NBA with Relegation/Promotion

[Froob]

Not even worth discussing tbh, it's in nobodies best interest that the Maine Red Claws err Celtics join the NBA to replace a team such as the Thunder. You'd end up having to put really small market teams in into areas that already have an NBA team. It's not anything that would ever happen.

[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.

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?

It's definitely the mindset the franchise system can be changed, amended, expanded on. Saying it could not be a mindset issue, thinking in problems instead of solutions. The matter of fact is no US sports team owner is willing to thing about this because it hurts their bottom line.

If you compare this to other professional football leauges around the world, mostly use club systems if you think about it what is the difference between that and franchise systems. They profit share tv rights, generally, the league office decides everything, every team has an input in the league office. if it supposedly actually is the franchise system, then change it. But it won't happen for all the obvious reasons.

in the end, it is the unwillingness to change for the better of the sport. While in many different football leaguees there are several rules which do not make sense if your number objective is to make money. Those rulse are there just to keep the integrity of the sport and competition.

[TheHartBreakKid]

It's just the simple sad reality of it. There is no logical way to implement it now that makes sense.

It's a gift and a curse. Yes i agree that the league would benefit from such a system in a vacuume in the present day, but i don't believe the NBA would have ever reached these heights if it started off with such a system.

Very interesting question to consider. Multi-faceted.

I'm inclined to say that the question for me isn't so much whether the NBA would have succeeded in that system, but rather, what ingredients did you need to actually "bake" an English football pyramid from scratch?

I believe that basketball really came along too late to have any chance at it, and it's noteworthy that while baseball and hockey in North America had a chance to make the same thing, there are major differences (that aren't as charming as the pyramid imho).

My sense is that the density of the English population at an early enough date relative to the mass media revolution(s) was critical to allowing this to happen.

Great points. I also think the fact that Americans (I say as a proud American) have had an overwhelming amount of sports to follow in the past century. As a sports fanatic, I'm not complaining. But when looking at Europe, the foundation has always been soccer. I know that basketball is growing at a fast pace now globally, and I know some individual countries in Europe might not have soccer at the top of their priorities, but when you look at the 20th century, Soccer was so dominant with other sports getting such few coverage. I could be wrong, but I'm just thinking outload. With soccer as the only mainstream sport for so long, it makes sense that there are passionate fanbases for teams in the English third/fourth leagues.

I couldn't agree more regarding what others have said that the Franchise system/business model makes it nearly impossible for a relegation promotion system to exist. I don't believe it's because of "capitalisms" or some bs incorrect "mindset" of American. But I do agree that there is absolutely a cultural aspect to it for how we got here.

[TheHartBreakKid]

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?

It's definitely the mindset the franchise system can be changed, amended, expanded on. Saying it could not be a mindset issue, thinking in problems instead of solutions. The matter of fact is no US sports team owner is willing to thing about this because it hurts their bottom line.

If you compare this to other professional football leauges around the world, mostly use club systems if you think about it what is the difference between that and franchise systems. They profit share tv rights, generally, the league office decides everything, every team has an input in the league office. if it supposedly actually is the franchise system, then change it. But it won't happen for all the obvious reasons.

in the end, it is the unwillingness to change for the better of the sport. While in many different football leaguees there are several rules which do not make sense if your number objective is to make money. Those rulse are there just to keep the integrity of the sport and competition.

Just curious...
do you have a viable theoretical strategy for the franchise system to be "changed, amended, expanded on" I respect your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious. As a sports fan, I would love it my favorite league was tailored towards what the fans want and not what the owners want. But realistically, is that realistic? lol

[dc]

Great points. I also think the fact that Americans (I say as a proud American) have had an overwhelming amount of sports to follow in the past century. As a sports fanatic, I'm not complaining. But when looking at Europe, the foundation has always been soccer. I know that basketball is growing at a fast pace now globally, and I know some individual countries in Europe might not have soccer at the top of their priorities, but when you look at the 20th century, Soccer was so dominant with other sports getting such few coverage. I could be wrong, but I'm just thinking outload. With soccer as the only mainstream sport for so long, it makes sense that there are passionate fanbases for teams in the English third/fourth leagues.

I couldn't agree more regarding what others have said that the Franchise system/business model makes it nearly impossible for a relegation promotion system to exist. I don't believe it's because of "capitalisms" or some bs incorrect "mindset" of American. But I do agree that there is absolutely a cultural aspect to it for how we got here.

This is the main thing. In Europe, soccer/football literally takes up 90-95% of all attention in sports by itself. Every other sport may as well be bowling as far as how much people follow them.

So there's enough available bandwidth for 2nd/3rd divisions that people will actually follow, and people will actually pay attention to a relegation battle.

And as mentioned, the established inequities of European soccer are an accepted fact by the players and fans. It's an accepted fact that Real Madrid is the big dog with the most money and the biggest following and it's an accepted fact that it's the ultimate goal for many players to play for them.

So fans of those lower level teams obviously know there's no way their team is ever going to be on the level of Real Madrid. That's accepted. So for fans of these teams, their team winning a relegation battle or sending a rival down into the 2nd division essentially becomes their championship and it's something compelling to watch.

No fan in the NBA is going to get all hyped about the T-Wolves defeating the Pistons to send them into the G-League. It's just a money losing situation that nobody would follow. Try telling an owner who just paid $1.5-2B for an NBA franchise that they might be sent down to 2nd division. Just not gonna work.

[TheHartBreakKid]

Great points. I also think the fact that Americans (I say as a proud American) have had an overwhelming amount of sports to follow in the past century. As a sports fanatic, I'm not complaining. But when looking at Europe, the foundation has always been soccer. I know that basketball is growing at a fast pace now globally, and I know some individual countries in Europe might not have soccer at the top of their priorities, but when you look at the 20th century, Soccer was so dominant with other sports getting such few coverage. I could be wrong, but I'm just thinking outload. With soccer as the only mainstream sport for so long, it makes sense that there are passionate fanbases for teams in the English third/fourth leagues.

I couldn't agree more regarding what others have said that the Franchise system/business model makes it nearly impossible for a relegation promotion system to exist. I don't believe it's because of "capitalisms" or some bs incorrect "mindset" of American. But I do agree that there is absolutely a cultural aspect to it for how we got here.

This is the main thing. In Europe, soccer/football literally takes up 90-95% of all attention in sports by itself. Every other sport may as well be bowling as far as how much people follow them.

So there's enough available bandwidth for 2nd/3rd divisions that people will actually follow, and people will actually pay attention to a relegation battle.

And as mentioned, the established inequities of European soccer are an accepted fact by the players and fans. It's an accepted fact that Real Madrid is the big dog with the most money and the biggest following and it's an accepted fact that it's the ultimate goal for many players to play for them.

So fans of those lower level teams obviously know there's no way their team is ever going to be on the level of Real Madrid. That's accepted. So for fans of these teams, their team winning a relegation battle or sending a rival down into the 2nd division essentially becomes their championship and it's something compelling to watch.

No fan in the NBA is going to get all hyped about the T-Wolves defeating the Pistons to send them into the G-League. It's just a money losing situation that nobody would follow. Try telling an owner who just paid $1.5-2B for an NBA franchise that they might be sent down to 2nd division. Just not gonna work.

You're absolutely correct. Just saying though I would watch the hell out the Pistons sending the Twovles to the G league

[antonac]

if anything it's football looking to replicate the NBA rather than the other way around.

they will try again to set up a closed european league with the top teams.

[MrBigShot]

I am more likely to win the lottery tomorrow than the chances that the owners would ever entertain the idea of a relegation system.

[JujitsuFlip]

Imagine a G League squad going from a salary cap of less than $1 million to a salary cap of over $100 million lol

[SharpyShuffle]

I am more likely to win the lottery tomorrow than the chances that the owners would ever entertain the idea of a relegation system.

Maybe. I think people in this thread are taking the idea of "Soccer-style promotion/relegation" too literally. Relegation is a huge deal in soccer because it massively reduces the team's income. But you could have sporting relegation without financial relegation. Teams in the first and second division could still share the same revenue pool.

The NBA already has an (almost) 50-50 split between sporting haves and sporting have-nots thanks to the playoffs. You have teams that make the playoffs virtually ever year, and teams that never make the playoffs. Relegation could just be adding another layer to this. You'd have teams that were perennially in division 2 (Kings etc.) and teams perennially in division 1. But it doesn't mean the division 2 teams go broke, anymore than the bottom-feeders in the current NBA go broke.

Bad teams would get punished in a sporting sense through the ignominy of being relegated, having to play other bad team in division 2, and having 0% chance to make the playoffs while in division 2. But they would still get propped up by revenue sharing and, crucially, share from the same TV deal as division 1 teams (unlike soccer).

Ultimately, if it made the product better and more compelling for fans, every team would get richer.

[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.

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.

Yes. This is the right answer. It could even expand to 36 teams and have 18 in each division. This would also allow for diminishing the number of games. 17 * 4 = 68 games.

[Jabroni Lames]

This idea is completely unworkable from the standpoint of the NBA franchise owner who spends 100s of millions (even billions) and then sees his franchise value lose 100s of millions after relegation because it is no longer associated with the top tier of the NBA brand.

[dc]

This idea is completely unworkable from the standpoint of the NBA franchise owner who spends 100s of millions (even billions) and then sees his franchise value lose 100s of millions after relegation because it is no longer associated with the top tier of the NBA brand.

That along with the fact that there are other sports Americans watch.

If the Bulls got relegated, Chicago would just pay full attention to the other 4 (or 5 if counting MLS) pro franchises in the city. Nobody but the most die hard loyalists would pay attention to them. And don't forget about NCAA football and basketball that fans also pay attention to.

None of those viewing alternatives exist (or nowhere remotely to the same level as the US) in Europe, where soccer is the end all and be all of sports coverage.

Relegation would work fine in the NBA if it was the only game in town, but as it is there are just too many viewing alternatives in the US for people to care about 2nd/3rd division leagues.

[puppa bear]

This idea is completely unworkable from the standpoint of the NBA franchise owner who spends 100s of millions (even billions) and then sees his franchise value lose 100s of millions after relegation because it is no longer associated with the top tier of the NBA brand.

That along with the fact that there are other sports Americans watch.

If the Bulls got relegated, Chicago would just pay full attention to the other 4 (or 5 if counting MLS) pro franchises in the city. Nobody but the most die hard loyalists would pay attention to them. And don't forget about NCAA football and basketball that fans also pay attention to.

None of those viewing alternatives exist (or nowhere remotely to the same level as the US) in Europe, where soccer is the end all and be all of sports coverage.

Relegation would work fine in the NBA if it was the only game in town, but as it is there are just too many viewing alternatives in the US for people to care about 2nd/3rd division leagues.

This would make teams think about how they’re run and try to minimise time in Tier 2.

I’ve long thought this to be the best way forward, with respect to expansion. Adding multiple teams to bring the whole league up to a number more like 34 (18 & 16).

16 teams make the PO & 2 get relegated to Tier 2. The top 2 of Tier 2 get to play for a PO chance in the next year.

Each T2 team plays each T1 team 2 times, in a home&home. That’s 36 games. They also play a 3-game series against all other T2 teams (45 games). They then play their own PO series to see who gets through to T1 the next year. 81 games in the regular season (more games = more $), and guaranteed PO type atmosphere for at least 2 games per year.

T1 do a similar thing: 30 games from the T2 crossovers, and 51 from the T1 3-game series - 81 games per regular season.

Both Tiers have the same cap rules. Draft goes T2 then T1, with all non-promoted T2 teams in the lotto (weighted odds) for the first round, second & 3rd T2 rounds by record. T1 rounds by record exclusively. I’ve added an extra round by putting a 3rd T2 only round in between the 1st 2nd full rounds (eg T2, T1, T2, T2, T1) - this means 14 more draft slots.

G-League becomes T3, and serves as a feeder for the T2 clubs.

[Jabroni Lames]

This idea is completely unworkable from the standpoint of the NBA franchise owner who spends 100s of millions (even billions) and then sees his franchise value lose 100s of millions after relegation because it is no longer associated with the top tier of the NBA brand.

That along with the fact that there are other sports Americans watch.

If the Bulls got relegated, Chicago would just pay full attention to the other 4 (or 5 if counting MLS) pro franchises in the city. Nobody but the most die hard loyalists would pay attention to them. And don't forget about NCAA football and basketball that fans also pay attention to.

None of those viewing alternatives exist (or nowhere remotely to the same level as the US) in Europe, where soccer is the end all and be all of sports coverage.

Relegation would work fine in the NBA if it was the only game in town, but as it is there are just too many viewing alternatives in the US for people to care about 2nd/3rd division leagues.

This would make teams think about how they’re run and try to minimise time in Tier 2.

I’ve long thought this to be the best way forward, with respect to expansion. Adding multiple teams to bring the whole league up to a number more like 34 (18 & 16).

16 teams make the PO & 2 get relegated to Tier 2. The top 2 of Tier 2 get to play for a PO chance in the next year.

Each T2 team plays each T1 team 2 times, in a home&home. That’s 36 games. They also play a 3-game series against all other T2 teams (45 games). They then play their own PO series to see who gets through to T1 the next year. 81 games in the regular season (more games = more $), and guaranteed PO type atmosphere for at least 2 games per year.

T1 do a similar thing: 30 games from the T2 crossovers, and 51 from the T1 3-game series - 81 games per regular season.

Both Tiers have the same cap rules. Draft goes T2 then T1, with all non-promoted T2 teams in the lotto (weighted odds) for the first round, second & 3rd T2 rounds by record. T1 rounds by record exclusively. I’ve added an extra round by putting a 3rd T2 only round in between the 1st 2nd full rounds (eg T2, T1, T2, T2, T1) - this means 14 more draft slots.

G-League becomes T3, and serves as a feeder for the T2 clubs.

Lol. So, NBA owners are going to create a system that punishes them 100s of millions of dollars and kills their golden goose. Why on earth would they do that?

[puppa bear]

That along with the fact that there are other sports Americans watch.

If the Bulls got relegated, Chicago would just pay full attention to the other 4 (or 5 if counting MLS) pro franchises in the city. Nobody but the most die hard loyalists would pay attention to them. And don't forget about NCAA football and basketball that fans also pay attention to.

None of those viewing alternatives exist (or nowhere remotely to the same level as the US) in Europe, where soccer is the end all and be all of sports coverage.

Relegation would work fine in the NBA if it was the only game in town, but as it is there are just too many viewing alternatives in the US for people to care about 2nd/3rd division leagues.

This would make teams think about how they’re run and try to minimise time in Tier 2.

I’ve long thought this to be the best way forward, with respect to expansion. Adding multiple teams to bring the whole league up to a number more like 34 (18 & 16).

16 teams make the PO & 2 get relegated to Tier 2. The top 2 of Tier 2 get to play for a PO chance in the next year.

Each T2 team plays each T1 team 2 times, in a home&home. That’s 36 games. They also play a 3-game series against all other T2 teams (45 games). They then play their own PO series to see who gets through to T1 the next year. 81 games in the regular season (more games = more $), and guaranteed PO type atmosphere for at least 2 games per year.

T1 do a similar thing: 30 games from the T2 crossovers, and 51 from the T1 3-game series - 81 games per regular season.

Both Tiers have the same cap rules. Draft goes T2 then T1, with all non-promoted T2 teams in the lotto (weighted odds) for the first round, second & 3rd T2 rounds by record. T1 rounds by record exclusively. I’ve added an extra round by putting a 3rd T2 only round in between the 1st 2nd full rounds (eg T2, T1, T2, T2, T1) - this means 14 more draft slots.

G-League becomes T3, and serves as a feeder for the T2 clubs.

Lol. So, NBA owners are going to create a system that punishes them 100s of millions of dollars and kills their golden goose. Why on earth would they do that?

Increase interest and increase revenue. Weed out the owners who don’t actually want to put together a good product & replace them with ones who actively spend to make it to T1.

I can see the case you make, but all the gimmicks that the NBA are throwing out are trying to do just what relegation can also do. End of season games will mean a lot to T1 teams near the relegation line - imagine two teams on the PO bubble not just fighting to get spanked by the 1 seed, but to not be relegated. Tanking wouldn’t be as prolific, as the aim would be to spend as little time in T2 as possible for most teams.
Non-PO teams having a promotion tournament to raise hope and interest. Teams from last season like the Bulls, Raptors, Pelicans & Kings would have been fighting for promotion - some of their FA periods would have been very different if they were looking to consolidate their T1 spot. This would be way more interesting to casual fans than the play-in is.

The TV deal will still be there & you get to host every T1 team each year, so revenue and interest won’t be down as much as a full relegation system with no T1-T2 games. This would mean that values wouldn’t plummet the way you’re implying.

[wegotthabeet]

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.

Yes. This is the right answer. It could even expand to 36 teams and have 18 in each division. This would also allow for diminishing the number of games. 17 * 4 = 68 games.

Exactly it could make more sense when the NBA expands beyond 30 teams to 36 or 40 in a few decades.

NBA Premier League - 20 teams, 16 make the playoffs & bottom four relegated.
NBA League Two - 20 teams, top 4 are promoted.

NBA League Two would be the equivalent of today's lottery teams. It would be a lot more fun as a fan watching your team fight to move up to the Premier division, rather than hoping they tank for a better chance at a high pick. Since your team would only be playing against other teams at a similar stage of development the games themselves should also be more competitive in both divisions.

[gom]

I'm really glad we have solved this problem. Thanks, everyone!

[old skool]

I would hate to be the person responsible for convincing TV executives to commit billions of dollars for the rights to televise a league that might not always have a team from New York or Los Angeles.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[ciueli]

I'm really glad we have solved this problem. Thanks, everyone!

By "solved the problem" you mean we decided that relegation is a terrible system that only works in countries that have a single dominant sport people have no choice but to watch?