NBA with Relegation/Promotion

[Pelon chingon]

Capitalism says no.

[DBCJUN]

Not this one again... the concept of relegation and promotion is incompatible with the franchise system of US professional sports leagues.

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

[Johnny Bball]

Sure... trash the value of my billion dollar franchise said nobody ever.

[Nate505]

I get that it works in Europe, but it would be terrible for US sports. I can imagine attendance at say a historically bad franchise being much worse if they don't get at least a game to see Lebron or Durant or whoever play, and instead are stuck with watching G-League caliber players on a team from Bakersfield with no tradition at all play.

[Lockdown504090]

Greetings!

As both a long-time NBA and soccer (Flamengo & Brazil) fan, I often wonder whether relegation/promotion would improve competition in the NBA. One problem I see is that the teams are both supposedly competitors and a closed cooperative organization, but perhaps a new team that enters can buy the shares of the teams being relegated. What I envision is a series B, which could consist of G-League teams. The two finalists (or even 4) would rise into the NBA, and the two worst teams of the NBA would be relegated.

Teams would then be required to do more than make a half-hearted attempt to win, because no team wants to be relegated. One issue I see is that top picks are not going to want to be drafted by teams destined for the G-League, and I wonder whether their pick(s) could be postponed until they achieve promotion.

Thoughts?

i like this idea, but i have a few questions about it.. do the b teams and the A teams have similar arena sizes? so that when they move up they can accomodate having more fans in soccer?(sorry for calling it soccer) and do the players earn more and less money when they move up and down divisions?

I know the raptors 905 can only hold 5k people. or would they just switch arenas and they play at scotiabank and the raptors play in the g league arena, thats a way they could do it.

Honestly it comes down to advertising money and tv rights (much like the explosion for the NBA salaries is tv rights and little else).

So if the tv stations and advertisers still wanted to pay current $$$ for the current amount of teams and say another 30 additional teams then everything could stay the same.

But they won't, and fans will not watch the second tier league as much as the first. Nor would they come to the games.

So because of the lack of tv revenue the salary cap for that league will have to be a lot less.

For the NBA equivalent of what happens in football that would mean when a team get regulated maybe they trade like a high salary vet for a second rounder because they can't afford him. Or the NBA will do a grace period like it's done before with salary amnesty and let them cut 1 player for free and not have their salary count against the luxury tax or something.

They'd also probably have to stipulate a max losses allowed rule by a franchise if they keep the salary cap because they can't just have like say a NYK team that spent poorly in free agency get regulated by still pay for a 50K arena and accumulate 500 million in debt in the Gleague and expect the other 60 teams to absorb that loss. So at some point operational losses would have to be factored into the luxury tax bill so they can keep the salary cap the same for all teams. (which will result in smaller teams being small for a long time and not wanting to take the risk to get into a big stadium for fear they'll be regulated out of the NBA as soon as they enter it).

my hottest take is that the NBA doesnt need this tv broadcasting deals they have and they could make more money doing it on their own by creating a streaming platform, or using twitch or youtube. They would get higher revenue through having targeted metadata ads instead of generic ones, they could contract out the media companies to have non exclusive rights and get better deals since they would have more bargaining power with streaming, and they could have more power and control over who gets to be part of the nba media. The nba could truly become more of a global game. people shouldnt be watching nba baskebtball in 720P in countries where they will never ever get to see a live game.

[toooskies]

This is the only way to counter taking imo.

The way to counter tanking is to remove all incentives associated with tanking. So you either have to eliminate the draft or make it random every year.

[queridiculo]

Not this one again... the concept of relegation and promotion is incompatible with the franchise system of US professional sports leagues.

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?

[meekrab]

This topic comes up at least twice a season every year, just search the forum history for the reasons it will never happen.

[jbk1234]

You couldn't do it with the G League because the G League is the minor leagues for the NBA. You'd have to have a separate league altogether. The Premier League can't call up players from the Champions League because those players rights aren't owned by Premier League teams. The organizations and leagues are totally independent from one another.

If you want to go that route, and it's a bad idea, you just make it so any team that isn't at least a play-in team is relegated. But unless the relegated teams are still drafting first, they're never going to get better, and if they're never going to get better, ratings, attendance revenue, etc. will all drop off for those teams.

I don't know why so many fans struggle with the idea that 450 roster spots, spread out among 30 teams that all have a lot of money to spend under the CBA is better for the players writ large than a league with 16 teams and 240 roster spots. There are plenty of guys drafted in the lottery who don't live up to their projected ceilings but still manage to stick in the league as a role player and make a good living. Those guys will end up in the relegated league. There are 50 top 50 players. There are 400 players who aren't top 50 players. When people advocate doing what's best for the players, you need to ask which players.

[TheHartBreakKid]

Not this one again... the concept of relegation and promotion is incompatible with the franchise system of US professional sports leagues.

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?

Yeah. "Not this again" in your original post was the first thought I had.

The NBA (or any other U.S major league), simply cannot have a relegation/promotion system without fundamentally changing the business model as a whole. In theory there are only a few ways such a system could be created, with each reason being more unlikely than the next:

1. A new basketball league/system is created from scratch to compete with the NBA. Chances of this happening is 0%.
2. An elaborate strategic plan, agreed upon by all the owners, that somehow makes financial sense, is gradually implemented. I'm talking about some hypothetical scenario where the owners where the league gradually expands and agrees to a plan to have an A league and a B league sometime in the future. This is also nearly impossible... owners would have no reason to agree to this....I don't see a possible scenario where it could ever financially make sense. Atleast not in our lifetimes.

[life_saver]

It will never happen in big US leagues

[johanliebert]

Owners would never sign off on this. Most dont care to win thats why middling teams often don't fill their needs, you can profit with no goal of winning a championship

[Lalouie]

never happen but brilliant idea

too many bottom dwellers are satisfied to collect the shared revenue or are too rich to care if the team sucks

also,,,,the players make too much money to ever let this happen, were it come down to this

[TheHartBreakKid]

Now, here is something that I think, could, potentially, in theory, be something that might one day get slightly considered:

A delegating/promotion type competition is added along side the current NBA, as a supplemental second tournament. There are a million potential flaws with such an addition, but I think it's interesting to think about.

My nowayinhell it happens but it would be an interesting concept is as follows:

- The regular nba season would be shortened to 75-78ish games. This is done to open up a 1-2 week period in the middle of the season for this hypothetical competition, which we could call something like "the basketball cup". The initial division format is created using the standings of of the regular season standings before the inaugural year. Let's say 4 divisions are made;

Division D- Teams ranked 25-30 (6 teams)
Division C,B,A- The remaining 24 teams based on their initial ranking etc

All teams fly to a neutral site (the host team rotates, the site could be the same as where the allstar game will be held) for this 2 week period. Each division competes amongst eachother, Divisions C,B,A and also have a loser bracket. The winner of each of lower division is promoted to the next higher division for next year's cup. Loser of each division delegated. Winner of Division A is crowned the cup champion each year, a title that obviously doesn't hold nearly as much esteem as the "traditional NBA champion", but is considered the secondary champion (unless the regular champ and the cup champ are the same team...accomplishing a rare "double") . The 2 week period ends with the allstar game, followed by some time off, before the second half of the regular season continuing as usual.

Why this might actually work;

- We get the mid-season tournament that the NBA is rumored to be interested in. Mid season excitement would be had in what is usually the most dull time of the season.
- Revenue generated would surely interest the owners. Single elimination games would generate a ton more revenue than their regular season counterparts.
- We get single elimination games that matter, allowing for new rivarlies/storylines, separated from the main nba season and not limited to the traditional conferences. Going by last year's standings, imagine a potential Lakers/Celtics or Lakers/Knicks matchup in division B.
- we might see a slight decrease in tanking. Why? because this small tournament, if promoted correctly and actually taken seriously, gives poor teams an incentive that's seperate from the regular NBA season. Teams would surely want to be promoted to the top division where in the future anyone could get hot and win three games and become the cup winners. Not sure if this would be enough of an incentive for teams not to tank, but it surely couldn't hurt.


Obvious concerns regarding this idea:

- Biggest concern- does this tarnish/lessen the regular nba championship? Could this take away interest from the actual playoffs?
- Would the players be down with this? In theory, they would be playing less games.
- Would the owners be down with this? Will the cup generate enough revenue to justify having less games? Will it be taken seriously enough/be competitive enough?
- IF (huge if) the nba does want to do a mid-season tourney, would this relegation/promotion system be more exciting than just a simple bracket style tourney where all teams could win the cup, instead of just the teams in the top division?



Again, I know there are a million reasons why this idea could be flawed and probably shouldn't/wouldn't get considered. But I am curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Criticism is very welcome.

[TravisScott55]

Owners would never sign off

[Pennebaker]

Greetings!

As both a long-time NBA and soccer (Flamengo & Brazil) fan, I often wonder whether relegation/promotion would improve competition in the NBA. One problem I see is that the teams are both supposedly competitors and a closed cooperative organization, but perhaps a new team that enters can buy the shares of the teams being relegated. What I envision is a series B, which could consist of G-League teams. The two finalists (or even 4) would rise into the NBA, and the two worst teams of the NBA would be relegated.

Teams would then be required to do more than make a half-hearted attempt to win, because no team wants to be relegated. One issue I see is that top picks are not going to want to be drafted by teams destined for the G-League, and I wonder whether their pick(s) could be postponed until they achieve promotion.

Thoughts?

Nobody is going to agree to play for or coach a relegated team. All of the players and coaches want a chance to win the title every year. If they have to spend a season on a relegated team they might just sit out that entire season.

[jazzfan1971]

It would be a lot of fun.

Don't see it happening.

[Marmoset]

Greetings!

As both a long-time NBA and soccer (Flamengo & Brazil) fan, I often wonder whether relegation/promotion would improve competition in the NBA. One problem I see is that the teams are both supposedly competitors and a closed cooperative organization, but perhaps a new team that enters can buy the shares of the teams being relegated. What I envision is a series B, which could consist of G-League teams. The two finalists (or even 4) would rise into the NBA, and the two worst teams of the NBA would be relegated.

Teams would then be required to do more than make a half-hearted attempt to win, because no team wants to be relegated. One issue I see is that top picks are not going to want to be drafted by teams destined for the G-League, and I wonder whether their pick(s) could be postponed until they achieve promotion.

Thoughts?

The idea of using the relegation system is usually brought up as a way to improve competition, removing tanking, etc. Even if it would solve those issues, I don't think I've seen anyone present an argument of how it would make economic sense for the NBA or any North American league to adopt this type of system.

The fact that a team knows it will be in the league each year means that it knows roughly what the salaries will be, what income from TV/media will be, travel costs, etc. Essentially, stability and reliable revenue. Take that away with a relegation system, and the financial viability of many franchises comes into question. I would also have little or no interest in watching my team if it was relegated. In North America getting relegated would be a death sentence for many franchises. They simply would not survive.

As a North American fan I've never really understood the appeal of the relegation system. Most likely fans like the system that they are used to and have grown up with.

[celticfan42487]

i like this idea, but i have a few questions about it.. do the b teams and the A teams have similar arena sizes? so that when they move up they can accomodate having more fans in soccer?(sorry for calling it soccer) and do the players earn more and less money when they move up and down divisions?

I know the raptors 905 can only hold 5k people. or would they just switch arenas and they play at scotiabank and the raptors play in the g league arena, thats a way they could do it.

Honestly it comes down to advertising money and tv rights (much like the explosion for the NBA salaries is tv rights and little else).

So if the tv stations and advertisers still wanted to pay current $$$ for the current amount of teams and say another 30 additional teams then everything could stay the same.

But they won't, and fans will not watch the second tier league as much as the first. Nor would they come to the games.

So because of the lack of tv revenue the salary cap for that league will have to be a lot less.

For the NBA equivalent of what happens in football that would mean when a team get regulated maybe they trade like a high salary vet for a second rounder because they can't afford him. Or the NBA will do a grace period like it's done before with salary amnesty and let them cut 1 player for free and not have their salary count against the luxury tax or something.

They'd also probably have to stipulate a max losses allowed rule by a franchise if they keep the salary cap because they can't just have like say a NYK team that spent poorly in free agency get regulated by still pay for a 50K arena and accumulate 500 million in debt in the Gleague and expect the other 60 teams to absorb that loss. So at some point operational losses would have to be factored into the luxury tax bill so they can keep the salary cap the same for all teams. (which will result in smaller teams being small for a long time and not wanting to take the risk to get into a big stadium for fear they'll be regulated out of the NBA as soon as they enter it).

my hottest take is that the NBA doesnt need this tv broadcasting deals they have and they could make more money doing it on their own by creating a streaming platform, or using twitch or youtube. They would get higher revenue through having targeted metadata ads instead of generic ones, they could contract out the media companies to have non exclusive rights and get better deals since they would have more bargaining power with streaming, and they could have more power and control over who gets to be part of the nba media. The nba could truly become more of a global game. people shouldnt be watching nba baskebtball in 720P in countries where they will never ever get to see a live game.

Not sure those streaming platforms that don't desperately need sports would pay through the nose the way these dying giant cable companies would.

I think it's taking advantage of a market inefficiency while cable continues a massive decline and is trying anything to get exclusive rights to have people actually pay for their service.

I agree it'd be better advertising though and would grow the game, but I think they're just trying to suck them dry while it's still profitable to do so.

Can you imagine if the NBA put out high quality affordable streams instead of NBA tv? No one would buy cable. Same thing with the NFL. Trust me they're doing the math and there will come a day that they'll decide to do that and it'll be the death kneel for cable and we'll all have 50 different streaming platforms effectively becoming the new cable if we want to watch anything with CBS and the rest all hoarding their property rights for their platforms waging war on Netflix to replace it's lost revenue stream that is currently cable.

[celticfan42487]

Not this one again... the concept of relegation and promotion is incompatible with the franchise system of US professional sports leagues.

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).