<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">2. No best of 7 series: ..A shorter and more exciting postseason. The longer regular season means people WILL want to do well because home-court advantage is more pronounced in the 5-game series (HHRRH).. As a lot of people have noticed, the first-round games have been difficult to watch. No upsets means no fun. Many say that the better team will always win a 7-game series, but the better team should win a 5-game series as well. I don't see a problem with that. The last thing we need is having to watch the Indiana Pacers cream the Celtics for one more game than necessary.</div> This is a horrible idea. Best of 7 series guarantee that the best teams win, and allows for depth to be a factor. Take last years' Houston-Dallas series for example. Houston won the first two, but still lost the series. Yeah I know, Houston didn't win another game, so really even if it was best of 5 they would have still lost, but you get my point.
I hate the idea of instant replay. The game is already slow enough with intentional fouls and timeouts. Adding instant replay would bring it to a football pace. I know everybody hates refs making bad calls, but they're not too common. Plus the League reviews game tape to ensure that refs are doing their job properly, so I think we should live with the officiating system we have.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post"> CONS: -loss of organization (leads to...) -no All-Star Game (at least the East vs. West structure) -less rivalries -difficulty of creating dynasties -little continuity in playoffs (eg: the Pacers/Pistons have garnered interest because they have faced each other for the last few years.) -potential loss of audience/interest (if the playoffs are predominantly West coast teams, Eastern fans may be turned off.) -questioning of past records/stats/championships (would they have been the same in the new system?) </div> Those aren't true at all. You can still have East/West classifications without using it as a means of determining who makes the playoffs. Allstar game wouldnt be affected. Rivalries? The good rivalries are two GOOD, equally matched teams that repeatedly meet each other in important situations. That sounds like my suggested playoff system if you ask me. The best teams will be able to play each other later in the playoffs. Continuity? Pacers and Pistons can still meet each other in the playoffs if the brackets work out. The only thing that this system hurts are the weak teams that don't belong. Loss of interest? If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of lost interest as it is. Playoff ratings are lower in the past 5 years than they have been for a long time. Shaking things up will do the league some good. Plus it's about rewarding the TEAMS THAT PERFORM. Not the fans who happen to live in a city playing in a weak division. Past records are fine. So put an asterisk. Who cares? It's time to move forward. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post"> This is a horrible idea. Best of 7 series guarantee that the best teams win, and allows for depth to be a factor. Take last years' Houston-Dallas series for example. Houston won the first two, but still lost the series. Yeah I know, Houston didn't win another game, so really even if it was best of 5 they would have still lost, but you get my point.</div> A good team will still win if it deserves to. That Rockets-Mavs series woulda been more exciting in a 5 game format. Besides, the rare series that is actually 7 games long as opposed to all the other 4 or 5 game beatdowns? I think it's a fair trade. Old thread and it feels weird defending my ideas from way back when, but good stuff
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting tradebark:</div><div class="quote_post">Those aren't true at all. You can still have East/West classifications without using it as a means of determining who makes the playoffs. Allstar game wouldnt be affected. Rivalries? The good rivalries are two GOOD, equally matched teams that repeatedly meet each other in important situations. That sounds like my suggested playoff system if you ask me. The best teams will be able to play each other later in the playoffs. Continuity? Pacers and Pistons can still meet each other in the playoffs if the brackets work out. The only thing that this system hurts are the weak teams that don't belong. Loss of interest? If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of lost interest as it is. Playoff ratings are lower in the past 5 years than they have been for a long time. Shaking things up will do the league some good. Plus it's about rewarding the TEAMS THAT PERFORM. Not the fans who happen to live in a city playing in a weak division. Past records are fine. So put an asterisk. Who cares? It's time to move forward.</div> You can have the East/West game, but it would be kind of superficial. With no conferences each team would face each other an equal number of times. Therefore, that connection that players had by facing teams in their own conference more often is gone. They wouldn't really be fighting for anything. It would be the equivalent of having a North vs. South game in our current structure: sure it would work, but it would lose its significance. Of course those rivalries are desirable. However, with no conferences, teams would have the chance of facing 15 different teams in the playoffs. What would be the chances of facing the exact same team in consecutive years? Idunno, I basically see the NBA playoff/conference system as a happy medium between the college system and the NFL/MLB divisional system. You could make an equal argument for either side. However, I think the current system takes the positives of both. The only real problem I have is with divisional seeding. I think facing each other should be enough to promote a rivalry, and the seeding makes it harder for quality teams.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">You can have the East/West game, but it would be kind of superficial. With no conferences each team would face each other an equal number of times. Therefore, that connection that players had by facing teams in their own conference more often is gone. They wouldn't really be fighting for anything. It would be the equivalent of having a North vs. South game in our current structure: sure it would work, but it would lose its significance.</div> Wait wait, you lost me at "superficial." I mean, are we watching the same all-star game here? They screw around the first 3 quarters and if it happens to be close they play serious in the 4th.. By serious meaning they dont go for alley-oops every time down the court. It's already meaningless, and I doubt the players will try any more or less with a change in structure for the league. The allstar game as it is is only a spectacle. Is there really any pride between East v West? Doubtful. It's just a bunch of players either glad to finally be recognized, happy to be there, or people looking to add "All star game MVP" to their list of accomplishments.. How this has ANY bearing on how the league at large should be structured is honestly beyond me. If you removed the allstar weekend from the NBA right now I doubt anyone would really care.. Sure it'd be a shame, but come on, it's not really basketball anymore. It's been trash the last few years anyway if you're looking for teamwork/competition/etc.. It's just the NBA's version of the and1 mixtape tour. Junk food for basketball fans. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Of course those rivalries are desirable. However, with no conferences, teams would have the chance of facing 15 different teams in the playoffs. What would be the chances of facing the exact same team in consecutive years?</div> As opposed to the chance of facing 7 different teams in a conference, so it's half as likely? I don't really see the big deal here. You're saying a weaker team is more deserving of a playoff spot because they happen to have a "rivalry" with another team? As opposed to a better team who got a better record during the regular season? That just makes no sense. All that it will abolish are the current "rivalries," of which at this moment in time, there are none. A brawl does not constitute a rivalry. Kids (aka the media) these days get too caught up trying to look for something exciting to talk about. A rivalry isnt a good team against a bad team either. If anything, like I mentioned before, it will create new rivalries that are formed by the skill of the teams relative to the rest of the league rather than relative to the rest of their conference. Give me the Lakers-Celtics, the Knicks-Pacers, the Bulls-Pistons.. These were rivalries that became what they were because of late-round playoff series and not just regular season games. Seeding the teams the way they deserve gives us a better chance of getting back to the glory days. I'd rather have the top 4 teams in the league constantly battling it out year after year in the Semifinals/Finals than Sixers vs Boston interspersed between rounds every now and then. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">I think facing each other should be enough to promote a rivalry, and the seeding makes it harder for quality teams.</div> This doesn't really make sense to me.. Seeding will reward the team with the better record, that is all.. I mean to base defending the current organization of the league on some abstract idea of "rivalries" ? It's like saying traffic lights should work depending on how much drivers want to get to their destination.. The organization needs to be fair. Currently it isn't. There are playoff teams which are clearly worse than non-playoff teams (in terms of record, even WITHOUT parity around the league), which should not be the case. Rivalries will eventually develop no matter what system you use.
1. COMMENTATOR DOUG COLLINS HAS TO GO He's got an annoying voice and he never knows when to shut up. A good announcer knows when to keep silent. It's like he's trying to shove as much info down the viewer's ears as possible. I actually like Bill Walton for his passion and enthusiasm for the game and his willingness to call people out. 2. LOCAL ANNOUNCERS CALLING THE PLAYOFFS: The playoffs are a product for nationwide fans of basketball, not just the locals of the playoff teams. Therefore it should cater to that larger audiences. Larger audiences who may not be all that familiar with certain role players or whatever. I think local fans should have the option of hearing the local announcers though also - maybe a co-contract with the locals so KCAL 9 could broadcast the laker playoffs also or a radio so you could play the radio and mute the TV? Cause i see your point Shape City. 3. THEY SHOULD HAVE OCCASIONAL LOW-INCOME REDUCED PRICE GAMES. Going to the stadium from a mile back is all many people can afford. They should have one out of every say 10 games at a reduced price, where more affordable ticket prices get you closer to the action. Not sure how you would prove that you're not rich, but if they could make it work, it would be great. They would make a lot of money here cause there are a lot of NBA fans in middle-class or working-class environments that would jump at this opportunity and they would be merch, food, etc. This would also make D. Stern look like a real humanitarian. Why won't they do this? 4. ALL-STAR GAME SHOULD BE VOTED BY THE CURRENT NBA PLAYERS AND COACHES ONLY. Those are the people who most know who deserves the nod and who is overrated. They know the real players and their character on and off the floor and how much of an impact they make to their team. Then the all-star game should have consequences - the winning team each gets a trickedout bentley, just kidding, but cash prizes would definitely make it more exciting to watch. OTHER THAN THAT the league is great. Enjoy it and don't complain too much..
A problem with the instant replay, if a team whats to use it, but don't have possesion of the ball, how would that work? Because to call a time-out you need possesion, would they wait until they get the ball? What if the team gets an offensive rebound? Do they just stop the game and review the play? Someone fill me in. I think it would make more sence if you can only use it if the other team scores, gets a charge, foul, etc. but then again what if there is a no-call? I can understand how it would work in the NFL but for NBA?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting phunDamentalz:</div><div class="quote_post">1. COMMENTATOR DOUG COLLINS HAS TO GO He's got an annoying voice and he never knows when to shut up. A good announcer knows when to keep silent. It's like he's trying to shove as much info down the viewer's ears as possible. I actually like Bill Walton for his passion and enthusiasm for the game and his willingness to call people out.</div> Doug Collins is the best color analyst on TNT or ESPN. He actually analyzes the game. Walton is only there for laughs. He and Hubie Brown are by far the best. And Fratello was good too (coaches simply know more about the game than ex-players and they provide better insight). Collins doesn't know when to shutup, and Walton does? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">4. ALL-STAR GAME SHOULD BE VOTED BY THE CURRENT NBA PLAYERS AND COACHES ONLY. Those are the people who most know who deserves the nod and who is overrated. They know the real players and their character on and off the floor and how much of an impact they make to their team. Then the all-star game should have consequences - the winning team each gets a trickedout bentley, just kidding, but cash prizes would definitely make it more exciting to watch.</div> Why players? If you let players vote, they'll just vote for their teammates. I think only the coaches should vote. Maybe GMs.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AirJordan:</div><div class="quote_post">A problem with the instant replay, if a team whats to use it, but don't have possesion of the ball, how would that work? Because to call a time-out you need possesion, would they wait until they get the ball? What if the team gets an offensive rebound? Do they just stop the game and review the play? Someone fill me in. I think it would make more sence if you can only use it if the other team scores, gets a charge, foul, etc. but then again what if there is a no-call? I can understand how it would work in the NFL but for NBA?</div> These are things that the league can probably figure out on it's own. I mean even if replays for no-calls weren't implemented, it would still remove a good percentage of the bad calls made in a given game. it's just foolish that the league has the technology in it's hands and just won't use it. A referee at home can call a game better than the refs at the game, which just shouldnt be the case.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting panfolk:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know what can be done about it, but I'm pretty sick of the "smart foul." It's irritating to slow down games, lower scores, and risk benching players just to avoid a bucket or two. If you are nine points behind and there's a minute left hacking players for free throws shouldn't be an option. Also when they hack just to avoid the easy finish on a break. That's some annoying stuff.</div> It's also lazy basketball. Just let em get their fast break points, then try harder to get 2 or 3 when you're team regains possession. DUH!
Rivalries, presumably is a primary reason for conferences and divisions. The teams are more familiar with each other, strategy and coaching, and hard individual work in studying films and tendencies of the other players affect the outcome of season series. I'm for a shorter season (by 15 games), and letting more teams in the playoffs and extending byes to top three or four in each conference. If three byes, then 8 teams can play 3 game series; then with the top team with a bye, six teams play 5 game series; then, with four teams left, there are two 7-game series, and a final conference 7-game championship. The top team will have played a maximum of 14 games. The second and third seeds could play a max. total of 19 games. The remaining playoff teams could play a total of 22 games. The winner then plays another max. of seven games in the World Championship. The top team from each conference could play a max. of 21 games. Currently the top team must play 21 games max. to reach the NBA (world) Championship, and play up to 28 games. Under the above plan, the total series through the finals for the top seed has a maximum of 21 games, seven less. The games would be more competitive, presumably, and the players would have stronger legs. I think we have similar philosophy, just a slightly different set up. I do not favor instant replay a la NFL. That league has few games relative to the NBA for obvious reasons, they play on a much bigger field, it's difficult to see where the ball is (in the hands, on the ground, knee on the ground, etc.) so there's usually more at stake in each game. NBA Ref's can look at the clock on replay and in limited instances to ensure the rules are followed to protect the game for both teams. Moreover, the NBA thrives on action, fluid motion, great playmaking and team runs which gets the home crowds involved. More than any other pro team sport speed and continuity of action is crucial to entertainment and viewer satisfaction. Instant replay would be counter productive. Refs make mistakes, but I don't think the refs have blown very many playoff games. Sure they can be awful at times, but the best have great games just like the players and they will be calling the crucial playoff games. Backup refs. You beat me to the basket on that one. I thought every game had an alternate in training who was responsible for game player rotations, the 24 second clock, etc. on the sidelines who could come in if a ref was physically unable to perform. AllStar Time is simply the League honoring its own. Recognizing and publicizing the best players in the World. Sure alot of it's politics and the players with the most endorsement contracts; who the sponsors want in the game. But it's an Honor, reputably an incentive in some contracts, and an aspiration for alot of players. Elsewhere on this forum arguments are made for Hall of Fame admissions in part due to AllStar appearances. And it comes back to the lifeblood of the NBA, the fans, who seem to be heavily involved. We humans are territorial and tribal afterall. As for the specific events: the dunkfest is a bore unless a special athlete has agreed to participate: Jordan, Wilkins, Dr. J in days gone by, and today perhaps Vince Carter, Kobe Bryant, McGrady, James and several more. But the top players avoid this puff event after a year or two, it's all in fun, and frankly the fans seem to enjoy the shorter skywalkers who spend more time in the air. The 3-point contest was put on the map by Larry Bird who told the other participants he was going to win, and he did. Shooting, dribbling and passing are the most elegant of the basketball repertoire, and the confidence and style of great shooters makes this the best of the side shows. The game itself will be different each year depending on the teams (e.g., some guys just don't want to lose, like Jordan and Duncan.) Analysts or whatever they call themselves, with the exception of Dick Vitale who should be selling hotdogs and peanuts at Duke games, have never bothered me. I think I read somewhere that the human mind can tune out repetitive noise which pretty much describes most of what can be heard during the NBA games. I listen to the NBA's audio league pass so I can hear my favorite teams' announcers. How sweet it would be to see the NBA games I wanted to see. Not familiar with the NBA's deal. Will take your word for its shortcomings. Enjoyed your post.
Well, my perfect NBA would consist of players that have completed at least 2 years of college level basketball. That way, since the players would have developed (hopefully) by age 21, the talent pool in the NBA would be better, and players would (hopefully) play a little less selfish. Because of this, scoring would increase, and teams would play to win and not pad stats. Oh, and the dunk contest would go back it's heyday format (roughly, between the years of '85-1990) when there were EIGHT contestants. There would be no limit on age or experience, and the contestants would be VOTED FOR BY THE FANS just like that All Star Games. NBC, or some other worthy network would carry the NBA games, WITHOUT BIAS TO COLLEGE BALL AND/OR NFL. None of this "wait until Christmas and late january crap". NBA on NBC. No more Bill Walton. Give me Kevin Harlan with play-by-play, and Kenny Smith with commentary. Or Marv Albert and Hubie Brown (or "The Czar" Mike Fratello...or Jack Ramsay. Those guys know the game). And, the Lakers would be champs again....just like the good ole' days!: yup: I can dream, cant I?
TDoug- I made this thread a long time ago, and I still pretty much agree with all I've said, though there are ways around the things you've critiqued. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting TDoug:</div><div class="quote_post"> Rivalries, presumably is a primary reason for conferences and divisions. </div> Perhaps, but divisions ? At the end of the day, teams from the same divison do not play each other any more than they would teams of the same conference. The only "rivalry" is essentially off the court, where fans or the teams can "race" each other to the top of their division... and the NBA rewards this? Rather than rewarding the team that has actually won more games (outside of their rivalry)..? To me it just doesnt make sense. My argument is that rivalries will develop no matter what. The world is a different place now than it was 50 years ago.. Living across the country is a short plane ride away.. Distance is meaningless.. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting TDoug:</div><div class="quote_post"> I do not favor instant replay a la NFL... ....Backup refs. </div> Upon further reflection, I agree. How about this: Rather than stopping play like the NFL would, why not just have 5-6 referees at each game? The 3 on the floor, along with a couple that watch the game on TV monitors, where (sometimes) you can get a better view of the action. They'd function similar to refs on the floor, simply with a different view. The refs could even rotate, or simply just be substituted in the event of a "running" ref getting injured or overly fatigued.. This way gameplay wouldn't be bogged down much, and the referees collectively are closer to seeing "everything." Plus it wouldn't really interfere so much with the history of the game since it would seem like the natural step to take. I don't see the league having many qualms about paying more referee salaries at ~$1-200,000 a year given the kind of money that's thrown around in the league. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting cynical2k6:</div><div class="quote_post"> That way, since the players would have developed (hopefully) by age 21, the talent pool in the NBA would be better, and players would (hopefully) play a little less selfish. Because of this, scoring would increase, and teams would play to win and not pad stats. </div> You've already been given your wish given the age limit.. But that's not the reason for it, nor will it make a difference in the league the way you think. Do you honestly think that the high school and freshman players in the league are the ones responsible for the decline in scoring? Wrong.. If anything, it's the fact that the NBA has become such a big business. Players tend to be rewarded (in money) for their individual brilliance, and not their number of wins. If, for example, we lived in some different world where players were all paid the same amount of money, but the champions would get a bunch of cash.. Well, you'd see a bunch of Pistons and Spurs type teams all over the league. However, if you're a 7 footer and average 20 PPG (or hell.. maybe even 10, haha) you're pretty much guaranteed a $50 million contract..
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting tradebark:</div><div class="quote_post">You've already been given your wish given the age limit.. But that's not the reason for it, nor will it make a difference in the league the way you think. Do you honestly think that the high school and freshman players in the league are the ones responsible for the decline in scoring? Wrong.. If anything, it's the fact that the NBA has become such a big business. Players tend to be rewarded (in money) for their individual brilliance, and not their number of wins. If, for example, we lived in some different world where players were all paid the same amount of money, but the champions would get a bunch of cash.. Well, you'd see a bunch of Pistons and Spurs type teams all over the league. However, if you're a 7 footer and average 20 PPG (or hell.. maybe even 10, haha) you're pretty much guaranteed a $50 million contract..</div> Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Good points.
Hey tradebark, Honestly didn't notice the date of your post but its still fresh. East versus West. I still like it. Sure its now mostly form over substance. There must be alot of reasons why we have divisions and conferences. Just like why we have intercollegiate conferences. Although that is a bit of laziness on my part. Sounds like you concede the division arrangement. Alot of teams are in the playoffs even with this arrangement. Why conferences? It's never been explained to me. A vestige from the ABA? Is the NBA clinging to the myth that it's a different more exciting brand of basketball? The conference of George Gervin, Alex English, Dan Issel and Tom Chambers? And a convenient reason to hold the All-Star game?'' Or is there a bigger picture? The American West, the last frontier blazed and conquered by the pioneer spirit extolled by Alexis De Toqueville. Now with the Apaches largely murdered and the "wild , wild" west homogenized into strip centers and cities divided into huge Megahouses on one side and the homes of the working poor on the other, Sports help to anesthetize the vacuum left from our lost frontier; and we call our teams the "Clippers" to symbolize the great ships that carriered the prospectors of 1849, the "SuperSonics" in homage to the aeropace giants in Washington, the "Nuggets," the "Spurs," the "Rockets," the "Mavericks," and the nearly extinct "Timberwolves." And of course the "Trailblazers." The other west teams are transplants. Basketball is a very personal game, 5 on 5, and repeated games breeds familiarity. Familiarity I believe raises the level of play because players can't rely on surprise. Fitness and readiness and superior coaching fit well with the division and conference schemes. I would rather play another player in my division and conference 8 times and try to get the better of him over a season. I think this is best for the players and the fans. If your team is good and you work harder and win more of the matchups then you get to move on and prove yourself in less familiar territory. Not saying I'm right, just that I liked your post. P. S. I hear what you're saying about replay, but nearly every complaint about the refs is about a foul call and we do not want to go there. I think the referee system in the NBA is a good one. The weak and the narcissistic refs tend to disappear quietly, not because a player does not like them but because they should never give the appearance of disliking a player. They are paid enough to turn the other cheek. Like a good lawyer, they should have caste iron stomachs and the hide of an alligator. Enjoyed it. Hope your Sonics and Cavs make the playoffs this year. Nate McMillan and Danny "CoolBreeze" Young were both from Raleigh, my town,and Nate Thurmond was a great inspiration to a skinny kid fighting for rebounds (a few years ago). Ciao.
I don't concede divisions at all, actually I think the NCAA is a different deal from the NBA... This is because you're talking about teams whose players actually live in their cities and fans whose rivalries really are centered around geography/history much of the time. But look at the NBA. Take any one roster and you'll be hard pressed to find 3 players on that team who grew up in the STATE they play for. I'm not saying this is wrong, it's just how it is. There's a lot more money involved in NBA as well, they are given endless amenities like team jets and 4-star hotels. Travel is essentially meaningless in the NBA.. I see conferences and divisions as a holdover from a time when it was impractical to expect teams to travel across the country to play games so often. Rivalries in the NBA are based on success more than the teams themselves. Take for instance the Lakers-Kings of a few years ago. What kind of buzz is there around that matchup now? The fact of the matter is that if two successful teams play each other enough it will become a rivalry.. And this is why I'd favor a top-down structure for the league where every team plays every other the same number of times, with overall records being the be-all end-all judge for who makes the playoffs.
1. All-Star Starters should go by stats, because the current way Yao kills everyone because of the Chinese. It's not fair for other players. 2. Get rid of the carry-over AKA discontinued dribble. Players can showcase the handles and will be more drops and ankle breaking. 3. Get rid of the stupid 3 years and under elgible slam dunk contest rule. We want to see Vince, Kobe, T-Mac again.
