CURRENT RULE: 5.1 All non-playoff teams will be ranked on the following tie-breaking factors: a. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games among the clubs) b. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division c. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games d. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference e. Strength of victory f. Strength of schedule g. Best net points in common games h. Coin toss
While this is the rule, I have been told the league's practice, and therefore what will be used again for the 2015 draft, is the team with the WORST and not the BEST won-lose-tied percentage is awarded the earlier draft pick.
Therefore, I request the Rule Book be changed and corrected by replacing the word "Best" with the word "Worst" since that is what the the league's practice is.
PROPOSED CHANGE: I propose this section get changed as follows: 5.1 - All non-playoff teams will be first ranked by record (worst record having the first pick and best record having the last pick) with the following tie-breaking factors: a. Best Head-to-head (won-lost-tied percentage in games among the clubs) drafts earliest b. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division drafts earliest c. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games drafts earliest d. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference drafts earliest e. Best Strength of Victory Percentage drafts earliest f. Coin toss
Explanation: Then league's practice has been the first determination of draft order is a team's overall record. Yet that factor is not even included in rule 5.1. So it should be added. Then tie breakers would be broken and the earlier pick given to the team with the best and not (past practice) the worst won-loss-tie percentage. While I do not think we have a problem with teams losing games on purpose, this will incentivize teams to win every game. This proposal has no impact on the draftv lottery rule.
It strikes me that while the language of the rule book is ambiguous, the intention was clear - that is, when finding a distinction between teams with identical records, the goal is to differentiate degrees of badness. The rules state, for example, "Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division." Following the obvious logic that rewards the worse team with the better draft pick, the word "best" is actually used to define the better team by comparison and assign that better team a worse draft pick. The confusion resides in the word "best" which could be interpreted to mean that the "best" team gets the better pick when in practice it was used (as it should have been) to give the "best" team the lesser pick. A semantic kerfuffle that is resolved by common sense. I support this revision because it clarifies the ambiguous rule speak.
