Brian Scalabrine

So we need to change it back the other way.

And it's like, if you just gave this system 25 years in the aggregate, the worst teams would pick the highest and you'll, but you'll have more years where there's some jumping around and you just sort of like, did you not understand what that was going to be?

And if they go back to a system like that, they have to be prepared for, there's going to be some crazy stuff and you have to like just stomach that and

for 10 or 15 or 20 years, or else we're just going to be continually doing this thing where it's like, well, we don't like that.

Let's tweak it again.

Zach, let me, I don't know the answer to this.

That's a great question.

I don't know off the top of my head.

I don't think every pick was pulled like that.

And that's another thing that has been proposed.

Detroit, it's happened to all three of those franchises.

But there'll be some really good teams getting the number one pick.

So another criticism of the flattened odds is,

it disincentivizes losing, but it doesn't incentivize winning.

And so there are other proposals where, and the Heat have been behind one of these that has gained some traction, where after a certain date in the season, you actually get credit for winning.

And so that teams aren't just not trying to lose, they're actually trying to be competitive in games.

I don't,

I don't know what's going to win out.

I would place the flattened odds or something like it a little bit ahead of that.

But that's an interesting one, too.