Just putting this out there... NBA Season Re-Envisioned

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Don't see how this is better than the current system.

So I don't insult your intelligence in any way with how I see it... and if you'll humor me for the moment... what do you think could possibly be perceived as being better than the current system?

I don't see a problem with the current NBA season as it is. Moving to a pool system offers no benefit, so what's the point?

Said this previously...

Here's what I'd offer in response...

The NBA is a business. It is a business that sells hope.

To the degree that you sell hope, no matter the nature of that hope but just something "to play for," your business flourishes.

To the degree that you forfeit that, your business is leaving money on the table.

The above is not what we're used to... but if you zoom out and accept that premise, it is a natural concept... what we're used to is largely just what was most conventional thought when professional sports got started 100 years ago.

I suppose maybe this needs some elaboration, based on your comment and assuming you'd already seen it...

Would you say that every team is able to maintain enthusiasm/interest... and thus, have income commensurate with that enthusiasm/interest... among their fans/customers at the same level from the beginning of the season to the end?

If not, then it serves to reason that to the degree that you could come closer to that... but aren't under this current system... you're leaving money on the table... that's money you're losing that you could have had, if you took the time and invested the thought necessary to engineer a season structure that raised the capacity to keep fans interested in the team's fortunes.

Right?

So, this does that.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

To the OP, the smaller tournaments can be profitable immediately probably but to be long-lasting the reward(s) can't just be fake championship trophies... I think it needs to be something that the fans (&maybe the players) will care about such as draft picks /increased draft odds/salary cap space/bonuses/an amnesty provision / etc.




Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

I disagree, but not just to be disagreeable.

At the heart of any athlete, he wants to prove himself... and his team... is better than the opposition. The players will care, just because that's human nature.

And, while it's true that not many people care about any other championship except the Division I NCAA championship in basketball, I can testify to the fact that fans of other divisions are not dissuaded from supporting their teams just because the trophies they're competing for are not D1... they certainly don't consider them "fake." The competition is God-honest competition. You play who you play, and you try to prove you're better than the other side. It's just that simple.

To the suggestion that you involve draft picks... it goes against the basic premise of drafts, of course... it's a business, so you want to ensure that the weakest franchises have the best opportunity to improve, so that you keep hope as alive as possible... and that premise, then, follows for anything that would pertain to improving the roster.

So, to me, I say leave it to be just plain old-fashioned pride at-stake.

[AustinCarr61]

Critiques of the idea's implementation, rather than just "keep the status quo":

- In general, increasing the # of playoff games and reducing the # of regular season games seems the best way to go from both a watchability and financial perspective. This does the opposite (unless you care about the Silver/Bronze trophies, which fans wouldn't)

- In general, it's better to have rules that reduce the importance of divisions. This increases the importance. This year, two of ORL, CHA, MIA would be in the final 10 under your system, while one of SAS, DEN, UTA, HOU, OKC would be in the bottom 10. That doesn't strike me as ideal.

- 8 games against divisional opponents is too much. Who wants to see Wall-less WAS vs NYK for the 7th time in 5 months?

- Most importantly, the 22 game Gold Qualifier is WAY too important in determining the season outcome. An untimely injury and you're sunk, without it even being the end of your actual season. The NBA wants to see the best team win (which it does far more often than any other North American league) and your plan reduces that.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Critiques of the idea's implementation, rather than just "keep the status quo":

Thanks for engaging the concept to the degree that you did... and... kudos on the blast from the Cleveland Cavalier past w/ that username...

- In general, increasing the # of playoff games and reducing the # of regular season games seems the best way to go from both a watchability and financial perspective. This does the opposite (unless you care about the Silver/Bronze trophies, which fans wouldn't)

1. "which fans wouldn't".... we simply disagree... see post #22 above.

And notably "care" is a relative term. Why of course I would not maintain that a fan base is as engaged for a hypothetical #3 seed appearance in March Madness as they would be for a hypothetical #3 seed appearance in the NIT...

But would they "care" enough that the NIT appearance would drive some interest and make money?

Why of course.

2. Financially, you're selling hope... see post #5.

To the degree that Adam Silver only sells hope to the half of the teams, he leaves money on the table... money he could have made, but didn't.

This structure sells hope to every team for almost all of the season, and then, sells some type of hope even through the post-season.

- In general, it's better to have rules that reduce the importance of divisions. This increases the importance. This year, two of ORL, CHA, MIA would be in the final 10 under your system, while one of SAS, DEN, UTA, HOU, OKC would be in the bottom 10. That doesn't strike me as ideal.

Maybe I've done a lousy job of explaining. The conclusions asserted here don't seem consistent with anything I'd intended to convey.

But before we go there, first, we can't actually have a very precise sense of what "would have been," because of the way the season is so differently structured than what we currently have.

But for the sake of discussion, let's presume we ended up with something that mirrors what we have actually ended up with...

- 8 games against divisional opponents is too much. Who wants to see Wall-less WAS vs NYK for the 7th time in 5 months?

Singular, not plural.

That is, only one divisional opponent gets 8 games... so, that equals once about every three weeks over the course of 6 months.

One other division opponent gets 6 games over the course of ~18 weeks... and the other 4 division opponents get 4 games, all within a 30-day period, 2 home, 2 away, just before the end of half-season and the determination of who makes the silver qualifier cut.

- Most importantly, the 22 game Gold Qualifier is WAY too important in determining the season outcome. An untimely injury and you're sunk, without it even being the end of your actual season. The NBA wants to see the best team win (which it does far more often than any other North American league) and your plan reduces that.

We simply disagree. And in a big way, really.

Pinch points with consequences drive drama.

That you have no pinch point in the current schedule structure largely makes what happens in the middle two months of the season just affirmation of what we already seem to mostly know already... but we have to wait another 6-8 weeks before it's all done.

Ho. Hum.

Create those pinch points, create new reason for more intensive interest in who will and who won't make the cut.

And make money.

The NBA is a business.