There needs to be more balance in the NBA. What if each team could only sign 1 max player?

[Patches Perry]

Hard cap - no max

[predators]

Hard cap - no max

This. Guys like KD\Lebron should be making significantly more than they are.

[Qwigglez]

I think a franchise tag like in the NFL would make things interesting.

[Soupman]

You increase parity with better amateur player development.

Increase the talent pool. Everyone wins.

[MrPerfect1]

This basically penalizes teams for being smarter than everyone else in terms of drafting and team building.

Getting around the 1 max contract rule would be pretty easy. Steph, we're going to start your contract at $1 less than the max.

Plus there's no incentive for the league to create parity. Super teams create interest and increase TV ratings. They mean money.

That is easily correctable: Only 1 player on a team can make the max, the next highest team contract can only be for 2/3 of the max.

Or just make a true max up to 70% of the cap instead of capping it at 35%. Good luck fitting multiple when 1 player takes up 50%-75% of the cap

[Hello Brooklyn]

That sounds so awful and unwatchable. No thanks.

Happy with the NBA the way it is. And its more popular than ever.

[MrPerfect1]

30 Mediocre teams would make for far more interesting games and playoffs than the current system. There is a reason I'd bet the vast majority of games from the NCAA Tourny destroy the ratings of almost all NBA playoff series. The NBA has far superior talent, but most the matchups are awful whereas upsets and close games are much more common in the NCAA Tourny.

Close games don't necessarily mean good basketball. On that note, the college game is flat-out unwatchable.

Name me a time in the past when relative parity has been good for the league?

A few points:

1)Close games are not automatically good basketball, but by definition a blowout is not good basketball. At most only the team blowing out the other can be said to be playing good basketball. Both teams playing Good Basketball is more likely in a close game than in a blowout.

2)The NBA has probably never had parity, so hard to use a time from its history as an example that has never happened. Parity has done wonders though for the NFL.

3)The majority of the country disagrees about College basketball being unwatchable since the NCAA Tourny regularly beats the NBA Playoffs in ratings. What most people find unwatchable are 90% of NBA playoff series (and for many people the NBA regular season too).

[Prokorov]

30 Mediocre teams would make for far more interesting games and playoffs than the current system. There is a reason I'd bet the vast majority of games from the NCAA Tourny destroy the ratings of almost all NBA playoff series. The NBA has far superior talent, but most the matchups are awful whereas upsets and close games are much more common in the NCAA Tourny.

not, it wouldnt. it would just mean every night you have 15 boring games. watering down your product is never a good idea. a close game isnt always a good one. ive seen the nets with 2 point losses that were the most unentertaining games ever. and im a nets fan.

the NCAA tourney si great because its easy to bet on, and its win or go home.... making upsets more likely. there also is not alot of parity in the tournament

[Danny11]

Just get rid of the max. If Brooklyn wants to cripple itself and offer Durant 80% of their cap, so be it. There's no way Golden State matches that while remaining contenders. The max contract is forcing the best players to be paid under their free market value, it would be way harder for Durant to ring chase when some team offers 80mil/year

[The_Hater]

This basically penalizes teams for being smarter than everyone else in terms of drafting and team building.

Getting around the 1 max contract rule would be pretty easy. Steph, we're going to start your contract at $1 less than the max.

Plus there's no incentive for the league to create parity. Super teams create interest and increase TV ratings. They mean money.

That is easily correctable: Only 1 player on a team can make the max, the next highest team contract can only be for 2/3 of the max.

Or just make a true max up to 70% of the cap instead of capping it at 35%. Good luck fitting multiple when 1 player takes up 50%-75% of the cap

The players association is not agreeing to that.

The better way to keep teams from hoarding stars is to get rid of the max contact altogether. Somebody wants to pay Durant or Stpeh $50 million per this summer, let them. They'll still have to fit players under the cap but it will spread out the best talent.

[OptionZero]

So you're tired of the Knicks superteam?

[MrPerfect1]

30 Mediocre teams would make for far more interesting games and playoffs than the current system. There is a reason I'd bet the vast majority of games from the NCAA Tourny destroy the ratings of almost all NBA playoff series. The NBA has far superior talent, but most the matchups are awful whereas upsets and close games are much more common in the NCAA Tourny.

not, it wouldnt. it would just mean every night you have 15 boring games. watering down your product is never a good idea. a close game isnt always a good one. ive seen the nets with 2 point losses that were the most unentertaining games ever. and im a nets fan.

the NCAA tourney si great because its easy to bet on, and its win or go home.... making upsets more likely. there also is not alot of parity in the tournament

Close games are often quite good. For example look at last night's BOS game vs CHI. That was a very good game. Both teams are non title threats but that game was better than every game of the Finals last year except for Game 7.

There is no way all 15 games would be boring. I'd bet you would have 8-10 entertaining games/night.

There is quite a lot of parity in the NCAA Tourny. Look at the current title odds:

NCAA Tourny 2017 Title Odds:

Best Odds: Kentucky 6-1 They are the MOST likely to win, and their odds are basically the same as the Spurs.

11 Different teams have odds ranging from 8-1 to 15-1 (Duke, Kansas, VIllanova, Oregon, Arizona, UCLA, etc). The list grows if you want to go include those at 25-1 or whatever.



Here are the current NBA odds:

Warriors: 4-7
Cavs: 2-1
Spurs 7-1

Everyone else 20-1 or worse. The 7th Most likely in the NBA is currently the 60-1 Wizards then a few teams at 8th tied for 100-1.

[DLeagueAllStars]

30 Mediocre teams would make for far more interesting games and playoffs than the current system. There is a reason I'd bet the vast majority of games from the NCAA Tourny destroy the ratings of almost all NBA playoff series. The NBA has far superior talent, but most the matchups are awful whereas upsets and close games are much more common in the NCAA Tourny.

Tournament watched more due to gambling and brackets... thats the hype, other wise its a poor product, see the reg season with poor ratings

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[DLeagueAllStars]

This basically penalizes teams for being smarter than everyone else in terms of drafting and team building.

Getting around the 1 max contract rule would be pretty easy. Steph, we're going to start your contract at $1 less than the max.

Plus there's no incentive for the league to create parity. Super teams create interest and increase TV ratings. They mean money.

Lastly the union would never sign off

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[DubsPhilosophy]

Hard caps won't fly because if the cap is too high the smaller market teams wouldn't be able to spend up to it and wouldn't get the benefit of profit sharing and if the cap is too low the players lose money and the big market teams lose the ability to outspend the competition for the superior FA talent. The cap structure as it is, is the best way to accommodate everyone which is why it's what resulted from all the marathon negotiations.

No contract maximums won't work because the best players that want to win the most rings will simply collude with one another(much as they do now) to negotiate contracts that allow superteams to form(see: Miami Heatles). In fact that Heat team is really the only time that's happened so egregiously so I don't understand why people are complaining. Current Warriors are a totally different phenomenon, as has been explained over and over.

No contract limitations would exacerbate the problem because people like Melo would sign $50 mil per year deals only allowing supporting casts of the most marginal players OR better players would have to settle for contracts less than good value just to find a place on a team. Imagine if every team had one guy making that big $50 mil salary under a hard cap. That trickles down and forces players beneath him to take smaller deals. Eventually it gets to the layer of role-players currently getting paid under $10 million per year, they would be forced to take minimum deals or head to Europe. Who wants a league of a handful of superstars and a bunch of scrubs while all the mid-level players are making better money in Europe and making those leagues really competitive? European fans, that's who.

Mainly this thread is a forum for fans of crappy FOs to complain, in a back-handed way, about their crappy FOs. All this talk of hard caps and no maxes is coming from fans that haven't thought through the implications of what they're advocating.

[bmurph128]

I think the only thing they need to do is focus on keeping players where they're drafted. Give more incentive for that (which they've started to do). Create a franchise tag like another posted suggested that's similar to the NFL. Restrict FA a bit more and give more power to the fans.

I say fans instead of owners because let's face it - at one point or another every small market team drafts a super star. The question becomes how long they will stay there - and when they leave the fans are impacted the most. The owner of OKC was probably pissed that KD left, but Westbrook is still putting fans in the seats. The fans are truly the ones left out in the cold.

[PeptoKlepto]

Parity is another word for mediocrity. Ask NFL fans at how terrible that's made their product. Other than the Patriots, no semblance of any sustainable success. Games are a drag to watch. Competition is poor. Rivalries are almost nonexistent now. Even the ratings are down as well.

It's much more about the level of play on the court/field than it is the outcome. You don't realize it until you see two mediocre teams try to eek out a win against each other. You want that league wide? Terrible idea.

These new CBA changes make it harder for stars to leave the teams they've been drafted by. That's good enough. Too much parity is NOT a good thing.

[Mylie10]

As a Warrior fan, I hate this idea

[Coolwhip]

The union would never agree to that. You realize this would screw players outs of millions of dollars

[Duke4life831]

Im on the complete opposite side of all of this. I think we need more super teams. We have enough talent where we can have probably close to like 12 super teams. That would make the playoffs amazing from the start. Then the rest of the teams can load up on all the young talent.

I think super teams are great, I think its great when you have 2 of them like GS and Cle and they become a rivalry or its great when an underdog like Dallas beats the Heat. Either way I think it makes for great entertainment.