NBA with Relegation/Promotion

[Osirus89]

Owners would never go along with it first and foremost. Being relegated means a big decrease in revenue. (Ticket sales, Merchandise)
Even the worst NBA teams get to play all the other teams so fans will still have something to want to attend for. Having your team being relegated really isn't going to open the ol' wallets.

It would be devastating for the NBA if big market teams were to be relegated. It wasn't too long ago when the Lakers, Bulls, and Knicks were all bad at the same time. Imagine them being relegated back when OKC and San Antonio were really good. Nightmare on Elm Street for the league.

[gom]

First, I think that relegation is not a death knell to teams. I would argue that being relegated and fighting back to the first division actually increases the bond between fans and their team.

Consider only 3 teams (Flamengo, Santos, & São Paulo) have never been relegated from Series A in Brazil. There are massively successful teams like Corinthians, Grêmio, Atlético Mineiro, Internacional, and Palmeiras whose fan bases strengthened during relegation. The year Corinthians was relegated the fans *packed* the stadium to encourage the team to fight back.

I'm not a fan of Corinthians. They are arch-rivals of Flamengo, and I was a São Paulo fan for years, so nope on that, but I ADMIRE their fans. Here is a video of the end of the game where Corinthians was relegated after an abysmal 2007 season:

Watch on YouTube

This is an open training session where fans packed the venue:

Watch on YouTube

Here is Corinthians beating Chelsea to win the Club World Championship (2012):

Watch on YouTube

Sorry you have to go to youtube for that. It's not really a great game, but I am making a larger point.

So, I admire Corinthians for their persistence, determination, and pure grit. It says something that I can loathe them at the same time, but I digress. I admire their fans without reservations.

Also, Richard4444, barring a miracle, Flamengo isn't going to win the Brazilian championship this season. The titles are spread across teams better than in the NBA. I feel the crisis in Brazilian soccer is our best young players are moved into European youth leagues. I don't think that's necessarily bad either. Certainly not for the players, not in Europe or in Brazil, where others have more opportunities. As for the decline in Brazilian football vs European football, it has more to do with fitness and stupid CBA scheduling than the points you raised (remember, our teams are not *owned* by individuals... they are fan associations.)

In Europe it's much the same way: PSG is the only team that was never relegated in France (that's only since 1974 though), Milan in Italy, Barcelona, Atl Bilbao, & Real Madrid in Spain, and Hoffenheim in Germany (Bayern was relegated before there was a Bundesliga). While it's correct to point out that PSG & Milan are teams of deep pockets, to which I would counter that not only is PSG an example of a team that fought to break into the first division, but there are so many great teams with huge fan bases in France (Monaco, Olympique Marseilles for example) & Italy (Roma, Internazionale, Sampdoria, Genoa, Napoli, Lazio, Fiorentina, etc). Oh, yeah Juventus too.

They fought and came back from adversity. I don't see shame in that. Neither do their fans judging from their success. The move by the big teams in 2020 was a power grab and roundly denounced. Their motives were pandemic desperation, but that seems like just a convenient trigger in hindsight.

I looked over the attendance data from 2018-2019 (pre-pandemic) and seasons before. Crowd attendance levels are 15k to 20k, and it doesn't correspond that much to team success. Brazilian football is definitely different. Our average size crowd is about 20k in a normal season, but some clubs have 10x the attendance of others. European crowds in many countries are even larger.

At the same time, I don't discount all these "no" and "never" responses, and I have learned a lot by asking the question. That's why I asked. Whoever doesn't think football teams are capitalist, though, are pretty uninformed. It's brutal.

Lastly, I fully expect "ownership" of a team to change as players take more control of ownership. Perhaps a better form of moving forward is to allow fans to also buy into the structure, whether by memberships like in association football or some other structure. I don't think it's wise to reject suggestions that work in other countries categorically out of hand and would encourage fans to try to reimagine the league. That being said, I really like some of the suggestions for development above. Interesting. All very interesting.

Thanks again!

[toooskies]

The most likely scenario for relegation to come to the NBA is that somehow a competitor emerges that uses the promotion/relegation system but gets around the rules that are most contentious in the NBA, and then the NBA merges with them to consolidate (with the NBA being the highest level). The NBA wouldn't grow down, some other system would have to grow up.

You'd effectively need the NCAA to dissolve and for big school programs to either collapse with the NCAA (making room for a more focused developmental system), or see the power conferences develop their own promotion/relegation system. It would require them to evolve their programs beyond just a while-you're-in-college type of system, though. Given how slowly the NCAA changes I don't see that happening, but the money is there to make it happen.

[Richard4444]

Even if this idea was feasible, I have a feeling most NBA fans would hate it after it was implemented.

Just because something works in Europe doesn't mean it works here.

The 13 biggest European teams tried to create a no-relegation league to protect their investments after Covid losses.

But the small/medium teams and majority of soccer fans reacted and the league was canceled.

This actually happened in Brazil too. It was called the Copa União. For years Flamengo and Sport argued about who was the real champion.

Spoiler:

It was Flamengo.

The champion was Sport. They divided the league into 2 conferences. One with weak/small teams and another with the strong/big clubs. Everybody agreed to make a final phase among the 2 better teams of each conference as a condition to the champion be officialized by FIFA. Afterwards, Flamengo and Internacional, the better teams of the strong conference refused to fulfil the championship rules because they were unfair and refused to play against the better teams of the weak conference (Sport and Guarani).. Flamengo proclaimed himself the champion to be the better team of the better conference Sport beat Guarani and the other games were WO. The Brazilian Supreme Court analysed the case and decided Sport was the champion.

[gom]

The 13 biggest European teams tried to create a no-relegation league to protect their investments after Covid losses.

But the small/medium teams and majority of soccer fans reacted and the league was canceled.

This actually happened in Brazil too. It was called the Copa União. For years Flamengo and Sport argued about who was the real champion.

Spoiler:

It was Flamengo.

The champion was Sport. They divided the league into 2 conferences. One with weak/small teams and another with the strong/big clubs. Everybody agreed to make a final phase among the 2 better teams of each conference as a condition to the champion be officialized by FIFA. Afterwards, Flamengo and Internacional, the better teams of the strong conference refused to fulfil the championship rules because they were unfair and refused to play against the better teams of the weak conference. Flamengo proclaimed himself the champion to be the better team of the better conference. Sport beat Guarani and the other games were WO. The Brazilian Supreme Court analysed the case and decided Sport was the champion.

Right. lol. Like sclerotic judges should decide championships rather than players.

[LuDux1]

1.Teams play each other home and away and then 15 teams are relegated
2. Best of worst teams are promoted to play worst of best teams in play-in tournament

[Richard4444]

First, I think that relegation is not a death knell to teams. I would argue that being relegated and fighting back to the first division actually increases the bond between fans and their team.

Consider only 3 teams (Flamengo, Santos, & São Paulo) have never been relegated from Series A in Brazil. There are massively successful teams like Corinthians, Grêmio, Atlético Mineiro, Internacional, and Palmeiras whose fan bases strengthened during relegation. The year Corinthians was relegated the fans *packed* the stadium to encourage the team to fight back.

I'm not a fan of Corinthians. They are arch-rivals of Flamengo, and I was a São Paulo fan for years, so nope on that, but I ADMIRE their fans. Here is a video of the end of the game where Corinthians was relegated after an abysmal 2007 season:

Watch on YouTube

This is an open training session where fans packed the venue:

Watch on YouTube

Here is Corinthians beating Chelsea to win the Club World Championship (2012):

Watch on YouTube

Sorry you have to go to youtube for that. It's not really a great game, but I am making a larger point.

So, I admire Corinthians for their persistence, determination, and pure grit. It says something that I can loathe them at the same time, but I digress. I admire their fans without reservations.

Also, Richard4444, barring a miracle, Flamengo isn't going to win the Brazilian championship this season. The titles are spread across teams better than in the NBA. I feel the crisis in Brazilian soccer is our best young players are moved into European youth leagues. I don't think that's necessarily bad either. Certainly not for the players, not in Europe or in Brazil, where others have more opportunities. As for the decline in Brazilian football vs European football, it has more to do with fitness and stupid CBA scheduling than the points you raised (remember, our teams are not *owned* by individuals... they are fan associations.)

In Europe it's much the same way: PSG is the only team that was never relegated in France (that's only since 1974 though), Milan in Italy, Barcelona, Atl Bilbao, & Real Madrid in Spain, and Hoffenheim in Germany (Bayern was relegated before there was a Bundesliga). While it's correct to point out that PSG & Milan are teams of deep pockets, to which I would counter that not only is PSG an example of a team that fought to break into the first division, but there are so many great teams with huge fan bases in France (Monaco, Olympique Marseilles for example) & Italy (Roma, Internazionale, Sampdoria, Genoa, Napoli, Lazio, Fiorentina, etc). Oh, yeah Juventus too.

They fought and came back from adversity. I don't see shame in that. Neither do their fans judging from their success. The move by the big teams in 2020 was a power grab and roundly denounced. Their motives were pandemic desperation, but that seems like just a convenient trigger in hindsight.

I looked over the attendance data from 2018-2019 (pre-pandemic) and seasons before. Crowd attendance levels are 15k to 20k, and it doesn't correspond that much to team success. Brazilian football is definitely different. Our average size crowd is about 20k in a normal season, but some clubs have 10x the attendance of others. European crowds in many countries are even larger.

At the same time, I don't discount all these "no" and "never" responses, and I have learned a lot by asking the question. That's why I asked. Whoever doesn't think football teams are capitalist, though, are pretty uninformed. It's brutal.

Lastly, I fully expect "ownership" of a team to change as players take more control of ownership. Perhaps a better form of moving forward is to allow fans to also buy into the structure, whether by memberships like in association football or some other structure. I don't think it's wise to reject suggestions that work in other countries categorically out of hand and would encourage fans to try to reimagine the league. That being said, I really like some of the suggestions for development above. Interesting. All very interesting.

Thanks again!

I know Atletico-MG is going to win the Brazilian league this year. But Flamengo should be the second. They won the last 2 years and were second in 2018. It's domination. Brazil could emulate European countries with only 2 or 3 teams with pockets deep enough to win.

I am a São Paulo fan. And their games are awful. It looks very different from soccer. Unsurprisingly, they lost by 4x0 to Flamengo last Sunday. São Paulo is in a huge financial crisis and has paid great salaries to injury-prone and washed players to try to win and keeps aggravating the crisis. They can be relegated this season for the first time in history.

Atletico-Mg was not in a better situation than São Paulo, with a great debt and bad results. But they got the right players this season and built a really good team to be champion.

Relegation and financial crisis are not a great combination. Cruzeiro, one of the better Brazilian clubs from the past decades, was relegated in 2019. And they can not move up. They will play again in the second division in 2022. They had a huge debt (caused by fraudulent management that has hidden the debts from the books) and the loss of profits by playing the inferior division is aggravating the situation. They can not get good players to build a reasonable team.

In Europe, a lot of teams went bankrupt like Napoli, Parma, and Leeds.

In NBA, the market does not work like the soccer market. There are no good basketball franchises that are dreaming to go to the NBA. There are no real inferior professional divisions. There is the G-league, with strong ties with the NBA and their teams. And college teams. If NBA accepts a new franchise, they will create another club from scratch and they will get NBA players. There is no point in relegation whatsoever.

[Richard4444]

This actually happened in Brazil too. It was called the Copa União. For years Flamengo and Sport argued about who was the real champion.

Spoiler:

It was Flamengo.

The champion was Sport. They divided the league into 2 conferences. One with weak/small teams and another with the strong/big clubs. Everybody agreed to make a final phase among the 2 better teams of each conference as a condition to the champion be officialized by FIFA. Afterwards, Flamengo and Internacional, the better teams of the strong conference refused to fulfil the championship rules because they were unfair and refused to play against the better teams of the weak conference. Flamengo proclaimed himself the champion to be the better team of the better conference. Sport beat Guarani and the other games were WO. The Brazilian Supreme Court analysed the case and decided Sport was the champion.

Right. lol. Like sclerotic judges should decide championships rather than players.

Sure. And obviously, the sclerotic judges were right. If the teams accepted determined rules, they need to obey that rules. Why did not Flamengo play Sport and showed they were the superior team. It's almost the same thing if GSW won the Western Conference and decide to skip the finals because they think East teams are inferior.

[gom]

None of those are very good analogies, but I can understand how São Paulo fans are upset after getting massacred this weekend by Flamengo. You should have comfort that during the period from 2005 to 2009, your club did make good decisions and were the best team in South America and in 2005, the world. São Paulo is harvesting the results of bad front office decisions. What you guys did to Rogério during his inaugural coaching season was pretty hard to watch and, I would say, atypical, for the club. In any case, I prefer to agree to disagree. Good luck with your season.

[Nate505]

First, I think that relegation is not a death knell to teams. I would argue that being relegated and fighting back to the first division actually increases the bond between fans and their team.

In countries where soccer is the predominant sport and relegation has been around forever? Sure.

In the NBA? Never.

It would be an impossible sales pitch. Imagine a team that has attendance issues now (like the Pacers) trying to sell fans on coming to the game, and imagine the Pacers have been relegated.

Before you could sell fans on going to the game that with some games they'll be able to see the best players in the world. "Hey, the Lakers are in town once, don't miss your chance to see Lebron" (I will admit, with all the resting going on this is even becoming less of a thing, but still). Heck, the Lakers themselves are a draw with the amount of history the franchise brings to the table.

If the are relegated, it would be "Hey, the Sioux City Sasquatches are in town, come see the game!" That just won't go over well.

[Richard4444]

None of those are very good analogies, but I can understand how São Paulo fans are upset after getting massacred this weekend by Flamengo. You should have comfort that during the period from 2005 to 2009, your club did make good decisions and were the best team in South America and in 2005, the world. São Paulo is harvesting the results of bad front office decisions. What you guys did to Rogério during his inaugural coaching season was pretty hard to watch and, I would say, atypical, for the club. In any case, I prefer to agree to disagree. Good luck with your season.

Rogerio was IMO the biggest player in São Paulo history. But he was a really incompetent coach. His first passage in São Paulo was his first career experience as a coach. It's like putting Messi as Barcelona coach right now and waiting for positive results without previous experience. Xavi, at least, prepared himself for the position. Algo, Rogerio is not a good student. He is a very arrogant person. It's understandable being arrogant being one of the best goalkeepers ever (like Cristiano Ronaldo is also arrogant but you accepted because he is indeed excellent). But to start a new career being arrogant is not a real good way.

From what I recall, in his first game, he built a very offensive scheme with a lot of forwards. We lose the game against a second/third division team and took 4 or 5 goals. Then he built an ultra-defensive line-up, with 8 defenders who almost never tried to attack. After a lot of bad results, he deserved to be fired.

The Front Office loves to contract idols to make the fans happy and hide their incompetence. It's not because Rogerio is the one of best goalkeepers in history, he will be a very good coach.

The Front Office also contracted Rai, one of the best midfielders in São Paulo's history to be a manager. He only did bad deals, when Sâo Paulo was clearly bamboozled by everybody. He showed that he very naive as a businessman (I am just saying that because I want to believe his honorable man and did not get any money from his stupid enterprises).

[dhsilv2]

The problem is not the franchise system, it is the mindset. Capitalism at its finest.

No, it's not the mindset.

IT IS THE FRANCHISE SYSTEM.

You think domestic professional football leagues around the world operate in a capitalism free zone?

I think when they say it's the mindset of capitalism it's the idea of the only thing that matters is what's the most profitable system.

As opposed to what produces the best product.

I doubt anyone wouldn't enjoy a pro/reg system better from a fan point of view (assuming we keep salary cap structures), but the Capitalism mindset isn't what's best for the product or the fan, only what is most profitable for the owner. All other factors don't matter. That's Capitalism mindset.

Basically same reason to my post above as to why the NBA doesn't put out high quality cheap streams despite that being something they can obviously do without any difficulty at all and it being something that would dramatically grow the game and be best for basketball but not in the short term for profit. Collectivism thoughts, being prized first are completely demonized in the current American culture (imo as an American, not looking to trash anyone or anything just... it's factual imo).

A relegation system would massively reduce the quality of basketball being played in the league. It would be absolutely beyond stupid, bad, and would completely ruin what makes the NBA the true and only premier professional basketball league.

[dhsilv2]

Capitalism says no.

Says no to what? The American way?

Like much in the US, capitalism is a farce.

If you want capitalism, eliminate the draft and let players join whomever wants to pay them the most like in European Football.

If you want capitalism allow a team with better management and a willingness to spend start a team and work their way up instead of holding cities hostage for subsidies.

Nothing about the US system is capitalism. It is completely monied interests using political power to gain profit. Like much of the US. The US system is a contrived oligopoly. The European system is capitalism.

You're implying that the NBA is a serious of separate companies.The product is the NBA and owners buy franchises like mcdonalds. Each owner wants to make money from their franchise of course, but the capitalist goal is to make the NBA as a whole richer. The concepts of "competition" in the league is to create a fun product for the fans, but the teams aren't competing. They are working as a single entity to maximize profit.

[Richard4444]

Capitalism says no.

Says no to what? The American way?

Like much in the US, capitalism is a farce.

If you want capitalism, eliminate the draft and let players join whomever wants to pay them the most like in European Football.

If you want capitalism allow a team with better management and a willingness to spend start a team and work their way up instead of holding cities hostage for subsidies.

Nothing about the US system is capitalism. It is completely monied interests using political power to gain profit. Like much of the US. The US system is a contrived oligopoly. The European system is capitalism.

You're implying that the NBA is a serious of separate companies.The product is the NBA and owners buy franchises like mcdonalds. Each owner wants to make money from their franchise of course, but the capitalist goal is to make the NBA as a whole richer. The concepts of "competition" in the league is to create a fun product for the fans, but the teams aren't competing. They are working as a single entity to maximize profit.

I think the franchises function in 2 ways. In a first way, the NBA work as a single entity to maximize profit. In a second way, the franchises compete among themselves to get the best sportive results and maximize revenue. A good team increases attendance, merchandising, media exposition, fan base, TV/streaming viewership, sponsorship, etc.

It's not really different from industrial lobbies. The tobacco, oil, weapon, farming, clean energy lobbies acted like one single entity in Congress because they have common goals. But the companies continue to compete among themselves as well.

[old skool]

I think RealGM would be much better if it had a second lower level forum. Threads that discussed really bad unworkable ideas could be relegated to that forum and the best of what I would call UnrealGM could be promoted.

I have a 40,000 word explanation of why this might or might not work that I will post shortly.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[dhsilv2]

Says no to what? The American way?

Like much in the US, capitalism is a farce.

If you want capitalism, eliminate the draft and let players join whomever wants to pay them the most like in European Football.

If you want capitalism allow a team with better management and a willingness to spend start a team and work their way up instead of holding cities hostage for subsidies.

Nothing about the US system is capitalism. It is completely monied interests using political power to gain profit. Like much of the US. The US system is a contrived oligopoly. The European system is capitalism.

You're implying that the NBA is a serious of separate companies.The product is the NBA and owners buy franchises like mcdonalds. Each owner wants to make money from their franchise of course, but the capitalist goal is to make the NBA as a whole richer. The concepts of "competition" in the league is to create a fun product for the fans, but the teams aren't competing. They are working as a single entity to maximize profit.

I think the franchises function in 2 ways. In a first way, the NBA work as a single entity to maximize profit. In a second way, the franchises compete among themselves to get the best sportive results and maximize revenue. A good team increases attendance, merchandising, media exposition, fan base, TV/streaming viewership, sponsorship, etc.

It's not really different from industrial lobbies. The tobacco, oil, weapon, farming, clean energy lobbies acted like one single entity in Congress because they have common goals. But the companies continue to compete among themselves as well.

There's some truth to your second part but remember the local market is team vs team but team vs other entertainment and then there's profit sharing so bad teams have a bit of a floor on earnings to control for that. The NBA very has a system where they win or lose together by and large.

[wegotthabeet]

First, I think that relegation is not a death knell to teams. I would argue that being relegated and fighting back to the first division actually increases the bond between fans and their team.

In countries where soccer is the predominant sport and relegation has been around forever? Sure.

In the NBA? Never.

It would be an impossible sales pitch. Imagine a team that has attendance issues now (like the Pacers) trying to sell fans on coming to the game, and imagine the Pacers have been relegated.

Before you could sell fans on going to the game that with some games they'll be able to see the best players in the world. "Hey, the Lakers are in town once, don't miss your chance to see Lebron" (I will admit, with all the resting going on this is even becoming less of a thing, but still). Heck, the Lakers themselves are a draw with the amount of history the franchise brings to the table.

If the are relegated, it would be "Hey, the Sioux City Sasquatches are in town, come see the game!" That just won't go over well.

No it wouldn't necessarily have to include a bunch of new random small market teams that don't currently exist. Theoretically you could just divide the NBA into an A and B division just like the current conferences. Division A teams compete for the Larry O B. Bottom 3 teams get relegated to division B. Division B teams compete for a new B division title called the Silver Cup or whatever. Same thing top 3 move up to the A division the following season. If the top 15 teams played only against one another and the bottom 15 teams only played one another it might create a more interesting and competitive product. How many teams in each given year have a realistic chance to win the championship. Five maybe? But no team wants to finish at the bottom of the A division and get relegated to division B. The teams in danger of relegation would be the equivalent of low playoff seeds in the current NBA. No need to introduce lame small markets either or risk devaluing NBA franchises in any major way. All teams would still share the tv revenue regardless of which division they are in. Although instead of a play in only to get crushed by a top seed in the first round an up and coming fringe playoff team would be competing for a trophy and promotion to the A division.

Division A - 15 teams
Top 4 get a first round bye. Next 8 play in the first playoff round. Bottom 3 get relegated.

Division B - 15 teams
Top 3 get promoted the following season.

[Pan Jia Yuan]

I'd love to see this but US sports are run like socialist cartels by billionaire capitalists to ensure that they all get richer without facing too much internal competition. It's crazy unAmerican yet so American. Wonder how Americans would feel about this if half of their teams were run by the Russian mafia and Arabic oil dictatorships - would it make any difference? I prefer member-owned organisations in free compeititon which obviously includes relegation/promotion.

[Richard4444]

I'd love to see this but US sports are run like socialist cartels by billionaire capitalists to ensure that they all get richer without facing too much internal competition. It's crazy unAmerican yet so American. Wonder how Americans would feel about this if half of their teams were run by the Russian mafia and Arabic oil dictatorships - would it make any difference? I prefer member-owned organisations in free compeititon which obviously includes relegation/promotion.

In any economic activity, "the players" often create entry barriers to impede "new players" to access the market. Licenses to liberal professionals. Compulsory affiliation to union labor.

NBA does that in a smart way. NBA can say they don't impede anybody to build basketball professional franchises but nobody can force them to accept this new franchise. The interested par would have to create their own leagues to compete with NBA.

[DCasey91]

Guys the nature of the game brings strict limitations (height) on the player pool to pick from. Also height doesn’t equal good nor does being highly athletic equal being a good sportsmen. These things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Football has probably if not the largest pool to pick from and the largest spread worldwide. Hence there’s more than one world class international league. Bigger market, economics, etc etc, better dev systems. And there’s more a comp at the top and especially in the middle.

In NBA there’s not much comp to pressure you if your top 25 in the world. Hence why Superstars, “Stars” even roleplayers have massive egos relative to its standings. You can’t just bring in a extra 100 top of the line basketball players to balance it out.

Also it has a draft system, and a soft cap and pretty risk adverse franchise business owners with the team as an asset. Can’t see it happening for basketball.

Just fix the domestic development stuff and the product will take a big upswing imo.