NBA with Relegation/Promotion

[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?

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.

If the alternative to the nba system is what they do in soccer, then there's no better option. People in another thread couldn't even grasp why NBA teams can call themselves the world champions. The club system is just down right terrible for creating top tier, the best in class leagues.

[magicman1978]

The NBA is far too superstar dependent for this to make any sense. All this would do is ensure the top teams remain at the top. There's a reason why the same teams have been in the top 3-4 in the premier league over the last 30 years.

As others have said, don't see how this would increase interest at all. Do people really care to see a LA Lakers vs Quad City Thunder matchup or Detroit Pistons vs Grand Rapids Hoops?

[DBCJUN]

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

Well, maybe not necessarily change the franchise system, but drop the franchise system. it is not the system that holds change back, it is the mindest. Or at least that is what I wanted to convey. the franchise system is designed for the rich to stay rich, they tried to implemented in European football last summer and the fans revolted. They all started protesting against their own teams for the sake of sports integrity.

However, If you are able to expand the amount of teams in the league add a mid season tourney, a play in tourney, change the draft. What would make it impossible to add pro/reg in some form, it would come down to the owners agree on the money.

Just imagine the 14 teams that do not make the playoffs just battle it out for draft position. that already adds so much more excitement for the bottom teams. As a rocket fan i honestly do no bother watching games, were are lucky if we hit 15 wins on the season and at end it does not matter. There are no repercussions for sucking. Which btw is not a good representation of life.

[DQuinn1575]

Fun to think about, but absolutely no way it happens in any major US sport. The franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and no owner or group of owners is going to put that at risk. Conversely, none of them would want to allow a franchise from the minor league to share in their revenue stream. The only time they do that is with expansion, and it comes with a pretty big price tag.

[DBCJUN]

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.

If the alternative to the nba system is what they do in soccer, then there's no better option. People in another thread couldn't even grasp why NBA teams can call themselves the world champions. The club system is just down right terrible for creating top tier, the best in class leagues.

I do not agree, you make it like it is due to the system that there is no perennial top-tier league. eau contraire there actually two top tier leagues.

But mostly it is just comparing apples and oranges, first of all Americans are just head and shoulders above the rest of the world in basketball. So it is not strange that the best competition is in America. Add the capitalism in sports there is so much money going around in sports in America that everybody is drawn to it.

Im based in the Netherlands, they have brought up so many all-time greats in football. However because their domestic cometition is mid-tier due to the lack of money (mind-set, they do not invest in sports as much as americans do for example). Talent flows to the better paying competitions.

If the franchise system was so much superior than the club system, what is going on with the MLS then? it is still a bottom-tier league, where washed-up players come and earn a quick buck.

And I also do not agree with the term world champion, I understand that the team is mostly likely the best team in the whole world. But does that give you a right to call yourself a world champion, i just sounds cocky af and pretentious to me, you won the NBA, which is the best league but to call yourself world champions... (S/O to the spurs). But i guess that is just inherent to the culture.

[dhsilv2]

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.

If the alternative to the nba system is what they do in soccer, then there's no better option. People in another thread couldn't even grasp why NBA teams can call themselves the world champions. The club system is just down right terrible for creating top tier, the best in class leagues.

I do not agree, you make it like it is due to the system that there is no perennial top-tier league. eau contraire there actually two top tier leagues.

But mostly it is just comparing apples and oranges, first of all Americans are just head and shoulders above the rest of the world in basketball. So it is not strange that the best competition is in America. Add the capitalism in sports there is so much money going around in sports in America that everybody is drawn to it.

Im based in the Netherlands, they have brought up so many all-time greats in football. However because their domestic cometition is mid-tier due to the lack of money (mind-set, they do not invest in sports as much as americans do for example). Talent flows to the better paying competitions.

If the franchise system was so much superior than the club system, what is going on with the MLS then? it is still a bottom-tier league, where washed-up players come and earn a quick buck.

And I also do not agree with the term world champion, I understand that the team is mostly likely the best team in the whole world. But does that give you a right to call yourself a world champion, i just sounds cocky af and pretentious to me, you won the NBA, which is the best league but to call yourself world champions... (S/O to the spurs). But i guess that is just inherent to the culture.

If there are two top tier leagues then there are none. You're very well making my point that the soccer system doesn't work in terms of creating the best product.

That isn't to say the NBA product is perfect or that the messy soccer system is just completely trash vs it. But without any doubt the overall product is worse.

Keep in mind the NBA and even now the NFL (doesn't apply as well to MLB which is an oddity) want people to be fans of the NBA and NFL more so than their "local" team because they want to be national/global brands. Soccer's biggest teams have become global products and the leagues are, but it's a muddy mess that isn't optimized. This is why the NFL's top franchises are so valuable despite the sport having so little interest outside of the US. It's even why the NBA teams are worth so much despite people from elsewhere wanting and trying to view the NBA as a "domestic" league when the domestic aspect only exists due to logistics, not the business practice. The NBA would absolutely LOVE to have teams in London, Madrid, Paris, etc. But the whole round earth means logistically you can't have an optimal product where that kind of travel is required.

[gom]

I think "ownership" is something we need to define better. We need to ask pointed questions such as *why* are franchises of NBA teams, who benefit from a raft of public services, are owned by billionaires. The product is created by players, coaches, and while owners contribute by providing some infrastructure, it's a real question whether the value they provide is worth billions of dollars. It is better to reconsider what ownership of an NBA enterprise means in the context of these times, which are not the same as when the league was conceived.

If the problem with reimagining the league are the tears of billionaires, maybe that's a bigger issue.

[Time for Change]

Obviously traditional relegation wouldn’t work, but what if you had a two conference system and promoted relegated within the conferences? All teams would still play each other and be in the same league.

Two 15 team conferences, 16 teams make the playoffs same as currently. The A conference has 12 teams that make the playoffs and the bottom 3 move to the B conference. The B conference has 4 teams that make the playoffs and the top 3 move to the A conference. Obviously there would be major incentive to win and be in the A conference.

[Jabroni Lames]

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.

The NBA is doing exceedingly fine with revenue and interest. Franchise values have skyrocketed with no end in sight. Even Covid and no revenues from fan attendance couldn't slow it down. The next TV deal could be triple the existing deal. If I'm an NBA owner, I'm sticking to: "if it ain't broke... down fix it".