This came from ESPN the magazine. I love most of the ideas. I'll summarize it.1. Contract to 27 teams. Dump Atlanta, Charlotte, and Memphis. Have a league-wide lottery for those players on the rosters. Many teams will love to have Pau Gasol, but only one will draft him in the league wide draft.(I'd dump Seattle or Sacramento over Charlotte or Atlanta, but that's it. I'm not sure how divisions would work.)2. Change lottery back to way of 80's. Same odds for everybody, but only for the first three draft picks. Four to twenty-seven and the second round go by actual standings. Bad teams can still get better with the fourth pick, but it would be more interesting if the playoff teams could get lottery action as well.3. (This one is crazy) Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference the playoffs, and have a double elimination tourney for the remaining 15 teams. Five Reasons:1. Entertaining as hell.2. Definitely could be sponsored.3. Top 12 teams get reward: two weeks of rest while tournament plays out.4. Possibility of Cinderella team, gaining fans along the way.5. Gives everyone a chance, no need for tanking.(I have some changes. My big change is to eliminate the conferences in the playoffs. Seed the playoffs 1-16, where Dallas plays someone like Indiana, and Detroit would be a 4-5 seed. Also, if we did this tournament, I would want it single elimination, just like March Madness. I don't like the tourney idea though. One tourney is enough, and the 7 and 8 seeds will likely lose first round.)If I was David Stern for a day, I would change the lottery system so that 1-14 would have the same chances of becoming number one. That alone would eliminate tanking, unless are dumb and pull yourself out of the playoff race to enter the lottery. Pretty interesting read though.
That would be near impossible to do. Though we all like the idea, it requires a lot of re-marketing everything and making it media ready, plus the arenas would go through hell trying to sort this out, and teams strategies would be all messed up. I find it a good idea though, if it was easy to do, id vote to do it.
...-or-You could just make it so that all the teams that miss the playoffs have an equal shot at the lottery.
I like LC's idea, you can't let all teams into the lottery but you can give less of an edge to the worst teams. You also cant destroy three NBA franchises that are in rebuilding. The NBA would never do this, especially not to Sacramento which has been great to basketball and has been sold out every night thanks to the Maloof Brothers. In reality tanking will stay in the NBA.
Stupid ideas. the 7th and 8 seeds are worthless as is, so adding 2 more teams to the mix is going to help? I think not. Contracting the league makes sense, but not the teams he suggested, except for Memphis. get rid of the teams with no history or a history of sucking like the Clippers, Bobcats, and Grizzlies. Have the lottery odds the same, but pick for all 14 picks. I do not want the playoff teams involved because the lottery is staged as it is, having the Lakers in there every year would just make the Lakers the best team ever and no one else would have a chance, especially small markets like Indiana,Salt Lake City, Portland, and Minneapolis.
Memphs hasnt been given a good oppuntunity. They were in Vancouver, then they got moved to Memphis. Its very hard to jumpstart a franchise. The griz has only been in memphis for 5 seasons..it owuldnt be fair really. And we(Memphis franichise)havent sucked everyyear. This year is understandable, people forget about our 3 playoff seasons. But they are quick to remember the horrible teamleas by Shareef om Vancouver 10 yrs ago...
Bill Simmons sucks. The ideas are interesting, but it's a pointless article because it will never happen.
stupid ideas that would result in teams with .900 records and the same teams winning every year. Parity in basketball is rare enough as it is.
Just give the 14 teams that miss the playoffs an equal chance to get the top 3 or 5 picks and then go by record. Tanking only happens because teams know they can improve their odds of landing a franchise guy substantially by losing. If every non-playoff team had an equal chance then nobody would tank. Contracting teams is a dumb idea. As long as they make money they're a viable business. The season-ending tournament between the bottom 18 teams is a pretty cool idea honestly. It'd be like a mini-March Madness! You can't argue that this would be less interesting than the current format. With those changes absolutely no team would tank because they'd have a shot at the playoffs no matter what occured in the regular season, but at the same time they'd be motivated to get into the top 6 in their conference.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L_C @ Apr 14 2007, 09:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>...-or-You could just make it so that all the teams that miss the playoffs have an equal shot at the lottery.</div> I love that idea. :dribble:
I don't like contracting teams either, I just think its a dumb idea. Tanking is in every sport, its going to remain in every sport and that's that, you can't fix everything. The NBA is fine as it is imo, its way better than the way the NFL has it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTP @ Apr 19 2007, 12:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't like contracting teams either, I just think its a dumb idea. Tanking is in every sport, its going to remain in every sport and that's that, you can't fix everything. The NBA is fine as it is imo, its way better than the way the NFL has it.</div>Well its might be in some sports, but only where there is no promotion and relegation.
here's the biggest problem that I have with all these changes; lack of parity. The league is already unbalanced and contains teams that win nearly every year, getting rid of the current lotto system would make things even more unbalanced, and would also make a lower class of teams that would get 20 wins for four or five straight seasons.The tournament would be pretty cool, but would make even less upsets (due to fatigue and inferior teams getting to the playoffs) than there already are. Right now the top seed gets to the conference finals about 95% of the time (real numbers, not ones I made up) and the second seed gets to the conference finals about 90% of the time (again, real numbers). If you instated a tournament that could end up having portland playing in the playoffs these numbers probably go up to an even higher number.Prior to last year, the Spurs, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets, Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics had combined for all but one championship over a span of 25 years. You can't tell me that's a balanced league. Adding these rules, while they might be fun, would make it even less balanced.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 18 2007, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>here's the biggest problem that I have with all these changes; lack of parity. The league is already unbalanced and contains teams that win nearly every year, getting rid of the current lotto system would make things even more unbalanced, and would also make a lower class of teams that would get 20 wins for four or five straight seasons.The tournament would be pretty cool, but would make even less upsets (due to fatigue and inferior teams getting to the playoffs) than there already are. Right now the top seed gets to the conference finals about 95% of the time (real numbers, not ones I made up) and the second seed gets to the conference finals about 90% of the time (again, real numbers). If you instated a tournament that could end up having portland playing in the playoffs these numbers probably go up to an even higher number.Prior to last year, the Spurs, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets, Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics had combined for all but one championship over a span of 25 years. You can't tell me that's a balanced league. Adding these rules, while they might be fun, would make it even less balanced.</div>If giving every lotto team an equal chance destroys parity then why are the same teams in the lottery every year? This system isn't working either. Poor management is the #1 reason teams fail to improve from year to year. The Hawks are a perfect example of this. Why reward complete ineptitude? Giving poorly run teams great players solves nothing. Just look at Garnett in Minnesota and Iverson when he was in Philly. Tanking is a problem, and this solution eliminates it. By only having the first 3 picks chosen at random it's not like you're banishing a franchise to the cellar for years to come. The worst team in the league SHOULD be able to improve even with the #4 overall pick; and that's just a worst case scenario for them. If the NBA wanted upsets then they wouldn't have changed the first round from 5 to 7 games. More upsets would happen though with the new opening round tournament. Imagine the Wizards had these injuries happen earlier in the year and only won 32 games, but they got Arenas and Butler back a week before this tourny started. They could go on a run and be a MUCH more difficult opponent than the Nets or Magic. Or a young team that just started putting things together like the Magic last year gets in. That'd be much more enjoyable then watching the #1 kill a bad team that limped into the post-season because they were good earlier in the year. The reason all those teams dominated was because they were run by smart people...well except for the Bulls. Krause was an idiot. Tell me this: right now the Celtics, Grizz, Bucks, Hawks, and Sonics are the teams that're probably going to end up with Oden or Durant. Are any of them making a strong playoff run next season? Probably not. BUT, you throw Oden or Durant on a team like Chicago (Knick's pick), Minnesota, Hornets, or the Clips and those teams are possible title contenders all of a sudden. That would definitely shake up the league. Giving Durant to the Hawks so they can continue to suck for the next few years before he leaves for a good team isn't changing anything. In essence changing the rules would actually create more parity.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Tell me this: right now the Celtics, Grizz, Bucks, Hawks, and Sonics are the teams that're probably going to end up with Oden or Durant. Are any of them making a strong playoff run next season? Probably not. BUT, you throw Oden or Durant on a team like Chicago (Knick's pick), Minnesota, Hornets, or the Clips and those teams are possible title contenders all of a sudden. That would definitely shake up the league. Giving Durant to the Hawks so they can continue to suck for the next few years before he leaves for a good team isn't changing anything. In essence changing the rules would actually create more parity.</div>I disagree. Without Durant and Oden, the Grizzlies and Celts continue to suck. With them, they become playoff teams and interesting to watch. Your move would make the NBA have a strong middle class, but a richer upper class and a poorer lower class.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 18 2007, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I disagree. Without Durant and Oden, the Grizzlies and Celts continue to suck. With them, they become playoff teams and interesting to watch. Your move would make the NBA have a strong middle class, but a richer upper class and a poorer lower class.</div>If any team gets Oden or Durant they become more interesting. The Celts and Grizz do need to rebuild, but so have many other teams in the past. Just getting these guys isn't going to have any immediate impact on the league, and could not matter at all if whatever team they go to continues to make bad decisions. Why would the lower class be poorer? It'd be no different then it is now, just without the tanking. Losing a maximum of 3 draft spots isn't going to cripple a franchise. The middle class teams could get lucky and instantly make a jump into contention, thus giving the upper class teams more competition and taking them down a notch. To me that sounds like parity is increased.The NBA is almost entirely void of parity as it is, so it's not like the current system is helping anyone.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Why would the lower class be poorer? It'd be no different then it is now, just without the tanking. Losing a maximum of 3 draft spots isn't going to cripple a franchise. The middle class teams could get lucky and instantly make a jump into contention, thus giving the upper class teams more competition and taking them down a notch. To me that sounds like parity is increased.</div>pretty simple, losing three drafts spots is a big deal because generally the only "sure things" are the top two or three picks, after that there's typically nobody who you can guaruntee will be a double digit scorer.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 18 2007, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>here's the biggest problem that I have with all these changes; lack of parity. The league is already unbalanced and contains teams that win nearly every year, getting rid of the current lotto system would make things even more unbalanced, and would also make a lower class of teams that would get 20 wins for four or five straight seasons.The tournament would be pretty cool, but would make even less upsets (due to fatigue and inferior teams getting to the playoffs) than there already are. Right now the top seed gets to the conference finals about 95% of the time (real numbers, not ones I made up) and the second seed gets to the conference finals about 90% of the time (again, real numbers). If you instated a tournament that could end up having portland playing in the playoffs these numbers probably go up to an even higher number.Prior to last year, the Spurs, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets, Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics had combined for all but one championship over a span of 25 years. You can't tell me that's a balanced league. Adding these rules, while they might be fun, would make it even less balanced.</div>did you actually read the entire article?Because his arguement is that the league is better off with a group of elite teams, a few middling teams and a bunch of crappy ones.here;"Two months ago in this space, when I introduced the concept of "fantanking" and rooted for an Oden-inspired Celtics collapse, I swear, my heart was in the right place. For the greater good, and under the current rules, the Celtics needed to lose and keep losing. And that's what happened. At the same time, I can't imagine the NBA feels good about a system that encourages fans to turn on their own teams. Remember, the league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of weighted Ping-Pong balls, until Orlando landed back-to-back No. 1 picks (defying 66-1 odds the second year). Panicking, the league significantly increased the odds that bad teams would finish in the top three, inadvertently leaving the door open for tanking again.In retrospect, though, what's worse: Tankapalooza 2007 or a young team winning two straight lotteries? Did it negatively impact TV ratings, attendance or general fan interest to have a suddenly stacked Magic team? Were you turning off your TV in the mid-'90s because Shaq and Penny were on? The NBA's crucial mistake was forgetting that it's better to have more quality teams, even at the expense of a few extra doormats. This isn't the NFL; parity can't work. Remember the late '70s and the deadly stretch of seasons after the NBA/ABA merger? Everyone thinks play suffered because of rampant coke use and the first wave of overpaid/underachieving superstars, which was partially true. The bigger problem? The merger loaded every team's roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 through 1979, only six teams won more than 50 games, only six won fewer than 30, and nobody won more than 58 or fewer than 22. What's fun about that? On the flip side, when the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons were battling for control of the 1980s, did anyone care that the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings were dreadful? Was it a coincidence that the NBA peaked from 1987 to 1993, with a lopsided league of quality teams and crummy teams? Call it the 600/400 Rule: More teams finishing above .600 (50 wins or more) and under .400 (50 losses or more) makes for a more entertaining league. During the glorious '88 season, my choice for the greatest ever, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league. During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). Again, that's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier, right? Just look at this lackluster 2007 season, when we're saddled with six plus-.600 teams, five sub-.400 teams and 19 in-the-middle teams. Sure, it's more difficult to improve because of the salary cap and luxury tax, and it's nearly impossible to snooker other GMs (even Isiah has wised up). But I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us. Ever since Orlando went back-to-back, top picks have gone to lousy teams every spring, creating a vicious circle in which the lottery replenishes weak teams with blue-chippers who aren't ready to carry weak teams. In the past 14 years, only one No. 1 pick made his team instantly competitive: Tim Duncan, who joined a contender that had slipped only because of injuries. Looking back, was it bad that Duncan and David Robinson played together? Was the NBA's competitive spirit compromised? Of course not. And that's why the lottery sucks: Not only does it render the occasional Duncan/ Robinson pairing nearly impossible, not only does it reward poorly run clubs like the Hawks (103 games under .500 since the 1998-99 season), it encourages also-rans to bottom out once they suffer some bad luck because they know it's their best chance to eventually contend. So can't we admit that the lottery system has failed? Shouldn't the element of luck play a bigger role than it does?"I tend to agree somewhat. I think the NBA has been good for the last 3-4 years, with the fun and gun Suns, Lebron/Wade/Mello, The strong Mavs and Spurs teams and the insane scoring of Kobe 'wait, maybe I can't do it all alone' Bryant.The suckiness of the East however.. bleh1994-2002... booooooooring.the arguement for contracting the league by a few teams is that the talent is diluted and you don't have the super strong teams like back in the 80's. The Suns are an anomally with 3 super-stars on their team.Most teams get 1 maybe 2 if they are lucky. Look at the stacked teams in the 80's even the freaking bucks were deep and always a pain in the Celts, 76ers or Pistons butt in the playoffs.Even with the Euro-players the league still needs more talent IMO as there are some bad players who most likley don't belong in the league.. or shouldn't get time off the bench.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 19 2007, 01:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>pretty simple, losing three drafts spots is a big deal because generally the only "sure things" are the top two or three picks, after that there's typically nobody who you can guaruntee will be a double digit scorer.</div>Brandon Roy will most likely win Rookie of the Year and he wasn't in the top 3 this past season. Bargnani was solid, but Aldridge and Morrison both struggled. Chris Paul was #4 in 05. Bogut's been okay, D. Williams has been good, but M. Williams has been a colossal dissapointment. In 04 the top 3 were actually the best three players. Deng was available at #7 though and he may be the best player in that draft now. In 03 Lebron and Carmello were locks to be great, but Darko not so much. Bosh and Wade went #4 and #5. In 02 Yao, J-Will, and Dunleavy were the top 3. Only one lock for a great player there, even though Williams would've been great barring the motorcycle accident. Gooden, Butler, and Amare have all proved to be far better than Dunleavy.My point in listing the top 3 picks of the last 5 drafts is to show that not even top 3 picks are always "sure things". Teams frequently blow the oppertunity to draft a franchise guy. Most of the time the teams that make the biggest mistakes are the ones that're in the lottery almost every season. There are also plenty of talented players left at #4 for the worst team in the league to select.All the change would do is potentially give a team with a good front office the oppertunity to grab a great player and make the jump to the next level.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Apr 19 2007, 08:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>did you actually read the entire article?Because his arguement is that the league is better off with a group of elite teams, a few middling teams and a bunch of crappy ones.here;"Two months ago in this space, when I introduced the concept of "fantanking" and rooted for an Oden-inspired Celtics collapse, I swear, my heart was in the right place. For the greater good, and under the current rules, the Celtics needed to lose and keep losing. And that's what happened. At the same time, I can't imagine the NBA feels good about a system that encourages fans to turn on their own teams. Remember, the league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of weighted Ping-Pong balls, until Orlando landed back-to-back No. 1 picks (defying 66-1 odds the second year). Panicking, the league significantly increased the odds that bad teams would finish in the top three, inadvertently leaving the door open for tanking again.In retrospect, though, what's worse: Tankapalooza 2007 or a young team winning two straight lotteries? Did it negatively impact TV ratings, attendance or general fan interest to have a suddenly stacked Magic team? Were you turning off your TV in the mid-'90s because Shaq and Penny were on? The NBA's crucial mistake was forgetting that it's better to have more quality teams, even at the expense of a few extra doormats. This isn't the NFL; parity can't work. Remember the late '70s and the deadly stretch of seasons after the NBA/ABA merger? Everyone thinks play suffered because of rampant coke use and the first wave of overpaid/underachieving superstars, which was partially true. The bigger problem? The merger loaded every team's roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 through 1979, only six teams won more than 50 games, only six won fewer than 30, and nobody won more than 58 or fewer than 22. What's fun about that? On the flip side, when the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons were battling for control of the 1980s, did anyone care that the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings were dreadful? Was it a coincidence that the NBA peaked from 1987 to 1993, with a lopsided league of quality teams and crummy teams? Call it the 600/400 Rule: More teams finishing above .600 (50 wins or more) and under .400 (50 losses or more) makes for a more entertaining league. During the glorious '88 season, my choice for the greatest ever, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league. During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). Again, that's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier, right? Just look at this lackluster 2007 season, when we're saddled with six plus-.600 teams, five sub-.400 teams and 19 in-the-middle teams. Sure, it's more difficult to improve because of the salary cap and luxury tax, and it's nearly impossible to snooker other GMs (even Isiah has wised up). But I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us. Ever since Orlando went back-to-back, top picks have gone to lousy teams every spring, creating a vicious circle in which the lottery replenishes weak teams with blue-chippers who aren't ready to carry weak teams. In the past 14 years, only one No. 1 pick made his team instantly competitive: Tim Duncan, who joined a contender that had slipped only because of injuries. Looking back, was it bad that Duncan and David Robinson played together? Was the NBA's competitive spirit compromised? Of course not. And that's why the lottery sucks: Not only does it render the occasional Duncan/ Robinson pairing nearly impossible, not only does it reward poorly run clubs like the Hawks (103 games under .500 since the 1998-99 season), it encourages also-rans to bottom out once they suffer some bad luck because they know it's their best chance to eventually contend. So can't we admit that the lottery system has failed? Shouldn't the element of luck play a bigger role than it does?"I tend to agree somewhat. I think the NBA has been good for the last 3-4 years, with the fun and gun Suns, Lebron/Wade/Mello, The strong Mavs and Spurs teams and the insane scoring of Kobe 'wait, maybe I can't do it all alone' Bryant.The suckiness of the East however.. bleh1994-2002... booooooooring.the arguement for contracting the league by a few teams is that the talent is diluted and you don't have the super strong teams like back in the 80's. The Suns are an anomally with 3 super-stars on their team.Most teams get 1 maybe 2 if they are lucky. Look at the stacked teams in the 80's even the freaking bucks were deep and always a pain in the Celts, 76ers or Pistons butt in the playoffs.Even with the Euro-players the league still needs more talent IMO as there are some bad players who most likley don't belong in the league.. or shouldn't get time off the bench.</div>Did you find that on ESPN.com, or did you type that right from the magazine?
