Talent Selection Under Uncertainty: Exploring Cognitive Biases Through the Lens of a Professional Basketball Entry Draft

Abstract

Every year, professional basketball franchises convene for an entry draft to select the next generation of talent for their respective teams. This article describes an experiential exercise that places students in the role of team executives of a fictionalized professional basketball franchise. Students are tasked with evaluating a group of draft-eligible athletes and making the optimal selection for their team, considering a wide array of skills, abilities, and attributes. The Basketball Draft Night Exercise is informed by extensive research on sport entry drafts spanning several decades and sheds light on the systematic errors, fallacies, and decision-making biases that arise when making talent selections under uncertainty. Furthermore, this exercise illuminates the potential pitfalls and cognitive errors committed by experts when assessing and selecting talent under uncertainty.

Keywords

experiential learning exercise sports management entry draft selection uncertainty decision-making biases human resource management

Developing proficiency in navigating the complexities of decision-making is a critical skill for emerging professionals and is an important aspect of business school education. This is especially true in circumstances of uncertainty, where decision-makers must make the right choice, often without enough information and with unpredictable results (Aldag, 2012; Simon, 1955). To address this challenge, the Basketball Draft Night Exercise was developed to offer students an immersive, engaging, and relatable experience. It encourages them to make decisions amid uncertainty firsthand, emphasizing that awareness of biases can mitigate their effects on organizations.

Based on recent calls to increase awareness of cognitive biases in management classrooms (e.g., Fiset & Byrne, 2021) and raise the overall competency of decision-makers at the professional level (e.g., Motomura et al., 2016), this experiential activity was developed to highlight systematic errors, fallacies, and decision-making biases that occur when selecting talent under uncertainty. Inspired by the National Basketball Association (NBA) entry draft, this activity fully engages students in the roles of front-office executives within a professional basketball franchise. It provides students with a realistic and engaging learning experience, enabling them to evaluate talent in a real-world environment characterized by limited information and amid conditions of uncertainty. With decision-making under uncertainty being a common element, this exercise holds significant relevance for personnel selection in organizations. Initially designed for use in an undergraduate human resource management course, the exercise is equally applicable to organizational behavior, sports management, and staffing and selection courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Since 1947, the NBA has annually conducted an entry draft to assign prospective athletes to professional basketball franchises (Soebbing & Mason, 2009). The purpose of the draft is to ensure competitive balance, granting low-performing teams the opportunity to select high-quality prospects. Drafts provide teams with the opportunity to negotiate with their selected players first, contribute substantial revenue to the league, and enhance fan engagement (Young, 2021). While drafts serve as an important means of assessing talent and ensuring competitive balance, the fact that team executives must make decisions under uncertainty does not always lead to optimal outcomes (Berger & Daumann, 2021a). Research indicates that decisions made in these environments are susceptible to systematic errors, fallacies, and decision-making biases (De Martino et al., 2006; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Consequently, given that draft-related decisions are related to team performance (e.g., Berger & Daumann, 2021a, 2021b), an entire industry has emerged aimed at identifying and selecting the best athletes and enhancing the quality of draft decision-making, albeit with limited success (e.g., sports analytics, Johnston et al., 2022; Lemire, 2020).

Professional sports serve as an ideal domain for this exercise given its high stakes, capacity to captivate students, and abundant opportunities for teaching decision-making and selection skills (e.g., Berger & Daumann, 2021a; Berri et al., 2011). Within this context, franchises meticulously evaluate athlete data—both qualitative and quantitative—to identify the most suitable prospects for their team based on their requirements and based on their pick in the draft. Nevertheless, human decision-makers are susceptible to cognitive biases and other errors, especially when operating in conditions of uncertainty (Johnston & Baker, 2020).

In the context of the NBA draft, several scholars cast doubt on the decision-making effectiveness of teams (e.g., Motomura, 2016) because of a mounting disparity in team competitiveness, a characteristic that entry drafts were intended to solve (Soebbing & Mason, 2009). Among the judgment and decision-making errors, and biases that have been explored in the context of the NBA draft, numerous studies have highlighted that decision-makers are biased by an athlete’s reputation out of high school (Berger & Daumann, 2021a), affiliation with a prestigious college (Burdekin & Van, 2019; Ichniowski & Preston, 2012), performance at the draft combine (an event where players undergo tests and evaluations before the draft, Berger & Daumann, 2021b; Teramoto et al., 2018), and being born outside the United States (e.g., Motomura, 2016), among others. As such, the overarching goal of this activity is to provide students with a hands-on learning opportunity to make talent decisions under uncertainty and support the below learning objectives.

Learning Objectives

At the end of this exercise, students should be able to:

Develop a persuasive rationale for decision-making in the context of talent selection.

Identify and describe various systematic errors, fallacies, and decision-making biases that are made under uncertainty.

Apply critical thinking skills to assess and mitigate potential biases in decision-making under uncertainty.

Evaluate methods for mitigating bias in decision-making under uncertainty.

Exercise Design and Instructions

The current exercise closely mirrors the NBA entry draft. In the lead up to the exercise, instructors are advised to provide students with resources explaining the fundamentals of basketball and the basketball entry draft. This ensures that everyone is familiar with the context before the exercise begins (for more details on the draft process, see Appendix D, Step 1). Once the exercise begins, students are grouped into five franchises (group sizes can vary, but teams have performed well with up to eight students) and provided with information, including franchise talent criteria (Appendix A), a list of draft-eligible athletes, including their positions, demographic details, statistics, and scouting reports, along with a draft assessment document (see Appendix B and C). Instructors are provided with a step-by-step guide and estimated timeline (Appendix D), a take-home document outlining systematic errors, fallacies, and decision-making biases in basketball drafts (Appendix E), and a set of discussion questions to facilitate class debriefing (Appendix F). This exercise can be conducted in approximately 45–50 minutes with a short debrief (15 minutes) or can be expanded depending on available class time (see Appendix D for guide and estimated timeline).

The exercise begins with an introduction explaining the fundamentals of a basketball entry draft, its process, and operation (Appendix D, Step 1), where instructors have the option of providing the resources before class or playing one or more of the introductory videos prior to the beginning of the exercise. Following the introduction, the instructor clarifies that each group represents front office executives for a professional basketball franchise (e.g., General Manager, Director of Player Personnel, Head Coach, Director of Scouting Operations, and senior player scouts), where they are tasked with selecting players to help shape the future of their franchise. In line with a typical NBA entry draft, each franchise chooses two players, adheres to a predetermined draft order, and organizes team picks on a draft board. However, notable distinctions include the lack of a lottery system, a 2-minute selection time limit (as opposed to the traditional 5 minutes), and the absence of trade opportunities during the draft.

After explaining these similarities and differences, students proceed to complete Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Draft Assessment Document (Appendix C). In doing so, students can evaluate the needs of their franchise (Appendix A) and list of draft eligible athletes (Appendix B) to develop a list of preferred skills, characteristics, and abilities, as well as their preferred order of eligible athletes of up to ten athletes that they would like to select in order of importance in preparation for the draft, as well as a rationale for choice (Appendix C). It is important to highlight that every athlete’s profile is designed to potentially trigger systematic errors, fallacies, and decision-making biases, as indicated by research. For instance, athlete C4 exemplifies the availability heuristic by being the top-scoring player in the draft. However, there are no ideal or superior picks among the athletes (Appendix E). The exercise primarily serves as an evaluation of students’ feelings about their selections. These decision-making fallacies often stem from fundamental psychological principles operating in complex and uncertain judgment environments (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), forming the basis for post-draft exercise discussions (Appendix F).

Once the draft begins, follow the sequence outlined in Appendix A across two rounds. The draft begins by the first franchise making their selection, within two minutes of starting the draft process. Once selected, the selected athlete’s name is written on the board and the two-minute countdown begins for the next franchise to make their selection. This process continues until each franchise has selected one player, which ends the first round of the draft. Depending on time, the instructor can either move immediately to the second round, or students can take a short break and then resume the draft. Once finished the draft exercise, students can complete Stage 3 of the Draft Assessment Document (Appendix C), where they must outline how they believe their selection will help their franchise.

In running the draft, instructors are encouraged to make it as realistic as possible. Some suggestions to do so include designing logos for each franchise, appointing the instructor as the commissioner to announce each franchise’s selection, maintaining a visual depiction of the draft board to track picks throughout the two rounds using the computer or sticky notes (Robinson & Fiset, 2021), and using artificial crowd noise to create a more engaging life-like draft experience.

General Debrief of the Exercise

After the draft exercise is completed, the instructor facilitates class discussion regarding the entire draft process. First, instructors can probe into how students prepared for the draft and what aspects of their preparation they found helpful. Subsequently, the conversation shifts to discussions about how students evaluated their performance in the exercise in terms of identifying athletes with the desired skills and traits for their franchise. Next, the discussion delves into students’ confidence levels regarding their selections, considering factors such as the likelihood of their picks becoming successful professional players and how they justified any concerns outlined in each athlete’s profile (e.g., statistics and demographics). This phase offers an opportunity to discuss how even experts with years of experience can be influenced by various biases when selecting players in the draft. Throughout the discussion, instructors can engage students in exploring why drafts are ideal for examining decision-making biases, citing factors like uncertainty, franchise needs, sample size limitations, individual differences, and incomplete information.

At this point, instructors can distribute the list of systematic errors, fallacies, and decision-making biases observed in NBA entry drafts (Appendix E) and initiate a larger discussion of how these decision-making issues manifest when evaluating talent under uncertainty and how students could make better decisions under uncertainty in different contexts. In many cases, students describe the decision-making biases that they engaged in during the draft and provide examples. In cases where students may not feel comfortable disclosing their own biases, instructors can outline instances in the athlete profiles that may elicit a particular bias (e.g., favoring the player with the highest points per game). Regardless of the starting point for these discussions, they carry wide-ranging implications for other domains, particularly in the broader realm of personnel selection. This provides a chance to examine how organizations can reduce bias in personnel selection by improving processes, such as using data-driven analytics and integrating diverse evaluation perspectives.

Variations

Please see Appendix G for a discussion concerning the drawbacks of selecting an excess of exceptional talent. In this case, instructors are encouraged to explore Adam Grant’s WorkLife podcast episode “The Problem with All-Stars.” In addition, several other variations of the exercise are proposed, including incorporating a post-exercise reflection, adapting the exercise for various courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, such as sports management, staffing and selection, and organizational behavior, and suggestions on how the exercise could be adapted to an online classroom environment.

Conclusion

The Basketball Draft Night Exercise simulates an NBA entry draft, highlighting systematic errors, fallacies, and decision-making biases that may potentially lead to suboptimal player selection. Drawing from research on sports management and cognitive biases, the exercise reveals numerous issues faced by professional basketball executives predicting amateur player performance. This exercise effectively enhances students’ understanding of their susceptibility to bias and decision-making errors and sparks meaningful discussions about the complexities of talent evaluation and selection. As such, the present work emphasizes the importance of reducing decision-making errors to effectively minimize their impact within organizations (Johnston et al., 2022).

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

List of Eligible Athletes for Basketball Entry Draft.

Point Guards— They are highly specialized and expected to run the team’s offense by controlling the ball and making sure that it gets to the right player at the right time. On defense, they generally defend the opposing team’s point guard and focus on stealing the ball from their opponent.
PG1 Name: Scottie Jordan Draft Scouting Report: Quick and athletic point guard with excellent scoring and playmaking ability. Needs to improve his defense and finishing. He is widely considered one of the best ball handlers of the entire draft class. Over his college career, he has had several notable off-court legal issues.	Position: Point Guard School (Rank): Duke (2) Age: 22 Height: 6’2 Points Per Game: 13.1 Rebounds Per Game: 1.9 Assists Per Game: 3.8
PG2 Name: Larry Tatum Draft Scouting Report: An incredibly agile and coordinated player who can shoot off the dribble. Needs to improve his finishing and questionable jump shot. He exceeded expectations in his performance at the draft combine. He is undersized for his position at the professional level.	Position: Point Guard School (Rank): Houston (84) Age: 23 Height: 5’11 Points Per Game: 9.9 Rebounds Per Game: 2.9 Assists Per Game: 6.2
PG3 Name: Marko Nowak Draft Scouting Report: Exciting point guard with excellent court vision and playmaking ability. Needs to improve his physicality and finishing. This Croatian athlete is considered by many to be a phenomenal talent, as he started playing professional basketball at 17 years of age. Does not place enough attention on his diet and conditioning.	Position: Point Guard Team (Rank): Fenerbahçe, Turkey (N/A) Age: 19 Height: 6’4 Points Per Game: 19.1 Rebounds Per Game: 4.0 Assists Per Game: 7.1
Shooting Guards— They are usually the team’s best shooter and whose main objective is to score points for their team and steal the ball on defense.
SG1 Name: Shaq Bryant Draft Scouting Report: Talented scoring guard with good shooting and playmaking ability. Needs to improve his defense and decision-making. He has an innate drive to succeed. He has, at times, struggled to perform in high-pressure situations.	Position: Shooting Guard School (Rank): Connecticut (9) Age: 23 Height: 6’4 Points Per Game: 12.8 Rebounds Per Game: 6.2 Assists Per Game: 2.9
SG2 Name: John Harden Draft Scouting Report: Athletic and aggressive guard with excellent scoring and playmaking ability. Needs to improve his outside shooting and decision-making. Won the college basketball national championship. Has a history of partying and underage drinking that has been discussed in the press.	Position: Shooting Guard School (Rank): Kentucky (1) Age: 20 Height: 6’3 Points Per Game: 14.1 Rebounds Per Game: 3.1 Assists Per Game: 1.9
SG3 Name: Trae Collins Draft Scouting Report: Explosive scoring guard with excellent size and athleticism. Needs to improve his shot selection and defense. This high school player has become a social media star for his exceptional dunking skills and overall raw talent. Demonstrates a lack of responsiveness to coaching.	Position: Shooting Guard School (Rank): Trinity High School (N/A) Age: 18 Height: 6’7 Points Per Game: 19.8 Rebounds Per Game: 5.6 Assists Per Game: 6.0
Power Forwards— They play a role like centers on both offense and defense but can take shots farther away from the basket.
PF1 Name: Kyle Beal Draft Scouting Report: Skilled and versatile forward with excellent shooting and defensive potential. Needs to improve his ball handling and playmaking ability. He has a natural feel for the game. Is currently awaiting trial for an off-court issue.	Position: Power Forward School (Rank): Kansas (10) Age: 24 Height: 6’9 Points Per Game: 18.1 Rebounds Per Game: 7.1 Assists Per Game: 3.1
PF2 Name: Shai Brogdon Draft Scouting Report: Athletic and versatile forward with excellent scoring and shooting ability. Needs to improve his defense and ball handling. His rags-to-riches story has garnered significant attention in the popular press and profiled on a popular nationally televised newscast. He lacks patience and can often get into scuffles with other players on the court.	Position: Power Forward School (Rank): West Virginia (71) Age: 23 Height: 6’7 Points Per Game: 13.2 Rebounds Per Game: 6.1 Assists Per Game: 1.8
PF3 Name: Jalen Wood Draft Scouting Report: Physical and athletic forward with good scoring and rebounding ability. Needs to improve his outside shooting and defense. He is a natural playmaker with good vision of the basketball court. He underperformed at the draft combine and appeared out of shape.	Position: Power Forward School (Rank): North Carolina (14) Age: 22 Height: 6’8 Points Per Game: 9.2 Rebounds Per Game: 5.5 Assists Per Game: 2.4
Small Forwards— They play a strategic role on the team as they can be relied upon to effectively score, defend, create open lanes, and rebound for their team.
SF1 Name: Darius Allen Draft Scouting Report: Elite outside shooter with good size and athleticism. Needs to improve his defense and ball handling. He led his underdog squad to their first Final four appearance. Lacks hustle on defense.	Position: Small Forward School (Rank): Omaha (87) Age: 24 Height: 6’6 Points Per Game: 11.3 Rebounds Per Game: 3.2 Assists Per Game: 3.1
SF2 Name: James Smith Draft Scouting Report: Long and athletic small forward with excellent defensive potential and shooting ability. Needs to improve his ball handling and finishing ability. Won the most improved basketball college player award. He has a history of several significant injuries that raise questions about his durability.	Position: Small Forward School (Rank): Oregon (52) Age: 23 Height: 6’3 Points Per Game: 9.8 Rebounds Per Game: 4.1 Assists Per Game: 2.9
SF3 Name: Vince Lowry Draft Scouting Report: Talented playmaker with excellent court vision and passing ability. Needs to improve his outside shooting and defense. He has tremendous leadership skills; however, his play has occasionally been plagued by foul trouble and aggressive behavior directed at referees.	Position: Small Forward School (Rank): Baylor (8) Age: 22 Height: 6’5 Points Per Game: 10.2 Rebounds Per Game: 2.9 Assists Per Game: 4.9
Centers— They are normally the tallest player on the team that play nearest to the basket. They are predominately concerned with scoring on close shots, blocking opponent shots, and rebounding the ball on offense and defense.
C1 Name: R.J. Randle Draft Scouting Report: Athletic and physical big man with good scoring and rebounding ability. Needs to improve his defensive fundamentals and outside shooting. This highly recruited player out of high school is ready to play professional basketball after only a year of college. His moves are somewhat predictable to defenders.	Position: Center School (Rank): Kentucky (1) Age: 21 Height: 7’0 Points Per Game: 9.1 Rebounds Per Game: 12.3 Assists Per Game: 1.8
C2 Name: Cole Carter Draft Scouting Report: Athletic big man with excellent shot blocking and finishing ability. Needs to improve his defensive fundamentals and rebounding. He is always in the gym, developing his skills. He often gets into conflict with his teammates.	Position: Center School (Rank): Michigan (18) Age: 22 Height: 6’9 Points Per Game: 12.5 Rebounds Per Game: 7.1 Assists Per Game: 2.1
C3 Name: Jerami Cunningham Draft Scouting Report: Skilled and athletic big man with excellent scoring and rebounding ability. Needs to improve his defense and outside shooting. Recently won a community service award for his volunteer work in the community. Highly inconsistent shooting.	Position: Center School (Rank): UCLA (28) Age: 23 Height: 6’10 Points Per Game: 10.1 Rebounds Per Game: 6.2 Assists Per Game: 2.4
C4 Name: Filip Valanciunas Draft Scouting Report: Physical and skilled big man with excellent rim protection and scoring ability. Needs to improve his outside shooting and ball handling. This naturally talented Lithuanian athlete is well-sized but has only played basketball for a few years. Often gets into foul trouble early in games.	Position: Center Team (Rank): Olympiacos, Greece (NA) Age: 25 Height: 7’3 Points Per Game: 22.3 Rebounds Per Game: 13.1 Assists Per Game: 3.2

Appendix C

Draft Assessment Document.

Franchise Name:
Group Member Names:
Stage 1: Preferred Athlete Characteristics: After assessing the needs of your franchise and the list of eligible athletes, describe the skills, characteristics, and abilities that you believe are most important when assessing athletes for the draft:
1.	6.
2.	7.
3.	8.
4.	9.
5.	10.
Stage 2: Preferred Athlete Order: Based on the assessments that you made above, please list the athletes that you would like to draft in order of importance, from most important to least important. In addition, please provide a short rationale for your choices.
Athlete Name	Position:	Rationale:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Stage 3: Final Draft Selections:
Round 1 Selection Athlete Name:Pick #:	How do you believe this selection will help your franchise?
Round 2 Selection:Athlete Name:Pick #:	How do you believe this selection will help your franchise?

Appendix D

Running the Exercise: Steps and Estimated Time Requirements.

Step	Estimated timing	Description
Step 1	5 minutes+	Before the class begins, instructors have the option to supply supplementary materials that aid students in comprehending the game of basketball and the intricacies of basketball entry draft. Alternatively, instructors can play one or both of these short introductory videos to set the stage for the entry draft as well as the sport of basketball. Resources explaining the fundamentals of the basketball entry draft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0ndNFp4mI&ab_channel=BasketballNoise (7 min video) https://www.nba.com/news/nba-draft-lottery-explainer (NBA website explaining the process of the draft) Resources explaining the fundamentals of the sport of basketball: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYjp2zoqQrs&ab_channel=NinhLy (5 min video) https://www.nba.com/learn-the-game (NBA website with a full database of videos)
Step 2	10 minutes	The instructor briefly describes the exercise, including how an entry draft works in a professional sports context, and places students into five teams of roughly equal size. Each team will be allocated one basketball franchise (Appendix A), a list of Eligible Athletes for the Basketball Entry Draft (Appendix B), and a draft assessment document (Appendix C).
Step 3	20 minutes	Have teams work together to create a list of preferred characteristics (Stage 1) and athletes (Stage 2) that they would like to select in preparation for the entry draft (Appendix C). Ensure that teams clearly outline the selection criteria that they used in the selection of players in Stage 2.
Step 4	15 minutes	Hold the entry draft, which consists of two rounds of five picks. Each franchise is given a maximum of 2 minutes to select their preferred player using the following order: ● Picks #1 & #10: San Diego ● Picks #2 & #9: Austin ● Picks #3 & #8: Montréal ● Picks #4 & #7: Pittsburgh ● Picks #5 & #6: Baltimore Ensure that groups complete Stage 3, outlining their selection in each round and how they believe their pick will benefit their team (Appendix C).
Step 5	15–25 minutes	Debrief and discussion of the exercise (several suggested topics and discussion questions are included in Appendix F). This exercise provides an excellent basis from which to discuss the potential biases and decision-making errors that individuals exhibit in the selection process and how these may emerge in the context of organizational selection. In addition, instructors are encouraged to discuss the various systematic errors, fallacies, and biases observed by researchers in NBA entry drafts (Appendix E).

Appendix E

Appendix F

Example Discussion Questions

Appendix G

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Maria Carolina Saffie Robertson and Charlotte Genge for providing invaluable feedback on this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

John Fiset

References

Aldag

R. J.

(2012). Distinguished scholar invited essay behavioral decision making: Implications for leadership and organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(2), 133–141.

Berger

Daumann

(2021a). Anchoring bias in the evaluation of basketball players: A closer look at NBA draft decision-making. Managerial and Decision Economics, 42(5), 1248–1262.

Berger

Daumann

(2021b). Jumping to conclusions—An analysis of the NBA Draft Combine athleticism data and its influence on managerial decision-making. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 11(5), 515–534.

Berri

D. J.

Brook

S. L.

Fenn

A. J

. (2011). From college to the pros: predicting the NBA amateur player draft. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 35, 25–35.

Burdekin

R. C. K.

Van

(2019). NBA player outcomes following the implementation of the “one-and-done” rule: Do top players really benefit from attending college first? Journal of Sports Economics & Management, 8(3), 137–149.

Burton

Cook

L. A.

Howlett

Newman

C. L.

(2015). Broken halos and shattered horns: Overcoming the biasing effects of prior expectations through objective information disclosure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 240–256.

De Martino

Kumaran

Seymour

Dolan

R. J.

(2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687.

Fiset

Byrne

(2021). The ISR-1 drug case: A decision-making exercise. Journal of Management Education, 45(6), 859–888.

Heath

Tversky

. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 5–28.

10.

Ichniowski

Preston

A. E.

(2012, March). Does March madness lead to irrational exuberance in the NBA draft? High-value employee selection decisions and decision-making bias (Working Paper No. w17928). National Bureau of Economic Research.

11.

Johnston

Baker

(2020). Waste reduction strategies: Factors affecting talent wastage and the efficacy of talent selection in sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2925.

12.

Johnston

Farah

Ghuman

Baker

(2022). To draft or not to draft? A systematic review of North American sports’ entry draft. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 32(1), 4–17.

13.

Kahneman

(2012). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books.

14.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. Management Science, 12, 313–327.

15.

Lemire

(2020, November 18). Evaluating NBA talent: “Everyone knows these things can be done smarter.” Sports Business Journal. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2020/11/18/Technology/evaluating-nba-draft-talent-scouting-technology-data

16.

Massey

Thaler

R. H.

(2013). The loser’s curse: Decision making and market efficiency in the National Football League draft. Management Science, 59(7), 1479–1495.

17.

Motomura

(2016). MoneyRoundball? The drafting of international players by National Basketball Association teams. Journal of Sports Economics, 17(2), 175–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002514526411

18.

Motomura

Roberts

K. V.

Leeds

D. M.

Leeds

M. A.

(2016). Does it pay to build through the draft in the National Basketball Association? Journal of Sports Economics, 17(5), 501–516.

19.

Robinson

M. A.

Fiset

(2021). Using implicit followership theories to illustrate cognitive schemas: An experiential exercise. Management Teaching Review, 6(2), 141–151.

20.

Sailofsky

(2018). Drafting errors and decision making theory in the NBA draft. https://dr.library.brocku.ca/handle/10464/13452

21.

Samuelson

Zeckhauser

(1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.

22.

Simon

H. A.

(1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.

23.

Soebbing

B. P.

Mason

D. S.

(2009). Managing legitimacy and uncertainty in professional team sport: The NBA’s draft lottery. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 15(3–4), 141–157.

24.

Teramoto

Cross

C. L.

Rieger

R. H.

Maak

T. G.

Willick

S. E.

(2018). Predictive validity of National Basketball Association draft combine on future performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(2), 396–408.

25.

Thaler

(1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.

26.

Thorndike

E. L.

(1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.

27.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.

28.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

29.

Young

(2021, October 18). NBA Projects $10 billion in revenue as audiences return after Covid, but TV viewership is a big question. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/nba-2021-2022-season-10-billion-revenue-tv-viewership-rebound.html