change needed in NBA format..?

[stock01234]

I personally think there should be some changes made in NBA to make it fair for all teams

1) Remove the conference system.
- Chicago went to playoffs with 41 wins. Houston left out with 42 wins.
- Win Difference between top-seed EC and 8th seed is 20 games. This huge difference is because except for 2-3 good teams in EC, the rest are mediocre.
- Win Difference between top-seed WC and 8th seed is 7 games..!!
- Since last couple years EC has been an easier conference and it is unfair to WC teams. Cleveland & Orlando wont have won this many games had they been in WC and had to play more games against better WC teams. (I guess 4 in-conference & 2 inter-conference)
All the teams should be put together in one pool. Each team plays each other twice, one home one away. This makes 58 games. Then based on the previous seasons standing/ranking, the odd ranked teams (i.e. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and so on) with play two games against each other, one home one away. Same with even ranked teams. This makes the total number of games to 86.. fairly close to the current 82.

2) Have a tier system for luxury tax.
Big Market Teams : Knicks, Bulls, Celtics, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, etc
Medium Market Teams : Philadelphia, Toronto, San Antonio, Clippers, Lakers etc
Small Market Teams : Sacramento, Minnesota, Milwaukee etc

Purely by big market, I would only have lakers, knicks, clippers, bulls & celtics.. however
- the teams which dont have state income tax and obviously attractive to FA. So to make it fair, put those teams a level higher then their market state. EG San Antonio (small market) -> Medium Market because TX doesnt have state tax.
- Teams which have other NBA teams in same city, will be lowered by one level. Eg Lakers (big market) -> medium market tier. Clippers (big market) -> medium market tier.

Big Market Teams pay 150% of what they are above the limit, Medium Market 125% and small market 100%

[king125]

in my opinion, they need to change the salary cap. make it a soft cap at 55 million and a hard cap at 70 million. That means a team that stays under the 55 million will not be penalized but any team that gets into the 56-70 million mark will be penalized with a tax. no team can go over 70 million no matter what.

the kings cant afford to pay out 93 million in salary like the damn fakers can. it would even up the playing field so much more.

[KingInExile]

I don't think anything is broken. The west just has more parity than the east...it's been like that for a while. And it's not unique to the NBA that one conference or division has a dominant edge over another. That just means that the weaker conference or division needs to step up to improve.

I also don't agree with the need to alter the tax based on market size. Case in point would be the Clippers. Under your plan they would be hit with a higher tax than a traditional cellar-dweller in a small market. The problem is that no mater how much tax you charge the Clippers, it wouldn't change the fact that Donald Sterling will continue to make stupid decisions....he would just be paying more for those stupid decisions. Also, if the tax really led to so much disparity based on market size, how is it that smaller market teams like San Antonio and Salt Lake City have traditionally had powerful/competitive teams year after year? Why also have the Nets, Knicks and Warriors sucked so much over the last decade? Finally, you may want to check your assumptions on market size. Toronto and Philly are actually in the top 10 for market size, teams like Sacramento and the T-Wolves are medium market teams and San Antonio is really a small market team.

[stock01234]

I don't think anything is broken. The west just has more parity than the east...it's been like that for a while. And it's not unique to the NBA that one conference or division has a dominant edge over another. That just means that the weaker conference or division needs to step up to improve.

I also don't agree with the need to alter the tax based on market size. Case in point would be the Clippers. Under your plan they would be hit with a higher tax than a traditional cellar-dweller in a small market. The problem is that no mater how much tax you charge the Clippers, it wouldn't change the fact that Donald Sterling will continue to make stupid decisions....he would just be paying more for those stupid decisions. Also, if the tax really led to so much disparity based on market size, how is it that smaller market teams like San Antonio and Salt Lake City have traditionally had powerful/competitive teams year after year? Why also have the Nets, Knicks and Warriors sucked so much over the last decade? Finally, you may want to check your assumptions on market size. Toronto and Philly are actually in the top 10 for market size, teams like Sacramento and the T-Wolves are medium market teams and San Antonio is really a small market team.

OK I made change to clippers. However i dont agree to your point that if a franchise has bad Owner/FO and don't perform well they should be in lower tier. The fact that they now have to pay more will make them make careful economic decisions. The reason i lowered clippers and lakers is the fact that they are in the same city which divides fan base and hence revenues. Now you can argue that 99% of SoCal NBA fans are lakers fans.. so logically they should still be big market. But even if all teams are given equal playing ground, and still clippers suck, then there is nothing much NBA can do about it.

[YC42Balla]

^^WOW, I would have never of guessed that SacTown's a Medium market..
and that San Antonio is a small market?! crazy..

[cdt3]

San Antonio s the 7th biggest city in the US. Not really small or medium but big. And I would argue Tim Duncan had as much to do with the growth of the city because they have no other pro teams or great colleges.

Sac is the 37th biggest city. Small market. And the Maloofs/Petrie have helped Sacramento grow but with the economy pushing people out of Cali expect an even smaller market. Remember it was a bad economy and bank meltdowns of the 80s that got Sacramento the Kings although not the Maloofs that moved them.

The conferences go up and down. Yes the West has been dominant for the last 10 years but Kobe, DFish, JKidd, Nowitzki, Duncan are all 2-3 years to being done as gaurantees. And the East has Lebron, DHoward, Bosh, Dwade and is ready for a run of its own soon. It constantly changes and their is no system where the people who don't make the playoffs won't feel screwed.

As for ideas I would be ok with them playing all the teams equally instead of just their conference teams but I think they do that because it is cheaper to travel to the closer teams.

I agree about the salary cap they need a more solid lower cap that balances the teams.

[10B10]

There is too much ambiguity in trying to assign different levels of luxury tax to cities of different size. However, I think the NBA could make some changes.

Too many teams are tied down long-term by bad decisions that they make with player contracts. I think the idea of a guaranteed contract should be gone. More likely, make it so that the longest guaranteed contract is something like 4 years. Beyond that, the player has to meet certain requirements in order to earn his entire salary. That way, teams avoid a string of terrible seasons (where they are losing money) because of a decision that was made 7 years ago (perhaps under different management and/or ownership).

Also, I like a hard cap. Get rid of the luxury tax and make teams get under the salary cap before the season begins. In order to make this reasonable, there has to be more of an incentive to cut players (i.e. it must be more cost effective). If a player is cut, he shouldn't work against the salary cap and, like I said earlier, make contracts less guaranteed. If you get cut, shame on you. It shouldn't work against teams as much as it currently does.

I don't see any of these things actually happening, but I think it would keep teams from having a string of really terrible seasons due to bloated contracts (see Knicks of the past decade). Shorten contracts, make them less guaranteed, and tighten up the cap. It won't level the field completely, but it could help make the game more exciting for all 30 teams.

[ICMTM]

Let me ask a question. Is it market share that determines where players go, or do those teams in bigger markets just have better GM's? It appears to me that the better GM's seem to win. Chicago, sans Michael Jordan, hasn't been very good (Chicago 3rd biggest US Market). LAC just isn't good (2nd biggest market). NYK - Isaiah Thomas...biggest market in the US. Dallas doesn't ever seem to make a lot of post season noise and they have the 6th biggest market. GSW...5th biggest market.

Portland and Utah seem to stay relevant.
Sacramento (sans this last four year slide) has been on the map
Orlando is relevant
San Antonio is a monster
Indiana was good until the Malice in the Palace.
Detroit won a title.

*I'm using the market numbers from memory as they can change.

It seems to me the only correlations I can make between success in the NBA and having a big payroll is that you can pay front office people more money to do their job. In baseball this argument make way more sense but in basketball the big market teams aren't dominating.

[stock01234]

Let me ask a question. Is it market share that determines where players go, or do those teams in bigger markets just have better GM's? It appears to me that the better GM's seem to win. Chicago, sans Michael Jordan, hasn't been very good (Chicago 3rd biggest US Market). LAC just isn't good (2nd biggest market). NYK - Isaiah Thomas...biggest market in the US. Dallas doesn't ever seem to make a lot of post season noise and they have the 6th biggest market. GSW...5th biggest market.

Portland and Utah seem to stay relevant.
Sacramento (sans this last four year slide) has been on the map
Orlando is relevant
San Antonio is a monster
Indiana was good until the Malice in the Palace.
Detroit won a title.

*I'm using the market numbers from memory as they can change.

It seems to me the only correlations I can make between success in the NBA and having a big payroll is that you can pay front office people more money to do their job. In baseball this argument make way more sense but in basketball the big market teams aren't dominating.

i agree that the most of big market teams aint doing that great.. however say if Lebron-Bosh-Wade ends up in miami or chicago.. or even two of them.. that is purely because of market size.. in miami they dont have state income tax and chicago is big market.. money plays a major role in getting good FAs and hence the team strength.. i would say oklahoma, portland, houston, memphis are same as chicago & miami as far as roster talent is concerned.. but LeBron-Wade-Bosh wont even think about those teams..

[_SRV_]

The big markets card is played whenever big FA is thrown to the FA pool, but like ICMTM said, smart management and luck is what puts you in contention, CWebb, Peja and Vlade in Sac Chauncy Billups, Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace in Detroit, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker in SA, Jermaine Oneil and Arterst in Indiana, all these guys were purchased for a very cheap price and were the corner stones of championship/contender teams in the past. The only significant FA signing that led to a championship was Shaq, and in a way Kobe who forced his way to the Lakers, other than that, it's been trades, draft and smart signings.
For the record, I think LeBron next to Wade screams redundancy, and Chicago has really unbalanced roster if they end up with LeBron and FA PF, I'll wait before I declare them champions.

[deNIEd]

Too many teams are tied down long-term by bad decisions that they make with player contracts. I think the idea of a guaranteed contract should be gone. More likely, make it so that the longest guaranteed contract is something like 4 years. B

Yeah no. It's called, stop sucking at being a general manager.

The only time I feel long-term contracts should have the option of being voided, is if the player becomes injured. Other than that, stop sucking at drafting, stop sucking at giving players contracts, stop sucking at being a general manager and your team will be fine.

[OGSactownballer]

Simple fix to solve all the problems - HARD CAP.

It's coming, don't fool yourself for a minute. The team owners (the guys who got there by being SMART with their money) are tired of writing checks for losers. They WILL lock out the players for as long as it takes to make things correct. And if they are smart, they will use replacements (still fun to watch in BBall) to REALLY drive the point home!

[_SRV_]

The team owners (the guys who got there by being SMART with their money) are tired of writing checks for losers.

Marc Cuban is a brilliant buisness man, he made money out of thin air during the .com bubble, but he made also head scratching decisions with his signings.
The problem of this league is not the cap, the restrictions are enough to administer competitive team everywhere, it's stupid actions that led to downfall of some small teams.
Milwaukee continually screw up draft picks, and gave a 90 million dollar contract to a guy who barely deserves half of it, I don't accept the competition from other teams argument, if Cleveland was stupid enough to offer him a 70 mil contract they should've allowed them to take him.
Cleveland crippled themselves, and led to LeBron James being fed up with them, by signing Hughes to 57 million contract, the world and his mother knew it was gross overpayment, that is without going into the small contracts like Gibson.
Orlando's GM should be in prison for the Rashard Lewis contract, and the owner should be fined for allowing that contract, that is a team in heavy debt paying a third option 70-80 millions more than he's worth.
Golden State warriors is a joke, that franchise should be sold to someone who knows how to run a sports franchise, they are in maybe the 2nd richest market in the US, with great attendance numbers (relative to their crappy quality) and still unable to form a competent team.
Petrie is not innocent, or the Maloofs who let him, in the last 4 years we were irrelevant and we knew we are irrelevant, Petrie spent unnecessary money which in turn led to some salary dumpings that hurt the team in the long run.
Small markets are guilty of their status more than the cap is screwing them, look at a team like Detroit and SA, even when contending they rarely overpay or give in to players' demands, they make mistakes, sure, everyone does, it's part of taking risks, but none of them in the level of the ones I mentioned before.

[Wolfay]

Too many teams are tied down long-term by bad decisions that they make with player contracts. I think the idea of a guaranteed contract should be gone. More likely, make it so that the longest guaranteed contract is something like 4 years. B

Yeah no. It's called, stop sucking at being a general manager.

The only time I feel long-term contracts should have the option of being voided, is if the player becomes injured. Other than that, stop sucking at drafting, stop sucking at giving players contracts, stop sucking at being a general manager and your team will be fine.

My job ain't guaranteed, so why should an NBA player be guaranteed? An employer should have more power than that.

I think as a compromise contracts should only be partially guaranteed, and the length of a contract should be limited to a few years or whatever. I know that won't happen, but I think it's fair.

[_SRV_]

Too many teams are tied down long-term by bad decisions that they make with player contracts. I think the idea of a guaranteed contract should be gone. More likely, make it so that the longest guaranteed contract is something like 4 years. B

Yeah no. It's called, stop sucking at being a general manager.

The only time I feel long-term contracts should have the option of being voided, is if the player becomes injured. Other than that, stop sucking at drafting, stop sucking at giving players contracts, stop sucking at being a general manager and your team will be fine.

My job ain't guaranteed, so why should an NBA player be guaranteed? An employer should have more power than that.

Because he's a rare commodity, you aren't...

[SacTownKings4Life]

My job ain't guaranteed, so why should an NBA player be guaranteed? An employer should have more power than that.

Because he's a rare commodity, you aren't...

Lets not kid ourselves. San Antonio has been competitive for the last decade because of Tim Duncan. Plain and simple. Utah lucked up and transitioned perfectly from Stockton & Malone to Williams & Boozer.
But more often than not, big name free agents will go to the bigger markets. That's just how it is.

[funkatron101]

2) Have a tier system for luxury tax.
Big Market Teams : Knicks, Bulls, Celtics, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, etc
Medium Market Teams : Philadelphia, Toronto, San Antonio, Clippers, Lakers etc
Small Market Teams : Sacramento, Minnesota, Milwaukee etc

Purely by big market, I would only have lakers, knicks, clippers, bulls & celtics.. however
- the teams which dont have state income tax and obviously attractive to FA. So to make it fair, put those teams a level higher then their market state. EG San Antonio (small market) -> Medium Market because TX doesnt have state tax.
- Teams which have other NBA teams in same city, will be lowered by one level. Eg Lakers (big market) -> medium market tier. Clippers (big market) -> medium market tier.

Big Market Teams pay 150% of what they are above the limit, Medium Market 125% and small market 100%

While I would love the benefit of Minneapolis/St. Paul being considered "Small market" we aren't really classified as such. At least not by TV/Media standards.

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack ... by_dma.asp

Here are the cities (with NBA teams) that Minneapolis/St. Paul rank higher than:
Denver
Miami
Cleveland
Orlando
Sacramento
Portland
Charlotte
Indianapolis
Salt Lake City
Milwaukee
San Antonio
Oklahoma City
Memphis
New Orleans

I would also most certainly put LA as "big market."

[deNIEd]

My job ain't guaranteed, so why should an NBA player be guaranteed? An employer should have more power than that.

I think as a compromise contracts should only be partially guaranteed, and the length of a contract should be limited to a few years or whatever. I know that won't happen, but I think it's fair.

I don't know what you do, but I'm willing to be there are hundreds out there who can do almost the exact same work for the same price.

How many people in the world can do what Steve Nash does or what Lebron James can do.


Employer's do have power when you have a vast source to choose your workers from, but when you're talking about a professional sport, where theres only a few players to choose from (I'm talking about the elite players), then of course the power is in the players.

[Wolfay]

What makes you think that basketball is such a unique and rare skill in the world? It's a freakin' game. Yea, not many can do what Lebron does, but you can say that about a lot of professions, and I'm not talking about people who can actually do their job anyway. I'm talking about people like Andres Nocioni, where millions of people can do what he does. Team owners, like any other business owner, should be able to can people who do their job like poo. Why shouldn't a team owner be able to correct a mistake they made, or make business decisions to cut costs and keep their business afloat, like any other business owner?

[Bobo the King]

Too many teams are tied down long-term by bad decisions that they make with player contracts. I think the idea of a guaranteed contract should be gone.

Totally agree, and I have an idea for solving it that I've been meaning to float for some time.

Suppose you've got some unproductive player on your team and you desperately want to trade him. You want to trade him so badly that you're pretty much willing to take anything. What you do is your formally announce to the league, "We wish to trade this player." Then you wait some time-- between a week and a month-- and if any valid offers come in, those offers must be entertained (though not necessarily accepted). After an offer comes in, the matter is considered closed to the league.

But suppose no offers come in. The player's contract is so awful and he's so unproductive, no one will take him on. No one even has garbage to offer. In that case, the player can automatically be bought out at a reduced price-- say one-third to one-half of his contract value. I was thinking that it could either be written into the player's contract that he has to accept a buyout at a reduced salary or the league could have a small insurance fund for picking up the remaining cost of the player's contract. In the first case, if the player's contract is $30 million, he would have to accept a buyout of $15 million as per his contract. In the second case, the owner pays $15 million and the insurance fund pays the remaining $15 million. Of course, all owners in the league would pay into the insurance fund annually. Just a few million dollars from each owner would probably suffice.

The idea is to completely eliminate untradeable players. It's not something that can be used to dump just any player's contract, but it's an exit strategy for the absolute bottom of the barrel contracts in the league.

But I tend to overlook the important implications of these things, so my idea might be seriously flawed. I'd like to hear what you guys think.