. I think that that's not It's kind
of similar to just moving the portion of the season
that's meaningless. It's like just moving the tank incentive somewhere
around the standings if those bottom teams are disqualified. Also, like,
I don't know, the point of the draft is to
help a bad team get better, and sometimes teams are
so bad that like a couple cracks at it isn't
gonna cut it. You know.
Speaker 2: It's so dependent on draft classes too.
Speaker 3: Right, right, Like the Wizards are pissed we got number
two in the Alex Saar draft. Like that's okay, great,
Like that's yeah. I don't know. Those those solutions are
coming at it from different angles, but they to me
feel similar similarly ineffective.
Speaker 2: I feel like this one is going to be called
the Indie on a Pacers rule. But teams can't pick
in the top four of the year after making the
conference finals. I don't, right, I hate this one. I'm
gonna say because there are two things I know. A
lot of people have been mad about what the Pacers
were quote unquote doing.
Speaker 1: They don't have one of the best players in franchise history.
Speaker 2: Quite frankly, he's out for the season, so they shouldn't
have any payoff for having to go like their fans too,
for going through this season. It's not like, by way,
it's not like Pascal Siakam has missed forty games this year,
And so I find misresponse to just be a little
bit overbearing. And there's also there's sometimes teams just get
torn apart, fall apart.
Speaker 1: So if you make the conference finals.
Speaker 2: Well, let's use the Wolves as an example and assume
they have their picks, but if they made three straight
conference finals, don't get past it and decide that it's
time like we're rebuilding because you were good. It's also
why I don't necessarily support I don't even know if
that's on this list of just doing the multi year
window for odds we're looking at. So it's, oh, a
team ages out organically, but they're being penalized because they
were good recently, Like that's a to me, that's a
superficial kind of parody. Then you're actively saying that you
don't want sustainability.
Speaker 3: That also just like really specific and like all comes
up so infrequently as to like this is why is
this is a rule? Like what do we think?
Speaker 1: It's hey, we're doing something, folks, you think one of them?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well it's just I don't know. You got no
bad ideas in a brainstorm. But just just like it,
it doesn't again, it doesn't address the real problem because one,
how often is this coming up? And two like, oh,
what's what's the logic in in just saying you used
to be good so you can't get a high pick,
like I don't, I don't, I don't get it.
Speaker 2: And so you were adjusting the conference finals and got
there while still having your own draft pick for next
year acause the Pacers reacquired there shout out New Orleans Pelicans.
But so this is the next one. And by the
way you said this, there's no bad ideas in a brainstorm.
Speaker 1: So I know people and.
Speaker 2: They ship all over our idea that we posted on
YouTube shorts. I know people like to get I don't.
We're gonna find holes in our own proposals. In every proposal,
there is no perfect solve. Is a tough issue to
address unless you're going to shorten the season, which we
know they're never gonna do.
Speaker 3: Which wouldn't even address all of it. But but that's
you know, I think if there were a perfect solution,
we would have had it a long time ago. This
is just like it is a hard thing to solve.
You're totally trying to realign incentives. Like that's difficult.
Speaker 2: So the next one off is I did step on
the toes of it. Is lottery odds allocated based on
two year records?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: So just like the Pacers would be waited what they
did last year versus this year, and it's do you
think that's is that is that fair? I mean you
could look at it as well. They were just and
wean it's not like they've lost Tyre's Haliburton forever.
Speaker 1: I still hate it. I'm just I'm trying to play
Devil's advocate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it like I'm trying now. I'm yeah,
I'm trying to advocate too. So like I guess what
it could accomplish is it just it could make it
so that you're slightly less incentivized to totally like pack
it in in a a in a single year because
it's it just helps you less if you're if that's
only half the sample that you're being judged on in
terms of lottery odds, I guess. But it's like, so
does that just mean that teams will tank for longer
because they need to build up multiple years of losses
to maximize their Like, if the incentive is still losing
gets you a higher pick, then it's still losing gets
you a higher pick, So we really got to lose more.
Like that doesn't seem great from a like process perspective.
Speaker 2: And then if you span the scope, there's also the
chance that what if this team has two let's say
they did three year records, and this team was so
bad in just years one, Like they were just so
bad they had the worst record league for two straight years.
Speaker 1: Then the third year, like they made the jump.
Speaker 2: They're this playoff team, but because their lottery odds, Like,
so your lottery odds are, would we be excluded from
that lottery? Then if you are in the playoff, Like,
how would that work? Like would you technically be considered
a lottery team if based on your three year record?
Speaker 1: Yeah, we just made the playoffs, but we have.
Speaker 2: Let's just say, like the tenth worst record over that
three year spance.
Speaker 3: It's like the Pistons before they did this, they had
just Yeah, the Pistons or even.
Speaker 1: The thunder number one pick this year, that'd be great.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Like if you I mean, that's another one that
doesn't come up that often because usually the growth trajectory
is a little more gradual. But I don't know, I
don't think that's really that doesn't solve anything to me.
Speaker 2: They have two more because this was less in the ESPN,
which seems like these are up for most consideration. Lottery
is extended to include all playing team so that dissuades
teams from doing what the Mavericks did, or even maybe
even the Sixers last year. But what the the Mavericks
specifically did was twenty one twenty where they got it
ended up with Derek Lively was the case of will
that whole thing?
Speaker 3: So I am more amenable to the general flattening of
the odds just as a as an overall approach. I
do think the risk is that you have you moved
the line up to where it's like, now you need
to make a decision as a team, do we want
to be at the bottom of the playoff tier of
teams or have just as good a shot as literally
anyone else at picking first in this draft. I assume,
because that actual chance is so small, since you're spreading
it across whatever fourteen different teams, that you'd opt for
the playoffs. But I don't know if what you really
want is to avoid the teams that could otherwise be
competitive purposely losing. That feels like the temptation would be there,
right am I? Is that how you view it too?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I still like it a little better than the other solutions,
though that that to me makes losing less of an incentive.
Then then like the more we lose, the better our
chances get. It's just you can make the playoffs or not.
And you're in one of two buckets that.
Speaker 2: I would like to see how the lottery odds get redistributed,
though if you're now having so what would that be?
And like, can you make the playoffs and still be
considered because you're still a playing team the seven eight?
Speaker 1: Is that?
Speaker 3: No, I'd say, I'd say make it so that if
you the sixteen playoff teams the play in whatever, if
you are not one of the sixteen teams that goes
to the playoffs. You're so, that's fourteen that are equally
have equal lottery, equal shots at the number one pick. No.
Speaker 1: No, So I guess to get.
Speaker 2: What this proposal says. This proposal is just no. That
proposal says like extending the lottery to include all playing teams.
I don't assume that means they're flattening the odds for
all the teams that involved.
Speaker 1: It's just a more teams into the ice.
Speaker 3: So if you are the Atlanta Hawks and you're a
playing team and as long as you don't make it
to the eighth seed through the play in tournament.
Speaker 1: But then isn't that the same?
Speaker 2: I'm assuming they meant the teams that make it it
as the seven eight to the playoffs, because otherwise, how
what is it?
Speaker 1: What are you extending?
Speaker 3: Well I kind of like that one too, because that
disincentivizes I still like my flattening the odds a little better.
Speaker 2: Well that so that is the next one is you
flatten the entire lottery, And that just feels so like,
in what world should the fucking like Blazers have the
same lottery odds as I.
Speaker 3: Don't know as the Kings this year?
Speaker 1: That's the Kings.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, who tried to be good? Here's the thing,
what about the Oh wait, sorry for you?
Speaker 3: So that's a So what you're saying is is it's
a it's not a good result. If the Blazers, that's
probably the best example. I just yeah, they'll stick with
the Blazers. If the Blazers get the number one. If
the war it's a great result. If the Warriors get
the number one.
Speaker 1: Pick, that's the only acceptable results.
Speaker 3: I think it's a. I think that if that's a
I'm more willing to live with an outcome where not
the worst team gets the number one pick than I
am to continue having the incentive for bad teams to
to not to be bad. I don't know, Like, so,
what's the there's an up or if who's the uproar
coming from? It's coming from the Kings, the Wizards, the Nets,
the Pacers, whatever, right.
Speaker 2: But I honestly think that it's coming from so if
we if we kind of step back, it's gonna come
from teams. And Tony Jones had this report for The
Athletic that the Jazz had a win now trade line
up for a big name player who didn't want to
go to Utah, and so the trade wasn't made. Now
you can argue that is there's some spin there. Who
was the player? Sure, but that's a lot of these
teams cannot hope to win big in free agency or
even trades. You can throw caution to the win and
trade for players anyway, but that becomes a huge risk.
Speaker 1: Rebuilding through the draft.
Speaker 2: To me, it's still most important to get the teams
that are in the worst shape the most infusion of talent. Now,
how do they get to be Now the Jazz if
they were in the worst shape this year, which they're not,
by the way, it would be disingenuous. But the Kings
are in bad shape. It's through their own incompetence. But
they're in bad shape. I think you could even again,
before making the trades for Trey Young and Anthony Davis,
what did the Wizards do that was inauthentic aside from
they didn't make a trade like for Trey Young or
Anthony Davis. And now the problem is they made that trade,
but they're not playing those guys. That team still needs
a best player or something close to it, and maybe
it still could be Alex r. But you could sort
of catch like the Nets, but you could say they
structure their team through the tank, and the Nets might
be a team that are more likely to make a
bigger trade, or could they envision a free agency becomes
cool again, But let zoom zoom right past the Giannis
attenthakoupo era in Milwaukee when they eventually have their own.
Speaker 1: Picks back you.
Speaker 2: Yes, I know Giannis wasn't drafted in the lottery, but
your best chance of finding your next franchise cornerstone is
with a high draft pick. And so yeah, well, flattening
the lottery odds probably increases the importance of scouting departments
and it definitely removes the incentive to tank. I just
I feel like he creates this in balance for where
better teams are going to get the number one there's
they're more likely to get the number one pick or
these high draft picks, which in a vacuum is fine
if everything else about the NBA existed on this even plane,
and it just doesn't because of all the other competitive advantages.
Again that certain teams just they can't overcome their location.
We can make of teams for not spending, and you should,
but if you're willing to spend, if you're willing to
make big swings on the trade market, but you're never
going to be a player destination. That's something that needs
to like. Your best chance of getting these transcendent talents
are through the draft, and you're most likely to get
those transcendent talents the higher you draft.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean, what you're doing is advocating on
behalf of the smaller markets than the guy that have
competitive disadvantages in roster building. I think I think that's fair.
I think I'm more on I don't know. Part of
me is just like I don't know. Run your operation
well and you'll be fine. But that is like here,
that's a dismissive of the fact that like, players don't
want to. Players would rather all things be equal. They'd
rather go to New York, Miami, La, Houston, or whatever.
Speaker 1: Strip away the idea of no draft picks.
Speaker 2: Take away the draft picks from the Lakers, and take
away the draft picks from.
Speaker 1: Let's pick another team we haven't talked about yet.
Speaker 2: Uh, take away all the draft picks from New Orleans,
even though they might just give them.
Speaker 1: Away at this point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they don't.
Speaker 2: They don't have Any of these teams have no draft picks,
which team is going to be better?
Speaker 3: Right first? Right, And that's that's undeniable. It's the big
it's the Lakers. The Lakers are I mean, they're they
might just they're they're their own thing. But but like,
I think that is a real concern, although again part
of me just I don't know, it seems like it's
less it should be less of a concern than it
used to be. But maybe I'm just being dismissive because
like I otherwise like this solution, and that I'm dismissing
the like pretty obvious problem with it. That's different to
me than because because a close cousin of what you're
talking about is, well, if you do this, then the
whole point of the draft is so a bad team
can get good and and you're making it harder for
the bad teams to like totally turn themselves around with
a number one draft pick, right, which is.
Speaker 2: They could just be in the lottery for longer than yeah,
and in turns of bad for longer, right, which is,
by the way, the chaos energy of it all as
a from an entertainment perspective, absolutely insane.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Like I would enjoy that, isn't there something appealing though,
about forcing a team to try to improve itself through
like other means versus we just need this windfall that
we can only get by losing, you know, Like it
doesn't it maybe force you to invest more in player
development and and like stick with a coach for a
long time who's got a system, or like there's I
think there are upsides to making it so that the
only way we can turn ourselves around is with a
high lottery pick. The problem with making that argument is, like,
it's demonstrably true that the best way to fix your
franchise is to get Victor wimban Yama or whatever. And
the market the market sized thing, and the inequity of
just how teams are viewed by players, that's kind of undeniable.
I think, I think that's fair. I still like this
idea a little better than a lot of the other ones, though.
Speaker 2: So here's my idea that it was a hybrid of
a couple ideas that we had gone through and I'd
added a layer to it.
Speaker 1: People did not like it. I still really like it.
Speaker 2: It's losses count towards your lottery odds before the trade deadline,
after the trade deadline, wins count towards the lottery odds.
I'm adding a caveat to this though, that while losses
count to your lottery odds, if you're losing streak lasts
longer than two games or three games, even even you
can push it to three. Oh, those losses do not
count towards your lottery odds. There is no limit to
how your wins would count on the back on the
back end of that, so pass the trade deadline. So
it's losses before the trade deadline. But anytime you lose
more than two maybe I don't. We'd have to look
and see, should have whatever three games. But if you're
losing streaks or passes two or three games, none of
the losses that followed during that street like that, we
doubt it's a problem.
Speaker 1: Then if the Kings have a winless month, is my point?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean because the Kings don't get any benefit.
Speaker 2: Right because the argument because my proposal or that hybrid,
you still would have teams like let's let's use the
Wizards as an example. They could tank their hearts out
through the trade deadline, then make those trades for a
healthy trade, y'kin, Anthony Davis, and try and rack up
wins after this at least alleviates the front loaded part
of that to where teams, yeah, they can benefit from
their losses before the trade deadline, but you're capped because
you can't just lose four or five six games in
a row and have those all count towards the lottery odds.
Speaker 3: So theoretically that does it diminishes the value the incentive
to lose as much as possible. It's because you get
a little cap and then if you get a win,
then you can lose. You can lose four out of
five and then what six out of six out of
eight or whatever. But if you lose eight in a
row counts the same. You're only getting those So I
like that better than just the hard cutoff where wins
count for something and the losses or losses count for
points and wins count for points. But like, do you
then get these weird games where it's like they're guaranteed
to try to lose this one where they're you know, like.
Speaker 1: How's that different from what we have? It's not that
with every game.
Speaker 3: It's a more complicated version of the problem that kind
of exists. Yeah, that's interesting, that's interesting.
Speaker 2: Just play cating me you could say it's no, that's well,
because that's just better than the losses are good, and
then wins are good after a certain date cutoff because you.
Speaker 3: You're you are you're cutting down by I guess in
theory like a third the value of or or more
value of a loss, so you're less incentivized to lose.
Speaker 2: My FOB question to all of this is how important
because we've seen other models out there which are like
moderately or not really complicated where it's we had some
of our discord repose a double weighted lottery, which was
super interesting going through that. There's been entire just long
form pieces written on these super complicated mechanisms. How important
is it for fans to be able to follow your
lottery system beyond just if there's a website that automatically
does what the order would be for you right now,
because you might not understand the stakes on a game
to game basis for your team. And I've wondered that
because you could say not at all. The priority should
just be putting the best product possible on the floor.
If this fix is tanking, who cares how complicated it is.
If it works, but it isn't This is still an
entertainment product, and you want fans to be able to
kind of understand the lay of the land.
Speaker 1: And I think some of these get into.
Speaker 2: I don't think anything we mentioned, but mine would be
a good example if we added another step to it
that you could even argue as fans.
Speaker 1: Might get confused, yeah, of having to track that.
Speaker 3: I mean, do you think most fans could explain to
you the second like cogently and like all like Eric,
do you think most could explain.
Speaker 1: Anone who listen to this podcast.
Speaker 3: Well, that's the thing is we're not exactly like we're
a little niche in that regard it just like the
the the nuts and bolts and the nitty gritty details
of stuff. I do think what you're talking about made
me it seemed it's complicated. It's there's another layer of
complication to it. And maybe that does, Like because right now,
unless you maybe as as a fan, you know your
team owes its pick and doesn't owe its pick, and
you know where they are in the standings, and that
gives you all the information you need based like about
your your draft shot. Adding the other stuff makes it
a little trickier, honestly, Adding the like well, wins losses
are good until winds are good might be like kind
of complicated for you know, the casual fan too. Can
I I kind of feel like I know where we're
both gonna land on it as as impractical, But can
I give you do you have anything else? Or can
I give you the the idea that I read recently
that I thought.
Speaker 1: Was, oh, yeah, for sure, I'm just gonna shoot it
down because.
Speaker 3: I mean I will too. There's an obvious reason that
this shouldn't happen, but what if? So the problem? The
problem is your odds of getting Victor wimbin Yama are
better if you lose a lot of games, and so
you're always going to be incentivized to lose games. And
that's bad because we want teams to try to win
every night, however many games the season is you wanted
to try to win, it seems to me that and
I'm so I'm sorry. I should have looked this up
before we started recording. I think it was Tom Ziller.
It might have been him reporting on somebody else's idea
from almost ten years ago. The gist of it is,
though there is no draft anymore, to me, that's like
if you're really going to solve tanking getting rid of
the draft, like does it? And so what you do
instead is have what amounts to like a roster exception,
like everybody has. You know. The idea of like a
mid level exception is just just so to keep that
idea in people's heads. There's a rookie exception, and it
set it at whatever you want. It's fifteen million dollars,
and you can spend that on one rookie or five
or whatever. And then there are ways for you to
trade to acquire other team's rookie exceptions, Like maybe some
team is capped out and doesn't want to spend this
exception on somebody, and so they'll trade it to you
for whatever. I don't know. Just there's this idea of
roster exception. So it's possible for a team to have
like fifty million dollars in a given draft class and
there's no draft to spend on a rookie. And maybe
that team is Utah and maybe the Lakers have twenty
million dollars, and maybe that player chooses the Jazz because
they've got the biggest exception that they can spend on
that player. This has no impact on winning or losing.
If anything, I think it makes it so all things
being equal, a player might want to go to a
winning team as long as there wasn't like a clear,
oh this guy's playing ahead of me type of thing.
It makes it almost like a scholarship offer, like in
the college setting. So what that does is it gives
the small market teams the ability to have like superior
spending power if they play their cards right, to have
a better shot at the transformative player that they need
because they can't trade for them and they can't sign them.
And it also makes it so losing does not give
you more money to spend. It doesn't affect it, so.
Speaker 1: Like everything the same.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you'd have to treat it like, okay, so every team,
if we wipe away all the trades and everything, every
team has one first round pick and one second round
pick this year, right, so you'd have I don't know
what you do with all the obligations that are outstanding
with respected draft picks. This is reason one of fifteen
why this is unrealistic. But you just say every team
has a ten million dollar or what it just say
ten to have an easy number ten million dollar rookie
roster exception. Okay, here comes the twenty twenty six draft class.
Where's where's a boozer? Where's he gonna Where's he gonna sign?
If it's all equally, he's probably going to Lakers or whatever. Right,
But over time, I do think these things get traded
and somebody has the most money, somebody has the least.
It's it's The key thing that appeals to me is
that it makes it so losing doesn't help you. The
problem is the draft is like one of the most
interest drawing things in the league, and if you get
rid of the draft with this, then it just becomes
like another free agency, which also is as I'm saying that,
like people like that check your mic.
Speaker 2: The other thing, too, is so you can acquire these
exceptions from other teams.
Speaker 1: But even if you don't, this might.
Speaker 2: Open the door for more of Kawhi aspiration level stuff
where if you are going to go to a bigger market,
they're gonna find ways to offset I mean, hurting potential
that you could have gotten and you.
Speaker 3: Get nuked with penalties if you do that.
Speaker 2: Let's just say the Clippers would would would like to
disagree as of right now on that.
Speaker 1: Do you so that that that leads like.
Speaker 3: That idea like tickled my brain a little bit because
because everything else you talk about that still involves a draft,
doesn't address the misalignment of incentives, like the the loss
equals good of it all like that solves that it
raises a host of new problems and so it'll never happen.
But I'm sorry, what else, Let's shoot it down a
little bit more? What else you got?
Speaker 2: I honestly think that it would really screw over just
the non glamour markets, because it's if you're now I
think you you're saying they could be traded and such.
But if I am the Lakers, I'm never gonna trade
these things because my fifteen million dollars is always going
to go further every single year than everyone I'd rather.
Speaker 1: What I would rather do.
Speaker 2: Is I signed the player and I can trade the
actual player like in the middle of like another package arises.
Speaker 1: I don't it's interesting.
Speaker 2: It's better than just abolishing the draft all together and
having it be a free agency process.
Speaker 3: You gotta have some kind kind of let's level the
playing field insofar as that's possible mechanism in place, and
the idea of a roster exception makes sense to me.
The other thing, the thought provoking thing about it, is like,
so I think you're right, it would just if you're
a small market team or a team that players don't
historically want to go to, Like this is a disadvantage
for you. It's a big advance, it's an even it's
a bigger advantage for the teams that already like have advantages.
And then it's like, is that bad? Is it bad
if we have like six or eight superpowers that are
meeting in the playoffs every year, like for the net
popularity of the NBA, it's it almost goes back to
like our dynasties good for the NBA. Our super team's good.
I feel like the jury's still out on that. But like,
what if there were all of the big market teams
just kept like butting heads every year in the playoffs?
Speaker 1: I think people like that.
Speaker 3: And then it's like if you get the odd Memphis
Grizzlies run, You're like, holy shit, we are all on board.
This is awesome. This is like a David Goliath thing.
I don't know, It's just I don't know what I
think about it, But there's debate to me on whether
it's good to have a handful of superpowers most of
the time, it's possible that it is.
Speaker 2: So, so after the NBA exhaustively, exhaustively championing the importance
of parody, they're just gonna shift.
Speaker 1: The completely because that's what that does.
Speaker 3: Yeah, wow, prove like maybe this give me the economic
study over years of data that proves that's bad. Like
maybe it is. I'm not sure. I don't know. It's
possible that never.
Speaker 2: But then don't you kind of put a cap on
I mean for the way that the NBA markets itself. Now, yeah, sure,
having the same six to eight glamour markets maybe involved
in everything routinely would be good.
Speaker 1: But that's then what's the point of it?
Speaker 2: Like, are are we gonna see franchise valuations which have
been currently skyrocketing?
Speaker 1: Are they gonna plummet?
Speaker 3: Because it's I mean, how's how's Premier League soccer doing?
Like how's how's most international soccer doing? Like popularity wise,
because they essentially operate similarly to this, where it's like
there's a handful of extremely wealthy teams that can just
spend you know, most of the league under the table,
and they tend to be the most competitive teams, and
like there's there's like smaller, smaller market teams that are
in the same league that are just like spending a
tenth of what the teams at the top are. And like,
I don't know, it seems like soccer is doing pretty
well popular.
Speaker 2: The Premier League has what twenty teams versus that, yeah,
versus soon to be thirty two.
Speaker 3: But there's all these second division teams that are still
wildly popular. I don't know, Like I'm again, I'm just
I'm spitballing, I'm playing Devil's advocate, I'm just asking questions,
I'm doing all the things.
Speaker 1: It's one of the.
Speaker 2: More creative abolished the draft once I've heard for sure,
like someone clearly put a ton of thought into that one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I just can'tnot idea.
Speaker 2: I just I aggregators Grant Hughes watch abolish the NBA
drafts and the Knicks to be competing in with the
occasional run from the Celtics and maybe the Warriors.
Speaker 1: Yep, that's all he wants. The part that I think it's.
Speaker 2: Im important to note is that it's impossible to fully
solve tanking so long as you're going to have the
goal of the teams that need the talent the most
need to have the best shot at it. I think
there are things that can be done to curtail it.
I don't think some of the proposals we went through.
I think there would either be unintended consequences or a
lot of them just don't have a ton of teeth.
The more I thought about the pick protections thing, sure,
if you want to simplify the transactional process and for
got people like you and me who are covering the
sport don't want to keep track of all these pick protects,
abolish I will say one thing will be boshed. No
second round pick protections, no more, no second round pick
protections or swaps. You just trade the second round pick
and that's it. But that the actual pick protections thing,
I don't think it has a ton of teeth, to
be honest. Some of the other stuff I just wonder
about the unintended consequences of You're not necessarily disincentivizing tanking
so much as relocating it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as the part of the schedule, but this stuff
is hard.
Speaker 2: And I'm I'm sympathetic to the NBA wanting to try
things and I hope that they do meaningfully try things.
I just if you're gonna enforce these integrity rules that
you have in place, that needs to be done, like
this is easier to in theory police than foul calls
because those are so in the moment, happening in real time,
and they're more open for interpretation. Then if we're talking
about if you have doctors, like it, shouldn't this be
more cut and dry or it should be easier to
have those discussions. I'm just not a fan of it.
I'm not even saying it's easy. I'm not a fan
of what feels like selective enforcement of the tanking stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan of tanking.
Speaker 2: But I also if I'm a team trying to build
a winner and I'm rebuilding, like, yeah, I'm tanking, that's
that's the thing I'm gonna do.
Speaker 3: I also think that ultimately the fines and the punishments,
whether they're selectively implemented or not, are useless because it
doesn't change the incentive structure, and all it will do
is make it like, Okay, the league's going to spend
a ton of money and hire a team of physicians
that are impartial, that will investigate every single player that
shows up on every team's injury report. Okay, teams will
just find a different way to lose. There's lots of
ways to lose on purpose, like you can like there's
we can't even imagine because they haven't had to try
to get this creative. But like, until you make it so,
losing is bad full stop, teams will do this. So
no matter what solutions are implemented this offseason, there will
still be tanking because it's still good in a meaningful
sense to lose games, and teams will always follow the
incentives like that's just never gonna change until you until
that fundamental aspect of the of the league is different. Right.
Speaker 2: Like, By the way, the variable here that probably doesn't
get talked about enough is of all the team sports,
the NBA is the one where a singular player makes
the most difference. And that even if the incentive isn't
fully there, if there's just a slight advantage, teams are
going to try and exploit it. You might even are
let's say you flatten the lottery odds. There might just
be teams that are consigned to being bad until that,
let's for five or six years and just hoping one
of these lottery years we're.
Speaker 1: Gonna have to get lucky.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we only have a whatever it would amount to
across the fourteen teams x percent chance is gonna be
in the single digits of getting the number one pick
or whatever it is at getting a top four pick.
But that's the risk we'll want to take because one
player makes all the difference in the world in this sport,
and it's not gonna be the same. Where in football,
you're not playing both sides of the field, and just
baseball and hockey, there's so many changes. In hockey, there's
so many frequent line changes, and that's not it's not
a defensive tanking. I just I don't think you're ever
going to fully solve it because of the nature of
the sport. I think some of them I think the
most effective way to address it would be too short
in the season. It's just something they're never going to do.
Speaker 3: And I don't know.
Speaker 1: I try to balance.
Speaker 2: I think it needs to be mentioned, but I just
don't how much is it worth discussing when you know
that neither the league, the owners, nor the players union
is ever going to go for it.
Speaker 3: Last thing I'll say because we've gone long on this.
I Shortening the season is like, yes, obviously start there.
Speaker 2: To me, seventeen games, single round elimination in the plants
a week every Sunday.
Speaker 3: What could go wrong? I think flattening the odds totally
evenly among non playoff teams is my favorite idea because
it is the most effective way to disincentivize losing. But
also in conjunction with all these second apron rules that
make it really really hard to stay good for a
long time because you can't afford it, I think that
makes it less likely that, oh my god, the Lakers
won the championship and and then just barely missed the
playoffs and then got the number one pick. They're still
up against all of it. For all of their advantages,
they're still up against the same like spending caps and
rules and penalties as everybody else. So like, if parody
like parody is the is a concern, right, So that's
why it's bad to flatten the odds, because the worst
teams don't necessarily get the best chance at the top picks.
But because there's all these new CBA things of the
last few years that make parody like just parodies like
built in now it through a different mechanism. I think
I'm much more open to the flatten odds because it's
just like, regardless of market size, it's really fucking hard
to stay at the top of the league for a
long time, right, Does that make sense? So that that's
why the flat and odds are more appealing to me
than the other solutions.
Speaker 2: Would you didn't get instances of where team are going
to actively pivot out of the play in because they
know they're going to have an even show. Let's use
the Hornets as an example, an up and coming team
that's playing really well right now and they're just gonna
steer themselves out of the play in.
Speaker 3: Because I think you might get a couple of those,
because again, losing still an incentive. But I don't think
you're gonna have whatever we got this year, like ten
teams maybe at this point at this point that are
trying to lose or not trying to win. I don't think.
I think you don't get that.
Speaker 2: I think we should just have a tournament. That's the
new NBA solution. Here's here's the solution. They should hold
a tournament and the winner of the tournament gets to
pick the following season's lottery structure and its every single year.
Speaker 1: Yep, you choose the rules.
Speaker 3: Whatever you want. That's the that'd be a big tournament.
I like it.
Speaker 1: Do you have anything else?
Speaker 2: I I I think this conversation will make people mad,
because it always does.
Speaker 1: But it's it's.
Speaker 2: One that I'm kind of tired of having. But it's
also I find it just fascinating. Yeah, and it's also
it is a problem. Even as I said at the top, well,
I don't appreciate this selective enforcement. It feels like of
these quote unquote rules, it is certainly a problem. And
I don't know what they're gonna I if they're gonna
do the stuff that we went through that's being proposed,
I don't actually know how much of them. Some of
it might have a material impact. I just don't know
how good it's going to be. So I'm very curious
to see where they end up with it.
Speaker 3: All same, thanks everybody for listening, for watching Murmder to rate,
review and subscribe, let us know what you think.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: We've we've kind of ran through everything and endorsed a
couple of things. Uh, just get on board with getting
rid of the draft and just turning everything into Premier
League soccer. I guess no, flatten the lottery, ods, flatten
the lottery odds. Shout Spring Milikina Aqualogies Jared Allen