Lottery still fixed.

[AHF]

I misunderstood your statement that, "They could do this all on computer." I see now you weren't talking about the ping-pong ball process.

However, I still think that does nothing to improve the integrity of the process. It is just as easy to cheat on "live" TV as with the current format. The teams and auditors already have the numbers in advance and if they are willing to cheat in the current format they can cheat in a live one by just fixing which balls are drawn. What your suggestion really boils down to is not an actual improvement in integrity but a question of whether it is more palatable to the audience - both in terms of a perception that the process is fair and for entertainment value.

Since I think the proposal to do the drawing live on TV would be equally easy to fix (not easier as I mentioned earlier unless you are really getting rid of the auditors in which case I do think you compromise the integrity), it comes to the same place for me: a question of how you want to market the lottery to the fans. I get the argument that the draft would be perceived as more fair if done live but I am not on board with it actually being fairer if the only difference is that the fans can watch on TV and have lists of the numbers.

From a marketing perspective, I think you have made a pretty good case for the entertainment value of this process:

Stu is drawing for the 1st pick, and he's drawn 1 - 7 - 8. And only 4 teams left have that particular number combination, going into Stu's final number pick.

PORTLAND . . needs a 3 to win

MEMPHIS . . . needs a 5, 6, 12 or 14 to win

BOSTON . . . needs a 4, 9 or 11 to win

ATLANTA . . . needs a 2, 10 or 13

I don't know that I agree that it would ultimately make for better TV, but I think the real question is one of perception and marketing and not actual integrity of the process.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Anytime you can see something done right in front of you, instead of behind the scenes later on, I think that it gives the process more integrity.

As for the process that I suggested, I think it would pretty much keep fans of those lottery teams engaged for the full 30 minute broadcast, instead of simply waiting 25 minutes to finally see the Lottery results ( which were already done earlier ).

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. The Lottery will continue to be done like it is, so I'll never see how my suggestion will play out.

[AHF]

Anytime you can see something done right in front of you, instead of behind the scenes later on, I think that it gives the process more integrity.

Do you actually think the process is harder to fix or that it presents the image of better integrity?

I get the perception issue but I don't understand how your process is any more resistant to being manipulated because it is shown live on TV rather than observed live by the teams and auditors.

[MaceCase]

I see a few preliminary issues:

1) If this truly is a conspiracy, how hard is it for ESPN and the NBA to show mocked up graphics and change the combinations being displayed on their very own websites? Shouldn't be any harder than updating the boxscores that already appear on your screen, right? What is also hard about them just taping the segment and passing it off as live? If the entire process is being put in the hands of the viewer to judge....well that's the easiest part to manipulate.

2) There is also a great issue of being able to paste all of those numbers on a screen in a clean and efficient manner so as to be enticing to the viewer rather than the wall of text that it actually is.

3) There is a great assumption of fan participation rather than viewership in making this process have more "integrity". I can assure you that the general NBA fan is not spending their time watching TV running to a computer to do math problems.

4) I can also assure you that the number of people that are interested in this event far out numbers the particular fans of individual teams. You are creating a system that awards few die-hards that are willing to sift through thousands of numbers or perhaps even craft a spreadsheet to streamline the process in expense of the much larger casual viewership who just want to see a typical countdown.

This is the purpose of the accountants, they do that work for you.

I don't see how the argument "people trust what they see" makes this process any less prone to conspiracy especially when the eyes can just as easily be fooled. Do you require your bank teller to actually count out every dollar you have in your account to believe that it's there? Do you require votes to be actually tallied before you to believe the results of an election? No, you trust the officials who are charged with that duty to do their jobs rather than wishing to take that responsibility upon yourself. Again, thus the independent accountants and the executives from individual teams watching over the process.