Joe House

There's no getting over it.

You can imagine 10 million iterations, but as long as that link exists,

If I'm incented to do poorly to have a chance at that pick, then every rational actor will do poorly.

The only way to change that is to randomize who gets the number one pick.

If you want teams to compete, then you have to incent them to compete.

I saw a nice thing.

A guy in the Washington Post, a law professor said,

through the first two thirds of the season, it's fine.

You establish a kind of position, but then you can improve that position.

If you win over the last third of the season, the incentive is to win when, you know, this, this moment occurs for us every year from the trade deadline to the end of the season and wins can improve your, your position.

So then you get competitive games because you're trying to, to win at the end.

You,

you'll have a certain sort of place because you've demonstrated over the first two thirds of the season that you suck.

But then if you really try, even though you suck to go win games, you can improve that sucky position and that's desirable.

But I mean, as long as, you know, bad team gets number one pick, then the incentive is for the number one for it to be bad.

You don't like it.

I mean, there's an integrity to the games element to it.

You announce.

So what's the deal?

You're saying you would announce that you are tanking.