Promotion and relegation: what if the NBA did it?

[Lakers_4_Life]

In Europe it has worked for decades in basketball and soccer. In fact it really prevents teams from doing what the Clippers did for years. That is unless the owner wants to go bankrupt. In the NBA system the owners get rewarded for caring just about money and not about winning, but in the promotion and relegation system if the owners try that they lose the teams because once the team gets relegated a couple times the fans don't come back until a new owner that cares about winning buys the team.

[Red Robot]

I think the current system is much better because of the parity it creates. In the NFL especially, your team could be good any year.

The system in Europe reminds me of college football before scholarship limitations. Yes, the regular season matters, but if you root for a small club you know you're not going anywhere anyway. I just like a system that produces competition more than a system that takes it away.

Teams with bottom-five finishes in the last five seasons: Boston, Utah, Phoenix, New Orleans, Washington, Portland, Chicago, New York, Orlando, Miami. Would the NBA really have been better if they had been relegated for all or part of that period?

[kinch]

And I've always thought that the American system of having a playoff determine eveything was pretty stupid. You just played a 82 frickin games, and they meant absolutely nothing? Come on. There should at least be a separate title for winning the most games or something. Maybe it could be like the Champions League, where it goes on the same time as the regular season, and the teams are determined by the prior year's performance. It just seems ridiculous that all those 82 games are meaningless.

AMEN.

[SabasRevenge!]

Well of course not now. Hmm, so Newcastle has the Donald Sterlings of the PL. How about West Ham? I won't go for Arsenal or Chelsea. I am not a bandwagon fan.

by rooting West Ham you d be pissed since you d be losing your best players and young talents every transfer season. Go with Liverpool, they are always good enough to contend but havent won the ship in almost 20 years and they have the tradition and prestige. Much like Celtics up until this year.

I'm an ignorant American when it comes to football, but I've always liked Tottenham. They're from North London and have some very promising young players. They went through both Arsenal and Chelsea to capture the league cup...very satisfying.

[SA37]

There is no way the league would ever approve of such a radical change, but here is how it gets done and works:

You have two leagues: the NBA (upper division – 16 teams) and ABA (lower division -14 teams). Each team in either division plays one another 5 times per season (75 games in the NBA; 65 in the ABA). Tie-breakers are done by season series. The NBA teams play for the NBA title; ABA teams play for promotion and draft position.

In the NBA:

- The top-8 teams make the playoffs (Best-of-Seven series).
- Places 9-12 keep you in the NBA; places 13-16 get you relegated.
- Teams draft in inverse order, based on records, but all have a chance to win the lottery.

In the ABA:

- Top 3 places get promoted, the top 3 odds of winning the lotto, and players get salary bonus.
- Top-8 remaining teams qualify for lottery/promotion tournament (single-elimination; Winner of the tournament gets promoted and gets the 4th-best chance at winning the lotto; Winning team’s players would get a salary bonus.)
- The other lottery position determined by record

So, to transition, the League could now take the top-16 teams, record-wise, from last season.

NBA

1. Boston ------------ 9. Orlando
2. Detroit -----------10. Dallas
3. L.A. Lakers ------ 11. Denver
4. New Orleans ------ 12. Golden St.
5. San Antonio --------13. Cleveland
6. Houston ------------- 14. Washington
7. Phoenix -------------- 15. Toronto
8. Utah ------------------ 16. Portland

ABA

1. Philadelphia ------------ 8. Milwaukee
2. Sacramento ---------- 9. L.A. Clippers
3. Atlanta ---------------10. New York
4. Indiana ---------------11. Minnesota
5. New Jersey -----------12. Memphis
6. Chicago ---------------13. Seattle
7. Charlotte --------------14. Miami

Of course, the argument you always get is that no one would watch a lower league. Oh no? You don’t think the NBA could promote a league with Dwyane Wade, Michael Beasley, Derrick Rose, Kevin Martin, Andre Igoudala, Josh Smith, Joe Johnson, Kevin Durant, Vince Carter, O.J. Mayo, Elton Brand, and Baron Davis?

I think this would be an amazingly successful system.

[Lockdown]

The NBA could end tanking tomorrow if they wanted to. Just make every team in the lottery have the same chances to win it. Some truly bad teams would find it harder to turn things around, but it would mean that smart management and actually trying would be rewarded.

What's more, it would emphasize cap space as the most reliable way to improve, which would probably keep salaries in check.

The draft lottery itself is an attempt to take things in this direction, but clearly it doesn't eliminate the fact that teams are charging fans money for tickets to games they're not even trying to win. Leveling the lottery playing field is the one surefire way to increase the level of competition in the league.

[Basileus777]

This would kill the NBA. It makes no sense from a business point of view or from the point of view of us fans.

[NO-KG-AI]

This would kill the NBA. It makes no sense from a business point of view or from the point of view of us fans.

[WesWesley]

IMO the worst team in the NBA is still much better than the best team in the D League.

The D League is still connected to the NBA. The whole point of it it to develop players, and give other players a chance to showcase their skills.

This idea would ruin what the D League was implemented for in the first place.

[rumdiary]

I'm not going to pass up the opportunity to advertise my league: Dynasty Six Fantasy Basketball

Promotion, relegation, the draft still intact, six new expansion teams to make two divisions of 18 teams etc.etc.etc. Just click the link above

[rumdiary]

If you don't like the idea of promotion/relegation for the league then that's probably because you don't understand it. There is nothing better than the promise of relegation to make you tune-in into every nail-biting game! It wont happen in the NBA for the foreseeable future though because of the financial interests of the owners, but as has already been said, the NBA is a system established primarily to assure the owners of profit, not to assure the fans of intensity - that comes second.

However, systems with promotion/relegation that already exist are by no means perfect. The Premier League, of course, is dominated by the Top 4 or 5 clubs every year and those teams are supported by success as well as their strong youth acadamies.

It is therefore important to establish a player-movement-system which does not necessarily hurt the top clubs but does help the bottom clubs. In a two division league, like my own which I posted a link to above, the problem is easily solved by giving lottery picks to those teams at the bottom of division 2. However Free Agents will still be more likely to bolt to the top teams, but a strict salary cap cushions that impact and four or five year rookie contracts allows the bottom teams a window to improve towards 1st Division competition.

At the same time it's also important to protect the right of any successful team to keep it's players. Every fan wants their heroes to stay with their team. So a re-signing bonus, such as those similar to 'Bird Rights' in the NBA (which, in a theoretical, multi-division league would allow a team to exceed the salary cap to re-sign) would allow a team to keep any players that have been with them whilst building towards their success.



^^Basically that's how you build the perfect league. I've dedicated myself to it. Please feel free to pick holes

[RalphWiggum]

The NBA could end tanking tomorrow if they wanted to. Just make every team in the lottery have the same chances to win it. Some truly bad teams would find it harder to turn things around, but it would mean that smart management and actually trying would be rewarded.

What's more, it would emphasize cap space as the most reliable way to improve, which would probably keep salaries in check.

The draft lottery itself is an attempt to take things in this direction, but clearly it doesn't eliminate the fact that teams are charging fans money for tickets to games they're not even trying to win. Leveling the lottery playing field is the one surefire way to increase the level of competition in the league.

That would not be fair at all. A top team could end up with the top pick and end up with an unbeatable team. More then any sport one player can make such a difference in basketball. Just think if the Spurs or Lakers got first overall in can't miss year (Duncan, Iverson, James etc...).

My way to stop tanking is the worst record in the league gets you 3rd overall pick, the 2nd worst picks 4th and the third worse picks 5th, the other ten teams go in the lottery for a shot at 1,2 6-13 picks. My lottery would not be weighted either, everyone gets one ball draw you draw one to ten on live TV and put an end to all this conspiracy surrounding the draft. You tell the bottom three teams they will get a good pick but no chance at the top 2 picks the tanking will stop and you will see some ultra competitive games down the stretch to not finish bottom three.

[Rooster]

So teams start making pushes so they finish 5th-10th worst every season so they don't get relegated? So no team actually breaks out of the treadmill? Great. Just **** great.

[WesWesley]

So teams start making pushes so they finish 5th-10th worst every season so they don't get relegated? So no team actually breaks out of the treadmill? Great. Just **** great.

Sorry, sir. You probably just don't understand the relegation rule. It's actually perfect .

[Puertorique]

So why should a 18 year old kid who can be killed at war or put away for life have to make the sacrifice? I like the D league idea but at the same time if a person was able to play in the NBA (Lebron, KG, Kobe, T-Mac and D.Miles) why make those players suffer? Now for the Young's and Cook's, Wagner's, you might have an arguement however at the end of the day a person who is drafted into the NBA is part of the franchise and marketing so the only one who realy suffers is the player. Why do that to the player? I'm not against a minor league set up at all. Just have it better played out.

[rumdiary]

So why should a 18 year old kid who can be killed at war or put away for life have to make the sacrifice?

^^I made that just for you

Whatever a persons individual circumstances are entering professional basketball, they're almost certain of becoming an instant millionaire, so I don't think we need to worry about fatality at war or a life sentence (lol) too much.

Plus, with a salary cap in place it's unlikely that players in lower divisions will earn vastly smaller amounts than the players in higher divisions. And if they're talented enough, they will help their team get promoted higher anyway.

[queridiculo]

it's a good idea because no one can dare to tank then.
You have 20 teams in NBA1 and 10 teams in NBA2, 16 teams from NBA1 reach the playoffs, the other 4 go to NBA2, and obviously from NBA2, 4 teams out of 10 come to NBA1 every year.

how do you handle the draft?

NBDL gets to pick worst to first, rest goes to the NBA. You'd drum up interest in small market NBDL teams because people would get a chance to watch legit up and coming superstars and you'd build a grassroots level following for pro basketball in smaller markets.

The obvious problem would be salary and the fact that such a developmental setup would potentially compete directly against NCAA basketball. It would no longer make sense to maintain the age limit and given the chance to play in the developmental league and playing for free in college, I could see many players opting for the NBDL.

Now, regarding salary, I'd simply pay the contracts out of the luxury tax pool and have the NBA teams make up the rest of the salary.

The biggest problem I see is what to do with a team like Memphis whose payroll is somewhere in the neighborhood of $40-50 million. Relegation would absolutely kill that franchise unless the league stepped in to pay those salaries.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Sorry, sir. You probably just don't understand the relegation rule. It's actually perfect .

I understand the relegation rule very clearly and, while it definitely has it's positives, it is FAR from perfect. First off, the kind of system relegation involves tends to usually give an overwhelming advantage to the clubs who have the most money at their disposal. Also, in order to establish that kind of system you'd have to have enough teams that could competitively compete financially with each other. There aren't very many teams that could compete with New York and LA. I suppose to alleviate that problem the league could allow as many teams as wanted to operate in LA or New York but is it really desirable to have 16 teams for only two cities?

If the league wants to make it so that no teams actually tank and instead everybody tries to win every single game all they have to do is change the lottery so that every team has an equal shot at winning no matter where they finish, in the playoffs or out.

Also, for whoever suggested that the first 82 games meant nothing, that isn't true at all. It means making the playoffs in the first place, it means home court advantage (reffing issues aside, it might be nice to see home court advantages increased, even) and it also tends to show who the best teams are. There is plenty to gain fro winning more in the regular season.

Rookie contracts are a completely separate issue. That's a case where NBA teams will do anything to save money and the players union is always very quick to give concessions regarding players who aren't part of the union yet. I think it's going to start hurting the NBA soon as international competition starts scooping up young talents and the NBA is going to have to react quickly to stop it. Sadly, it's the way a lot of unions seem to operate.

[SA37]

Sorry, sir. You probably just don't understand the relegation rule. It's actually perfect .

I understand the relegation rule very clearly and, while it definitely has it's positives, it is FAR from perfect. First off, the kind of system relegation involves tends to usually give an overwhelming advantage to the clubs who have the most money at their disposal. Also, in order to establish that kind of system you'd have to have enough teams that could competitively compete financially with each other. There aren't very many teams that could compete with New York and LA. I suppose to alleviate that problem the league could allow as many teams as wanted to operate in LA or New York but is it really desirable to have 16 teams for only two cities?

That's why you have a salary cap. The cap system, at least in my version of the "new league," would still be in place to keep this exact thing from happening.

Also, for whoever suggested that the first 82 games meant nothing, that isn't true at all. It means making the playoffs in the first place, it means home court advantage (reffing issues aside, it might be nice to see home court advantages increased, even) and it also tends to show who the best teams are. There is plenty to gain fro winning more in the regular season.

I wasn't the one who said it, but it means nothing in terms of winning a title. For example, no one cares Miami had great regular season records in the late 90s. It meant nothing.

The homecourt advantage is a nice perk, but 82-games to decide an order and a place for the "real" season?

I would prefer to see each team play one another twice -- once home, once away -- and then have the playoffs.