Feeling Contractions
by Dave on Mar 18, 2009 12:44 AM PDT
Email
PrintThough it's been disguised around here by the banner year the Blazers are having, this has been a year of turmoil for the NBA. The league is facing financial troubles, rampant injuries, attendance woes in many cities, and the ongoing question of whether we're seeing great basketball here. Each of these issues is multi-faceted. There's no magic bullet for any of them, let alone all of them together. But there is a common thread that runs through them all, even if in a minor way.
The NBA has too many teams.
This is not a new assertion. We've heard it plenty of times. The volume is going to crank up over the next few years, though. More so because the league is slow to admit such things.
The traditional model of sports success has been "more". More teams, more games, more tickets sold equals more money. At what point, however, does more stop looking like success and start looking bloated?
One might ask, for instance, if making the first round of the playoffs into seven-game series instead of the earlier five really improved them or did it simply lengthen the post-season and diffuse its focus? How about those days of rest in between to get more games on TV? How many casual fans are going to watch from Game One to the last game of the Finals when that process takes two months now?
Or take the division splits. Now we have six divisions instead of four. Theoretically you have tighter rivalries and more people fighting for a guaranteed playoff seed. In practice are you even sure who are the bottom teams in your division? If you do know, how worked up do you get to play them? Does a game against the L*kers matter as much anymore? And what's with this unbalanced schedule? It used to be you knew exactly how many times you'd play each division, conference, and league rival. Now you have to look it up.
More is not always better. Sometimes it's too much, too confusing, and leaves things too thinly spread.
In terms of individual teams' financial health, identification and branding, and talent pool, plus league-wide in terms of scheduling and rivalries developed, the NBA would be better off losing a few teams.
I want to give you an example of what things could look like. I'm going to pick six teams from the league whose attendance has been down over the last three years, some of whom are also rumored to be in financial trouble, others of whom have dissatisfied owners, others of whom have shallow histories in their community. I'm picking these teams as examples only and I genuinely apologize to the fans and bloggers of these teams for naming them. I want to give concrete examples to back up my point but I specifically DON'T intend this to be a final argument for these six teams. If all that gets reported and commented on is "Dave wants to get rid of this team!" then things have gone awry. That is neither the intent nor the focus. The idea is that some contraction needs to happen and these teams are believable candidates for various reasons, and thus useful for the sake of argument.
The six teams I'm going to use are Sacramento, Memphis, Indiana, Charlotte, Minnesota, and Oklahoma City. OKC actually has decent attendance this year but there's no history there and nothing to indicate that this won't become another Memphis/Vancouver situation of declining support after the initial blush has worn off. In any case, if you don't like a team's inclusion just throw them out and put in the Clippers or Bucks or Hawks instead.
The first decision you'd have to make would be how to align the 24 teams. Personally my favored method would be two conferences with two divisions of 6 teams each. But in order to make the scheduling work there you'd have to cut down to 78 games instead of 82. Each team would play the opposite conference teams twice (12 x 2 = 24 games), the teams in its own conference but the opposite division four times (6 x 4 = 24 games), and the teams in its own division six times (remember you're not playing against your own team so 5 x 6 = 30). 24+24+30=78 games total.
Since the league would never, ever go for cutting four games from the schedule you also have to look at making it work with 24 teams and 82 games. In this case you'd have to keep the current six divisions, each with four teams. You'd still play the opposite conference twice (24 games). The in-conference but opposite division teams you'd play five times (8 x 5 = 40 games). Teams in your own division you'd play six times (3 x 6 = 18 games). 24+40+18=82 games total.
Either way you'd have a predictable number of games against each team each year. The second option leaves a home-away imbalance for your conference non-division teams, but that's unavoidable in that situation. (Remember, 78 games and absolute equality is preferable to me.)
One possible reaction is, "You want us to play the same teams five or six times?" To that I reply with a whole-hearted, "YES!!!" The schedule whips by too quickly as it is now. Players seldom get the chance to prepare or adjust for a team. This is part of why the learning curve is so steep for younger players. It detracts from the quality of play. The more often you play a team the better you know them. You're going to see better basketball, in some cases even playoff-level basketball, sooner in a season and in a career. If the small reduction in variety of team names disturbs you, consider this: for every game you give up against the Thunder and Grizzlies you're getting more games against the L*kers, Spurs, Rockets, and the rest of the teams. You wouldn't pay or tune in to see that?
What's more, the teams you were facing would be deeper. Here is a list of 24 semi-recognizable players who would become available to the 24 remaining teams after contraction.
- Kevin Martin
- Andres Nocioni
- Beno Udrih
- Spencer Hawes
- O.J. Mayo
- Rudy Gay
- Marc Gasol
- Mike Conley
- Danny Granger
- T.J. Ford
- Mike Dunleavy
- Troy Murphy
- Jarrett Jack
- Gerald Wallace
- Boris Diaw
- Emeka Okafor
- Raja Bell
- D.J. Augustin
- Al Jefferson
- Kevin Love
- Randy Foye
- Kevin Durant
- Jeff Green
- Russell Westbrook
Every team in the league gets to pick up one of these guys. And there are more mid-bench players behind them. Anyone want to argue that you wouldn't see better basketball overall? You would see some of the basement teams get better immediately. You'd have the possibility of some super teams that lasted more than two seasons. You'd see fewer teams done in by one or two injuries. You could get up for seeing most every team most every night. Again...playoff level basketball earlier than we now see it.
The devil's in the details: playoff seeding, division assignments, compensation for the owners whose teams are contracted, convincing the players' union, and the like. There would still be plenty to work through. I don't mean this to be a comprehensive plan as much as a demonstration of possibilities. But I think the possibilities are there.
If you want to make this league better--if you want to take a shot at making it great and entertaining and tense and relevant and reportable again--consider streamlining it. Chowing down on everything in sight isn't the healthiest plan. It's time to step away from the buffet and doing some targeted eating instead. One filet mignon is a more satisfying experience than all of the Grade D beef product you can eat.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
201 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If we contract what happens to the salary cap?
Does the salary cap go up and down based upon how well financially the league is doing, i.e., as a function of league-wide revenue? Or something else?
In any case, I’m all for it if we can get Durant or Wallace or one of those fine players you listed
Honor Alaa Abdelnaby.
First in the NBA. At least alphabetically
The salary cap is tied to league revenue
So if revenue goes up, player salaries can go up.
What remains to be seen is how much the salary cap situation will change during the upcoming collective bargaining process.
but if all the teams benefit from the players
a lot of other deserving players won’t be getting playing time and the rest of the league will be faced with the same problems portland is facing.
"There are a few teams you have to watch out for in the fourth quarter."
"Yeah, but Portland definitely is not one of them."
-New Orleans Hornets broadcasters at the end of the third quarter with the Hornets leading 74-59. Portland later ends up winning 97-89.
"They don't mind him shooting that shot at all. Rudy Fernandez is not that great of a 3pt shooter."
-New Orleans Hornets broadcasters right after a Rudy Fernandez missed 3pter. Rudy Fernandez finished the game with three 3pters on six attempts.
should make europe happy
"Slum dunk? You just go to the rim, and crush.. crush the ball in the rim."
- Nic Batum
That really isn't a problem, they'll go from sitting on the end of the bench to starting in Europe.
Besides, if you’re good enough to warrant a team keeping you then you deserve to be there. If not, well you tried but you didn’t make the cut. Playing sports for a living is something most people will never be able to do, you’re not going to get much sympathy from the average fan.
by Se Hace La Vista Gorda on Mar 18, 2009 4:13 AM PDT up reply actions
No, it just raises the bar on "deserving players'
Say each team adds one of those guys to theirs, all it does is push one marginal player out of their rotation. Even on a team that’s as deep as ours, it wouldn’t be the end of the world to see one of Sergio/Bayless/Frye get relegated to a more regular spot on the pine. You’d struggle to argue that those guys are somehow demanding minutes with their play.
Look around the league, it’s easy to find the guys that would get pushed out of their rotation and the league wouldn’t be worse for it. Just the top teams (which tend to be deeper).
LA: Powell
SA: Bowen (awful this year)
NO: Daniels
HOU: Barry
Dallas: Wright
Denver: Carter
Utah: Knight/Price
Phoenix: Amundson
Bos: Allen (Tony)
Cle: Pavlovic
Orlando: Johnson/Battie
While some of those guys are okay, I’d say it’s pretty obvious that the quality of play of each of their teams would be significantly improved by replacing them with one of the “contracted” guys. Plus, they wouldn’t be the ones losing contracts, but instead guys like Ruffin, Shav, etc., and they don’t exactly do much to distinguish themselves as NBA players.
I think I'm on board now...
…just because I’m all for any plan that pushes Tony Allen out of my team’s rotation.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Mar 20, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
The big problem with contraction
…I think…and boy I’m no expert…is value of these franchises as assets. How do you buy out an owner whose franchise is going to be contracted? You have to get agreement on this, and negotiating these multi-million dollar settlements is a) likely to be incredibly difficult and b) yet another terrible cash drain on the 24 (or even 29) owners who remain.
And these franchises won’t fold up on their own. They are too valuable.
Even if this is a good idea, it’s an incredibly difficult deal to achieve.
I think part of the point is...
That some of these owners might like very much to be bought out by the league and the surviving teams because in this environment, who are they going to unload the team onto? The executioner is liable to feel some remorse and will offer sweeter terms than the, oh… nobody that is looking to jump into the sports ownership biz at anything less than fire sale prices.
by conspirator5 on Mar 18, 2009 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Wait, that last sentence stank.
But I’m hoping you follow my meaning. _
by conspirator5 on Mar 18, 2009 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Your last statement is an assumption ....
… and a poor one at that.
Exactly what evidence do you have that no one is interested in buy a sports franchise at “fire sale prices”? The sale of the Sonics proves that statement a lie.
Chnews makes a good point. The valued worth of franchises are based on expected demand – i.e. what the current owner could reasonably expect to get if he decided to sell. Teams don’t come up for sale too often, but when they have, there have always been multiple suitors. Were the league to decide on contraction, they’d have to pony up the money to buy the teams they want to eliminate. Meaning it would come out of the pockets of the remaining owners. Who realistically sees that happening?
hakkaa päälle !
Argh!
I hit the wrong key and couldn’t finish….
The point I was TRYING to make is that the sale of the Sonics took place in an entirely different worls economically. Just look at co-owner Aubrey McLendon….he went from billionaire to cash-raising millionaire in the blink of an eye. With declining attendance, sponsorships MUCH more difficult to find, and a much more depressed economy, you DON’T see people lining up to bid on franchises…….and even fewer municipal and state governments willing to fork over public $ for new stadiums or rennovations.
by antediluvian on Mar 18, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Uh, it is a bit difficult to see someone lining up to buy something ...
… that hasn’t been put up for sale..
It is at best misleading when you state that we are not seeing people line up to bid on franchises. Name a single major league franchise that has come on the market since the sale of the Sonics. The fact is we have no idea on how much the value of a particular franchise or sports franchises in general have fallen, if they’ve fallen at all.
hakkaa päälle !
One solution is pay the owners of the contracted teams some money out of the television revenues
for a period of time (like what happened to the ABA teams that didn’t merge with the NBA). In this economic environment, that may be a pretty easy sell for some owners.
this would be a fantastic way to make the league better
basically focus the talent you have, and make everything easier to follow. you will increase fan base, and the teams will play better ball, it all makes sense. The media is a little disappointing in the push on the individual players, we wanna see spectacular teams!
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life,(of the Blazers), (of KP's madness), of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." - Albert Einstein
by BlazerandBeaverBELIEVER on Mar 18, 2009 1:04 AM PDT reply actions
Better teams
yeah when you see that list of availible players you see a very high level of play, think of team like new orleans getting a player like wallace, or the sixers finally getting a tough player like kevin love. the list goes on. the quality would be awesome. really i think the first thing the league needs to do is go back to the 5 game first round, the first round in incredibly long, I don’t need seven games to know the lakers are better than the mavs, not even four games
+1
my thoughts exactly
There is probably no more terrible instance of enlightenment than the one in which you discover your father is a man — with human flesh.
Paul Muad'Dib - Dune (Frank Herbert)
My Translation: My Dad is a dude just like me, and my sons are dudes like me also. I love that.
Season Tix: Section 315, with my sons
Boy or Girl?
"There are a few teams you have to watch out for in the fourth quarter."
"Yeah, but Portland definitely is not one of them."
-New Orleans Hornets broadcasters at the end of the third quarter with the Hornets leading 74-59. Portland later ends up winning 97-89.
"They don't mind him shooting that shot at all. Rudy Fernandez is not that great of a 3pt shooter."
-New Orleans Hornets broadcasters right after a Rudy Fernandez missed 3pter. Rudy Fernandez finished the game with three 3pters on six attempts.
I'm skeptical
First, the financial considerations are possibly short-term. You don’t kill 20% of your teams if it is a 2-3 year problem. By this time next year, we could be on an upswing, by two years from now the economy could be strong. Television revenue is still strong, because it isn’t driven by the current state of the economy.
Second, the talent pool is much deeper than it was 25 years ago. Europeans, Africans, and Asians are coming into the game, and that wasn’t happening much in the 70s and 80s. There are more teams playing Division 1 college ball. There is better coaching to develop young players even pre-high school. The number of quality players is amazing. There are Ime Udokas who could contribute even to a team like the Spurs who can’t get a shot at the NBA.
Third, is an unbalanced schedule really that big of a deal? So a few teams you only play 3 times? Does it matter?
Fourth, re: preparation time. College ball seems popular even though teams have little time to prepare for other teams. To me, that’s one of the intriguing things about the NBA — the difference between regular season and post season. In the regular season, you have little time to prepare, you have to learn to execute what you do no matter what they do, and there is always the chance of the unexpected. That makes it interesting, especially when a team suddenly pulls something out that is unusual.
Boston probably would have been prepared and unsurprised if we had played Greg and Joel together in a seven game series — they would have thought about that possibility. It was fun to have the surprise. But then, the playoffs are different, you can get ready for all kinds of things. I think that is good. The fact that regular season performance is not a perfect predictor of postseason is a good thing, in my book. If you increase preparation time, you diminish the difference between regular season and playoffs. I like the differences.
Fifth, there will always be consistently bad teams, because there will always be poor management and poor coaching. That’s life. There will always be a significant difference between the top and the bottom, and the Clips will never really rise near the top until they get a top quality management structure. Getting rid of 6 teams won’t change that. The quality of play will still be spotty. There will still be teams with 8-9 players that could start on a lot of teams. There will still be teams with 2-3 players starting that couldn’t crack the rotation on 10 teams in the league. It will always be that way, whether you have 12 teams or 36.
Color me dubious about this idea. If the league needs to contract because teams just aren’t making it financially, that makes sense entirely. The other arguments don’t hold much water, to me.
But if I had a huge, multi-million dollar investment, I would be doing everything I could to ride out the storm for a couple years, because I think that, while the storm is doing a lot of damage, that it is going to blow over. And I wouldn’t want to sabotage my huge investment just before things are going to turn around.
That’s my opinion, FWIW.
Nevertheless, I believe we should do all we can to damage the Pacers’ franchise tonight. Let their players be depressed about going out of business, and forget to rebound. Let Jarrett wonder which out of bounds line he’ll be stepping on in two years, and forget to watch for the one in Indiana tonight.
After tonight, I wish them all the best.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Mar 18, 2009 1:39 AM PDT reply actions 12 recs
Excellent response to a post that should have been titled ...
…. Dave;s pipe dream.
There is always the temptation to turn back the clock. One could make a good argument that a slower paced life, where people tended to stay close to where they were born, surrounded by family, is a better, healthier lifestyle. Where time was spent on outdoor activities or reading, rather than in front of an electronic gadget of some sort. But that is not going to happen and neither is contraction.
hakkaa päälle !
Good points...but
I would tend to agree with most of what you say…It’s not going to happen, for one because there will always be buyers for a professional sports franchise, but mostly because David Stern will not let that happen. I doubt any city would like to see its team disappear (cf: Seattle). I think we can confidently dismiss contraction as an option for the league.
However the idea of fewer teams and a more concentrated talent pool still seems appealing to me. I know Bill Simmons has been the talent pool being to big for a while now, and it does make a bit of sense.
The ideas of european and asian leagues seem good at first, I don’t see it happening anytime soon for several reasons: the travel that would involve would be excessive for regular games to take place. People also overlook the difficulties that the league would have coming to an agreement that would encompass labor laws in all the different countries. The legalities of an international CBA would be almost too daunting to imagine.
So, we obviously have somewhat of a dilution of talent, and teams that are not just going to go away. How about having a system where the bottom 2 or 3 teams get relegated to the NBDL, and the top 2 or 3 teams from the NBDL get ping pong balls in the draft lottery. That would put a bigger emphasis on good management, and go some distance towards eliminating bad management/ownership and franchises like the clippers who have basically been sending the message ‘We want your money and that’s all we care about’ to their fans. It’s not something that is easy, given the ties between some NBDL franchises and NBA teams that use them as ‘farm’ teams, but I’m sure Stern could have a much easier time coming up with something everybody could agree on rather than coming up with an international CBA. I know I would personally be interested if each season there was potentially a new franchise in the division. Instead of ‘ugh, the grizzlies again, they STILL suck’, it would be ‘hmm, I wonder about this Tulsa team, they’ve proven their mettle by winning in the NBDL, let’s see if they managed to integrate such and such top draft pick and how they handle the tougher competition’. Instead of the yearly tanking debacle there would be an added dimension to the game that the casual observer may find exciting, and die hard fans would care passionately about staying in the NBA.
In my opinion there is potential in this scenario, although the concept of relegation to the NBDL might still be too outlandish for american sports.
Thanks jscot
Your logical analysis is refreshing. I was getting a little sick to my stomach trying think of all of the ways that I was going to have to refute the original argument. Glad to know that thoughtful perspectives still rise above the “bloated” body of uninformed opinion that SBNation posts often become.
Apologies for coming to your turf and questioning your leader, but a piece this incendiary – when written about a situation that has absolutely no chance of coming to pass – smacks of yellow journalism. If the argument had been well informed/developed, or the premise (League-initiated 20% contraction, not the failing of individual franchises) was plausible, the die-hard Kings fan in me wouldn’t be trying to hold back expletives. Instead I’ll just ask Dave to apply his own dictum to the phenomenon of argument for the sake of argument : More is not always better. Sometimes it’s too much, too confusing, and leaves things too thinly spread.
Yeah
You shouldn’t throw in that you’re a Kings fan when you blast a thread like this. Just makes you look really biased.
I understand that
That’s why I just tried to accentuate jscot’s argument. I believe he’s one of BE’s most prominent contributors, and he pointed out the flimsiness of the argument admirably IMO.
There is no such thing as yellow journalism on a blog, it's all just opinions
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
by tominhawaii on Mar 18, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Blogging may not technically be journalism
But I think the analogy between selling papers with sensationalism and increasing online traffick (ad revenue, publicity, etc.) with sensationalism is pretty clear, regardless of whether or not you think it influenced Dave’s motivation for writing this piece.
I wouldn't get carried away with trying to determine Dave's motivation.
If anything, it looks to me to be nothing more than musing out load. Maybe not his best musings, but then it’s sort of a slow Blazer’s news day.
hakkaa päälle !
I think Dave thought
he was addressing serious issues and thinking outside the box to find a solution.
If four teams go under financially in the next year, perhaps he is right, and the league will just need to stay smaller for a while. But I highly doubt it.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Hey, furious, calm down :-)
Thanks for the nice words.
But yellow journalism on a blog? It’s not news at all, it’s an opinion. A rather daft opinion, in my opinion, but Dave is entitled to bad ideas as well as good ones. He did logically develop it, it’s just that some of the foundational assumptions were highly doubtful (I’m trying to be nice to him here, really I think they must have had a lot of communion wine left over at his church or something).
Would you have the same view of it if he had mentioned other teams rather than the Kings? Probably not with the same emotion, anyway.
But it’s an opinion on a sports fan blog. Remember that. Sure, we expect better than the usual sports fan blog material from the Dave Deckards and Tom Zillers of this world, but they still have the right to put their ideas out there. The beauty of SBNation is that you actually get to come here and express your own opinion on it. Dave isn’t going to ban you for coming in as a fan of the Kings and disagreeing with him, even forcefully. So enjoy the privilege, and don’t complain too much.
Don’t worry, I’m pretty sure the Kings will be around long enough to be good again, and the seats will be full. And I think it will happen pretty quickly. In two years, three at the most, Ziller will be pointing to 10 straight sellouts and writing a blog piece mocking Dave for this one. And everyone on Sactown will give him a rec for it, and if he’s not too nasty, some of the Bedgers will, too.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Feeling calmer, still bemused
I regret that my first words on BE betray indignation; knowing nothing about it me, it’s certainly fair for you to assume that I’m just a reactionary. So I’ll try to earn a reputation by being more precise in my criticism.
First, regarding yellow journalism. I’m not suggesting that Dave’s piece is illegal, immoral, or attributable to malevolence. It’s probably not worth debating the semantics of such an outdated idiom, but I think yellow journalism necessarily implies opinion. How can “news” (i.e. reporting of facts without the influence of opinion) ever possibly be yellow? In any event, I don’t question Dave’s right to offer his opinion, only his motivation for rendering a controversial one so thoughtlessly.
As to the question of whether I’d be so critical if the Kings hadn’t been mentioned, I’ll dance around that too. I wouldn’t have ever read the piece if the Kings weren’t mentioned. If Dave had – for some reason – posted it on StR without mentioning the Kings, I wouldn’t be so vitriolic about it, but (like you) I’d still recognize it as a lousy argument. And I would still be disappointed that a person who I believe (by reputation, and professional(?) company) to be a conscientious fan and writer would champion such a frivolous cause.
I know this is all a diversion, and that I take it too seriously. So I have a profound respect for people like Dave and TZ who also take it too seriously, and compound the mistake by attempting to make the silliness into something constructive. I just think that this one missed the mark, failing to be constructive or instructive. So, from this point forward, instead of complaining, I’ll try to do Dave the service that he so often does for others; I’ll help him to shape a more complete perspective.
Nice comments
I’ll just add this. If some guy I don’t know calls on the phone and asks for my wife, I’ll wonder who he is, and I might even ask her. But I’m not going to get all suspicious or worried about it, because I know her.
Dave gets a lot of slack for his occasional off-the-wall thoughts (he wanted us to trade for SHAQ at the trade deadline!!!!), because he is usually extremely level-headed.
I personally am of the opinion that some of the thought behind this rose out of unfounded economic alarmism. If that economic alarmism actually has reality behind it, then contraction may have to be very seriously considered — and at that point, you begin to look at whether or not it makes sense on other levels, and whether other associated changes make sense.
For instance, if anything is happening with the number of teams in the league, you do have to look at divisional alignment. That ought to happen anyway. Minnesota is what, 2000 miles from Portland? And two time zones? And OKC is maybe 1500 miles away? And the two closest NBA cities to Portland, geographically, are 500 miles away, in the same time zone, and they are in a different division? Hello?
So I guess there are some real issues out there. But I don’t even think we’d be thinking about contraction if Bear Stearns and Lehman were still in business, and everyone wasn’t concerned that someone else (including companies like GM, etc) might be following them.
And it seems to me that we have administrations in place on both sides of the Atlantic that are pretty much committed to print as much money as they need to in order to prevent that happening. So I think we’re much more likely to suddenly move into serious inflation within a couple of years than see a major collapse. And high inflation will help the franchises by lessening the impact of guaranteed contracts.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
What about this
Move 4 or 6 of those teams over to Europe, and have a European division in the Eastern Conference. You would have to move some teams already in the East over to the West but it would be cool to play the Paris Grizzlies or the Barcelona Bobcats.
There are obviously a lot of logistical problems with what I propose, especially travel. And that travel problem would suck for both the American and European teams. We would have an obvious advantage however because PA would buy a concord for the team plane and fly it over the North Pole.
Also my plan wouldn’t improve the quality of play except for possibly getting more Euro talent into the league.
There won't be clean officiating in the NBA until David Stern is forcibly removed by the US Congress in 2013 for fixing games.
by 123_G.O._RipCity on Mar 18, 2009 1:40 AM PDT reply actions
I like the idea
But think it could be done like MLB interleague play. Have a set time when you play the European (and/or Asian) league. Then you could even do a “Final Four” type finals, with the champs of the East, West, Euro, and Asian conferences doing work on each other.
Just my two cents…
by teenagemutantninjabayless on Mar 18, 2009 3:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I think that's the way it'll happen
It makes the most sense financially, which is what matters most to the league and the owners. It would also make it feasible to have an asian league, which seems to be a goal for the league as well.
ouch
Lotta jet fuel to pay for. I think the point of Dave’s proposed realignment was to cut costs. Your idea sounds cool, but not for a crappy world economy.
by the vegetarian on Mar 18, 2009 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Big road swings for each group
Send Portland to Europe once a year for a 6 game road trip, do the same for other teams. All the teams have a 6 game road trip in Europe, but all the Euro teams would have 6 game road trips in America as well.
Travel between each European team wouldn’t be bad since Europe isn’t that big of a place. The time zone swing would still kill TV times and the players though.
OKC:
Russell Westbrook
Kevin Durant
Jeff Green
+ a good shoot at a 2009 lottery pick.
Not exactly what I could call a team without future.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
I don't see one Spanish player on their roster
I don’t see how they can ever win anything without a Spaniard.
(crosses fingers, hopes they don’t get Rubio…)
Morty
Would they draft Rubio?
They would have to move Westbrook to SG.
Karma
by Sabonis4Ever on Mar 18, 2009 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions
If they wanna win they will
Spaniards = Championships.
They’ll need to draft another PG to make up for Durant’s ballhoggyness OH PETTY SNAP.
Morty
I´m here hoping you´re right about Spaniards and Championships.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
Name 1 Spaniard with an NBA title
There won't be clean officiating in the NBA until David Stern is forcibly removed by the US Congress in 2013 for fixing games.
by 123_G.O._RipCity on Mar 18, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Miguel de Jordania
of the great ACB team, los toros Chicago?
Does he count?
I have not yet begun to defile myself.
by EngineerScotty on Mar 18, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I loved his trademark handlebar mustache
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
its where he mostly played in college
"Slum dunk? You just go to the rim, and crush.. crush the ball in the rim."
- Nic Batum
No kidding
Plus they have about 27 draft picks over the next few years. I can’t believe the Nuggets gave them a first round pick for frickin’ Johan Petro. Amazing.
Plus they have some of the best attendance figures in the league. There’s no reason to suspect attendance will wane until it starts to actually go that direction.
The Blunder would be right up there with the Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, etc (probably Blazers too) on teams that would be marked off the list for contraction right off the bat… if it ever came to that.
I say contract the Heat and put D Wade somewhere else. Ever watch the Heat games? There’s nobody in the stands. They’re above .500, just won a title, and have one of the best and most exciting young players ever. Problem is, there’s too much to do in Miami. If you can’t support a team under those circumstances, you can’t support a team.
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
Contract all the teams south of the Mason-Dixon line and east of Texas.
Those guys only bleed for college football.
How about shortening the season a bit, e.g. to 70 games (or whatever works from a scheduling standpoint)?
Some teams are losing money per game and would benefit from it. Others at least would benefit from the additional rest their players get. It would also make individual games a little more relevant, like in college basketball or the NFL, helping to sell out more of these. It would be easier to sell that scenario for Stern (and to Stern) than contractions. If necessary shorten playoffs to best of five too except for the finals.
After a new CBA is in place and with fewer games, overall salaries would go down a bit and many exceptions to go over the cap could be eliminated (while star salaries could still go up and teams would be enabled to keep their own top guys). Combined that would help the NBA to weather the current economic storm and set them up for smooth sailing afterwards.
Can't happen
All records would be unbreakable, most teams would bring in less money, players would make less money, and so on.
Honestly, I’m fine with the possibly 28 games of playoffs, but I think the schedule should be compacted. Play back to backs in the playoffs just like in the regular season. Force teams to either be in ridiculously good shape or to keep using their bench like in the regular season. You’d only do this in games 1-4 since you want a day off on travel days, but even saving 2 days a round saves 8 days in the long run. Yes, there will be days where all the teams play, terribly sorry TNT you can’t show them all.
regarding records – name any record that anyone cares about that is based on a sesonal TOTAL, not an average. That issue to me seems rather meaningless. This isn’t baseball where 200 hits or 60 homers or 20 wins or some other seasonal total is revered and meaningful.
I would love to see the schedule shortened. NBA (and NHL) travel is ridiculous. Sure, baseball plays twice as many games, but they stay for days at a time in each city, and the play a much higher percentage of their games in-division (and thus closer to home). I think the 60-70 range would be about right. If we went with the current makeup, how about 2 each against other conference (30 total games), 2 each against non-divisional in conference (20 games), and 4 each against divisional opponents (16 games) for a total of 66 games. This has the added bonus of allowing a fully seeded 16 team playoff (rather than by conference), since the schedule outside of your division is balanced. Award each division winner an automatic berth and no worse than an 8 seed (of 16), then seed all 16 teams by record, with homecourt going by record (just as now)
First round should go back to best of 5, with second round also be best of 5. Conference finals and finals should be best of 7, with both being the much better 2-2-1-1-1 format. Maxmimum playoff games would be 24
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
You touched upon records
But that’s about it. You just took hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue away from the teams. I’m not sure how anyone would justify doing that.
And there are plenty of records that are based on totals. All time scoring, assists, steals, and so on. Kareem and Stockton could never be topped in these categories if you shortened the season to 66 games. All single season records would stand forever too. (Not that anyone can ever beat some of Wilt’s anyway.)
2000 points in a season
is a pretty nice benchmark of outstanding scoring.
1000 rebounds is another benchmark, of a great rebounder.
72 wins is a nice one.
So is 50 wins in a season — not a record, but a really nice round number reflecting an excellent season and a strong playoff team.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Granted
New benchmarks could be created for a shorter season, but you’re also killing decades of tradition.
Take the 70 win season.
In a 66 game season, 57 wins would actually be a better win percentage than the 70 win season, but it’s still not a 70 win season and never could be. You could never live up to teams from the past. Outside of money, this could be the biggest reason why sports extend, but never shorten seasons.
Football. A team goes 14-0, and then wins superbowl. This could be topped eventually because a team can go 16-0 and win Superbowl. But let’s say someone did that next year and they then lowered the season back to 14 games. That 16-0 team is now the best football team in the history of the game, and they can never be topped. Period. What fun is it if you can’t ever top the greatest team ever?
Same with the NBA. If you axe 20% of the games, how can you even try comparing yourself to the players of the past? You can’t match them in wins or any stats. You could look at per game stats, but then again in a shorter season you can play harder and not have to pace yourself as much, so shouldn’t your stats be better?
Lowering a schedule size makes the past untouchable. What fun is playing if you can never match those from the past?
Most records are unbreakable in the NBA now anyways
just due to the slowing down of the pace of the league. No per game average records will ever be touched thanks to Wilt, and pretty much no career records are even in the ball park in an 82 game season. Even the scoring record, which Malone came within spitting distance happened because the guy missed like 10 games in 18 seasons.
Look at the gaps in the assists and steals. Assuming no injuries, Paul would have to average 10.5 assists/year until he’s 38. Stockton never averaged more than 8.5 after age 35. He’d also have to average over 2.1 Stl/G for the same time period to break the record. No one else is even that close.
It’s just like certain baseball records being untouchable (BA, hitting streak, wins) due to how the game is being played differently. Changing the length of the season is hardly what’s going to do in any pursuit of these records.
One problem in the playoffs are that TV timeouts are ridiculously long
Last year there were games that lasted longer than a football game. No wonder Boston could play with a very small rotation during most games. So yeah, either the number of playoff games could be shortened to make things more intensive or the schedule in the playoffs could be compacted by a good margin.
Heh. I was just thinking about this
On my PVR, when there’s a “20 second timeout”, I can click between 2 or 3 30-second skips before action starts back up.
A plan for contraction
I like the idea in general. I’d actually be a fan of cutting the number of games even more. We know by 50-60 games who the best teams are.
I’d like it if they decided who to eliminate based on performance. The two teams with the worst records in the league get eliminated for each of the next few years. Gives the bottom feeders something to play for! Right not that would be Sacramento and Washington followed closely by the Clippers and Memphis.
not sure if I like that idea entirely
Franchises with strong management and strong city backing should be given different consideration than other loser teams.. this is a business after all..
that being said.. most of the bottom feeders are those same teams
I do agree that cutting the number of teams and number of games would be great.. I know why they won’t do it.. but it’d really improve things if we could go down to 65-72 games a year..
"Slum dunk? You just go to the rim, and crush.. crush the ball in the rim."
- Nic Batum
"We know by 50-60 games who the best teams are."
We know that 30 games in if you mean the very best of the best.
Who will be the new team that all the other teams beat up on?
It would be a lot harder for the Blazers to go undefeated if six bad teams went away and all the teams that were left over became stronger.
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
I'm telling you, back to back
Home/Home, day off, Away/Away, day off, Home, off, Away, off, Home.
Saves you 2 days each series, resulting in 8 days over the course of the playoffs. Not a ton, but cutting over a week shorts the almost 2 month playoffs by 15%ish.
I personally am annoyed
that they went to best of 7. I liked the best of 5 where an underdog at least had the chance of catching a good team napping. Seeing high seeds upset and the subsequent weeping and fanbase meltdown is most entertaining.
Warriors > Mavs?
I think the NBA has only had 2 number 1 seed ever lose in round 1, correct me on this if I am wrong.
Nuggets > Sonics
Warriors > Mavs
Warriors did it in a 7 game series anyway.
The first round is almost always a waste of time.
- I seldom even watch a first-round matchup, which is typically a contender against a playoff newbie or sub-.500 dog that is overmatched and does not belong.
- For every 2007 GS-Dallas upset there are a dozen Spurs-Grizzlies wipeouts.
- The extra games and travel make the playoff schedule ridiculously long, tire the teams who do belong ,and risk injury to the stars everyone wants to see in the finals.
- Getting rid of the first round would make the regular season more important. Yes, I know our one championship would not have happened without that first-round matchup against the Bulls and we probably wouldn’t make the playoffs this year.
The first round of the playoffs is nothing more than a shot in the dark for the 5-8 seeds and cheapens the regular season for additional revenue. Get rid of it.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 18, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
You're penalizing injuries during regular season doing this
Brandon Roy goes down for 50 games during the regular season, but is healthy come playoff time. Oh well, tough luck, better luck next year.
You could say that wherever you draw the line.
Why not let 24 teams into the playoffs? Or all of them? Wouldn’t that be the “fairest” decision?
82 games to eliminate less than half the teams from the playoffs? It’s a farce. No wonder the players look bored out there sometimes.
Luck often plays a part in whether a team makes the playoffs and how far the team goes in the playoffs, like it or not.
Amen Dave
I have been saying this since the renewal of the Hornets / addition of the Bobcats………that there are players starting on teams that just should not even be in the NBA. While one could certainly argue we are seeing some of the most talented players in the history of the league right now (Ko%e Br76nt, Lebron James, Tim Duncan, Shaq, Garnett) and a great set of players who will end up in that category ten years from now (BROY, Chris Paul, Parker, Deron Williams, Howard, etc) it is quite obvious that the depth of talent has declined dramatically from the 80’s early 90’s when there were fewer teams. I’m not sure if this is where you pin the blame for the lost art of the mid range game but go watch a Lak&rs Celtics game or Bulls Pistons game from that era and its amazing how solid the shooting was and how recognizable all of the players were on the teams.
I do think the infusion of global talent has helped stem this decline and the quality is better now than it was in the late 90’s but overall the league woud be healthier to contract………..I would rather see soem integration with the excellent Euroleague franchises and some possible tournament/playoff/more exhibition to drive popularity worldwide even higher………thats where the additional revenue is for the league….
I work with some companies that are experimenting with ways to deliver custom advertising in-game in any language so that international broadcasts of NBA games could feature local advertising (imagine watching a Blazers Knicks game at MSG and seeing an ad for Voodoo Donuts on the scorers table……..
Even today I have seen multiple ads on the Rockets scorer’s table in Mandarin……………
I think dave is right…improve the product by making it more focused and precious…..and add revenue by bringing the global ad revenue in new ways………
TP FOR 3
by WhereInTheWorldIsDontonioWingfield on Mar 18, 2009 8:03 AM PDT reply actions
Language in game
neat, another good use for the NBA TV online. Ability to choose custom commercials AND language AND other preferences. That would be neat.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
Sounds good, but even though we have a great fan base and a good owner, wouldn’t (David Stern) be willing to cut all the small market teams just because they earn less revenue? I cannot support anything that might put us at risk of losing the franchise. Don’t take my Blazers away!
The Blazers' winning streak over Minnesota is the longest active run in the NBA.-Associated Press 03/08
Portland market
is 17th out of the 30 NBA cities.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
Is that the market
or how much the blazers and their related goods rate for NBA merchandise?
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
My point being
that a team can be in a very small city but have a fan base from across the world that generates top two or three in revenue. I don’ tknow if that’s actually the case anywhere with any team, but it’s possible.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
point taken
my point was to counter Jorga’s (oft-cited) comment that Portland is one of the NBA’s “small market teams”, which is simply not true. Portland has a small market mindset, which I believe has long held us back in many ways, sports related and otherwise.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
I was just curious
if you had that stat or if it existed. I ASSUME the NBA would have information like that and I’d love to know who were the top money making teams. I’d think that the Blazers would be higher than 17 on that list, but maybe not.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
Link to sortable stats on revenue, team value, etc. for 07-08 season. Portland is 20th in team value (with a huge jump from the previous year) between Denver & Atlanta; 17th in revenue (between Philly & Golden State).
The Blazers' winning streak over Minnesota is the longest active run in the NBA.-Associated Press 03/08
So why is the NBA always hoping for a finals matchup between two “big” market teams? (or is that also hearsay?) I’d say it’s because the built-in fan base is bigger. Boston and LA can charge tens of thousands of dollars for a court-side seat. Salt Lake and San Antonio can’t. There would be more people in Des Moines or Tallahassee buying Bryant jerseys than Williams ones simply because of more exposure. TV charges advertisers more for a game between Boston and LA than for a game between Portland and Charlotte. The Blazers are big in Spain right now, but I’m not sure how many dollars Rudy & Sergio would bring to the NBA – probably not as much as Yao Ming…
One reason Portland is 17th in revenue (07-08 season) is because they can pack the Rose Garden. Under current rules, the home team pockets 100% of game revenues, so Portland doesn’t have to share their sellouts – or the revenue from games like this week’s at Memphis where the empty seats were so obvious. Interesting story from last week about the NBA’s lack of revenue sharing.
The Blazers' winning streak over Minnesota is the longest active run in the NBA.-Associated Press 03/08
no argument here
of course the league wants the big market, big name teams in the finals. But that wasn’t your original point. You said “wouldn’t (David Stern) be willing to cut all the small market teams just because they earn less revenue? I cannot support anything that might put us at risk of losing the franchise. Don’t take my Blazers away!”
Even if Stern did go with that plan, there would be 13 teams (from smaller markets) cut before he got to us, so that is kind of an unfounded fear on your part.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
it's market size
of the 30 NBA teams, we play in the 17th largest market area.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
But Seattle was considered the 4th largest market, and look what happened there
I don’t know how they determine market size, but I’m pretty sure it’s not how much money the team makes
Blazers win!
I"m going off population, nothing else
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
“If the small reduction in variety of team names disturbs you, consider this: for every game you give up against the Thunder and Grizzlies you’re getting more games against the L*kers, Spurs, Rockets, and the rest of the teams. You wouldn’t pay or tune in to see that?”
You know, just three or four years ago you could have swapped Thunder and Grizzlies for Blazers and Celtics. Just because a team is bad today doesn’t mean they will be two years from now.
you know Sac really shouldn't even be included
I know, I know you, already said just replace them with a different team and what not, and yes i read the whole article, but my team and city have sold out for the better part of a decade, right up until two seasons ago when the quality of the product on the floor didn’t translate to ticket prices.
I really don’t feel the need to defend my team. We have the history (one of the original teams of the NBA), the fanbase, and deep-pocket owners.
You didn’t see other NBA fans calling for dissolving the Blazers when they had their hiccup earlier in the decade, so I don’t think names should be named in this proposal. Even with the preface, it is still just going to tick a few fans off that their teams are even in the discussion. Hence me.
And it really ticks me off to see Kevin Martin on ‘list of available players.’
anyway.
I completely agree... it was not long ago that your much beloved Paul Allen was looking to sell.
Its cherry picking on us as Kings fans to throw us under the bus now because we have finally gone into a complete rebuild during a horrible economic downturn. There is no precedent based on the last ten years of Kings basketball that we should be cut from the NBA. We only made the playoffs 8 of the last 10 years and featured one of the most fun basketball products to watch in the last decade. Coinciding with that was a sellout streak during that same time period, but now since we are rebuilding its easy to kick us while we are down. Just because a team is not viable for one season does not mean that contraction is needed.
The other problem with contraction is how it would essentially eliminate tons of NBA calibur players from ever reaching or establishing themselves. Half of the fun of the NBA is watching your young talented players grow into real NBA players. You think Jerryd Bayless would ever crack the lineup if Kevin Martin was also on the Blazers, but I guess in 5-6 years or so he would find a team willing to give him limited bench minutes. What about defensive specialists, three point specialists, energy players, its arguable that without them the game would be more fun to watch, but I find there roles in the NBA are valuable.
There now I've met the 75 word count. -pookeyguru
Sac
yeah, i sort of choked on that too, but then went back to what dave said about just picking the teams doing the worst at the moment. He could have left Sac out, but in fareness it’s at the bottom and he kept it in. OBVIOUSLY sac wouldn’t be one of those teams. They have a rabid fan base as well as the blazers who’ll return when they recover.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
Also
it ticks you off, but it makes other people drool and showcases the point of the excellent talent that would be available.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
easier fixes
1 Shorten the season.
— 82 games is too long for a basketball season. I’m an avid fan and my interest can’t really seem to sustain itself the whole season. A shorter season will ratchet up interest in the games that are important. It will also increase the quality of the product on the floor because there will be fewer injuries and better rested players. While it isn’t obvious how revenues would increase directly, it should tighten the focus. Football teams do not suffer by only playing 16 regular season games. Basketball teams wouldn’t suffer by getting down to 50-60 games in a season.
2 Shorten the play-offs.
I lose all interest in basketball by June.
3 Fix the refereeing.
Basketball isn’t as tainted as boxing or pro- wrestling yet. But, it’s time to re-do the entire reffing system. No tweaks, no changes to the traveling rules. Fix the thing from top to bottom. Codify every rule that can be codified. Get rid of the things that can’t be codified(superstar & rookie calls; home & away calls).
by boppitywop on Mar 18, 2009 8:40 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agree with all your points.
Boppitywop for commissioner!!
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
Just the playoffs
I think shortening the playoffs is the most important fix. 7 game series for the first round is silly. Since those games involve teams with no chance of winning a championship, the pressure is diminished. You have to compensate by shortening the series. And four game first round sweeps are just mean. Not to mention boring. After you lose 3 in a row in the playoffs, it’s time to go home.
"It all depends on where his growth will come and we think his growth will come within us" -- Kevin Pritchard on Jerryd Bayless
Do it like games to 11!
You play to 11, but at 7-0 it’s considered a skunk!
Best of 7 series, but any 3-0 series not in the finals is a skunk!
Too complicated
I don’t really see the value in stretching out a first round series to 7 games, skunk or no. It’s meaningless drama. And I think 5 game series has more potential for fun upsets.
"It all depends on where his growth will come and we think his growth will come within us" -- Kevin Pritchard on Jerryd Bayless
Moneyz!
I’m all for going back to 5,7,7,7. it’s the 3,5,5,7 or 5,5,5,7 talk that is bugging me.
Also, I’d still love to see 4 games in 5 days in the playoffs. HHOAAOHOAOH. In their current system it cuts out 8 days from the playoffs. It also rewards teams with an actual bench since you’re playing 4 in 5 days to start the series, before going every other for the rest of it.
Takes two days off after a series and you’ve got a MAX of a 52 day playoffs. A series usually doesn’t go to 7 games so we’re looking at a 40 day playoffs more likely.
Just like to say I disagree for a lot of reasons
But I think Ziller said it best in his fanhouse piece Dave.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
This is a great article.
I encourage everyone to read it.
There’s been plenty of good discussion on this board, and I can’t contribute too much other than to say I think the game of basketball is much different today than it was in previous years. The inherent problems with the NBA would not be solved by contraction.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
It's a solid article
but I think Dave is really just going to a major extreme here. The NBA can certainly support more than 24 teams with solid support in each city, but I wouldn’t mind seeing one or two franchises in places that have never proven to be able to even marginally support an NBA franchise, say Charlotte and Memphis. Charlotte’s had two chances at it now, how long before they throw in the towel.
And while I agree that there are a lot of deserving guys in the NBA throughout rotations of contenders, you don’t see the benefits of a more condensed talent distribution through just looking at contenders. We could be looking at Miami as a legit contender if they had Okafor instead of O’Neal, how much better would Dallas be if they had Rudy Gay sliding down to the 2? What about Gasol on Denver giving them another solid big in the rotation. Or, alternately, we’d be seeing a lot fewer helpless teams like Sacto (this year), OKC, or Washington if guys from those teams were more evenly distributed among the lotto teams. I’d rather watch the Blazers play a Sacramento team with Martin and Gerald Wallace back, even if it meant us having a greater chance to lose, because that would be a more entertaining game.
Sure, a few guys would get squeezed out, but these will mainly be on the end of the bench of the current bottom feeders. If they wanted to make the PU happy, they could just increase the squad size to 16 players (4 inactives), and the total number of roster spots only gets decreased by 2.
My thoughts on the challenges of this
1.) Are the financial issues short term or long term. Short term it’s a Knee-jerk reaction. long term, then something should be addressed.
2.) Reduction of teams:
a.) NBA driven: That a huge amount of money. It’s millions for the owner losing the team. It’s millions for the community that’s suddenly leaving it. It’s a lot of disgruntled and displaced fans. It’s a lot of bad press.
b.) Economically/Naturally driven: The NBA could let it happen naturally, but if a lot of teams fold, then people are going to wonder about the economic viability of the NBA continuing. This also will have some bad press, but in the sense that it will harm moral and this is a bad thing to do in a business. One or two teams, maybe, but not more than that.
3.) Post season overkill: Yeah, I don’t like the format, but I’d be interested in the study of money made before that decision and money afterwards. I’d also be interested in taking a look at the attendance records. Are there less people paying attention? Is that due to the prolonged less exciting race or is that due to other factors? Can that be determined?
overall, my thought is that for better or worse, the cat is out of the bag. Timbo used the phrase “you can’t turn back the clock” and I agree. Instead you have to be McGyver and figure what you can do with what you DO have. The play-off schedule can be changed if there’s an economic reason to do so, but are there other things that can be done as well.
What can be done?
Reestablish trust with your basketball fans. That trust has been greatly eroded by the reffing situation. Fans will be blind, but being stubborn about addressing blaring issues is also an issue and just feeds the fire. This may help drive up the number of fans and attendance. Maybe it won’t, but it’s also good business.
Connect with the communities. The Blazers do this well, do other teams? Review models that work and figure out how to implement them. This is a marketing thing.
Hirer experts that actually know about the teams and players instead of barfing out what they read in the paper the other day. I’m amazed at the misinformation that floats out there by the current so called experts. It’s like they can’t be bothered to do their homework if it’s not on a highlight reel. Frankly, to me, this discredits a lot of what they say and they are no longer a source of information for me. The delivery of that information is a revenue source, and i know they’ve lost one customer in myself. I imagine there are others.
Adapt to the electronic age please. Provide NBA TV online and the season pass online (getting closer to doing it right) and provide avenues for those who can’t watch blacked out games to watch (TNT must also show online or has to pay a fee for NBA TV to show TNT’s local channel online or something). The blackout is a reason I never paid for NBA TV online. Every friggen blazer game was blocked out for a bit. Also, the NBA should recognize that a lot of people will be watching ONE TEAM and should take that into account.
Customize the NBA TV for the viewer. It’s a good ad revenue source and it can target the blazer fan with blazer product, or allow the user to pick the commercials that will least annoy (“coool!!! Shiny computer gear!” Instead of a another stupid manly gas guzzling truck commercial where trucks climb mountains, shatter charging elephants and carry skyscrappers. You can see what commercials i’d pick). Commercials don’t have to be during the game, but could be a little side bar or a tag across the bottom. If it’s not obnoxious, i could live with it.
Sell merchandise that isn’t for the rabid drooling fan. Sell merchandise that is fashion conscious. I like subtle blazer logos and good styles. I like things I could wear to work and people would have to look twice to recognize my shirt was blazer related. Also, don’t forget the female audience (my gf flipped when she found out she could custom order a Roy jersey fitted to her body instead of a manly oversized jersey that would look like a dress on ME).
Basketball is just one of the products of the NBA. There are others, and I KNOW they’re aware of it, but I don’t think they tap all of it effectively.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
by ratbastird on Mar 18, 2009 9:11 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Lot's of great idea's rat
I’m with you on the NBA TV. I get blocked out for a lot of Blazer games, and I live over 200 miles away!!!!! (Or however exactly far Seattle is from Portland. I don’t remember the exact number.) I like your point about making games live online for fans. That would be great business. Blacking them out is stupid.
I think you’re right about the tools that the NBA has chosen to tap. It’s like, we don’t have to, so we won’t. Hopefully the economic crisis will spur better business tactic’s that rewards the customers with a better product than what they have now.
Brilliant comment. I felt a bit irritated when it comes to the Kings being mentioned as unviable. The first owner built 2 arena’s, the 2nd owner was a douchebag, and the 3rd set of owners are trying to get a public arena. I don’t think Sacramento is bad for the NBA. If that was the case, explain why Portland has an ebb & flow with it’s attendance depending on how well the team plays?
Last but not least, and again, great comment rat. Many great idea’s across the board.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
Thanks for the compliments.
yeah, I’d freak if the Blazers were mentioned, but dave wasn’t listing the Kings as a team that should go, but an example. Of the teams on the list, i suspect the Kings would be the least likely and someone else would be listed. OKC has a good case too.
I think a selection process, if you were to do it, would have to be more complex than the 6 worst performing teams in the past three years. It would need to be a “what is your business plan? How do you expect to make money? What are your five and ten year projections? What revenue are you bringing in? What are your profit margins? How do you plan to increase that?” I think it would also take a look at past revenue and Margins based on teh fan base and some kind of fan calculation. Kings fans are rabid. I remember the cow bell days, and I’m sure they’d return once the kings rebuild again.
I think Dave’s method was simply simplistic in a manner everyone could understand because the actual method, if it was done, would be FAR more complex and much more along the lines of a bank looking at a company and it’s desire for a loan or start-up cash. A lot of hard questions would be asked, and bad plans and bad management would fail or be nixed where the good ones would stay on board.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
Minnesota Twins
This teams WAS contracted before a court case rolled it back. At the time they were just about to see the light after years of being bad. Since that time they’ve been the model for how to run a small market team successfully. I don’t think a short run of poor management and difficult economics is a reason to close down a business or declare it untenable.
I guess
you have to consider what the goal of a sports league is to really answer this question. Do we want ultimate parity so every team has a legitimate chance of winning an NBA title? Or do we want the situation that we have now where it takes a lot of work to come up with a winning team.
I like the way the league is now, though I think the playoffs really need to be tweaked to be much much shorter. Like a 3 Game series until the finals which could be 5.
I hope I can get a bunch of championships, like 15. " - Greg Oden
playoff format
agree it should be shortened, but not as drastically as you. I would like to see 3-5-7-7 or perhaps even 3-5-5-7. The key is making the finals format 2-2-1-1-1 instead of the God-awful 2-3-2 format it’s been for a couple decades now.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
also seems like those games
would last longer, so why WOULDNT you want to change that format? Is flying to other cities really more expensive than the revenue generated by an extra game or two you’d get out of that format?
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
not to mention
they put in all kinds of days off anyway, may as well travel. Besides, I think you are much more likely to get a full 7 game series in a 2-2-1-1-1 format than at 2-3-2 format – and isnt’ that what the league and fans both want – the drama of a game 7 in the finals?
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
more on 2-3-2
Since the NBA went to 2-3-2 in 1985, only 3 of 24 NBA finals have gone the distance (12.5). Conversely, 11 of 48 conference finals (22.9) have gone 7 games – almost double the rate.
I’m convinced that Stern still refuses to go back to 2-2-1-1-1 out of a bullheaded stubborness to admit 2-3-2 was wrong to begin with. In this age of tons of days off and chartered jets, there is really no good reason not to change.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
FYI - the numbers in parens are percentages.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
Best of 3 is a serious nono
Upsets are fun, but you want the better team to win. Also, do you really want the visiting team to have ONE road game?
Why is it a no no? There would be a lot of pressure and each game would mean a ton. Think back to last year with the Boston-Atlanta series, nobody really cared the whole series because there was still the feeling that Boston would win it. And yes in the first round I think it would be fine if the team with the worse record got only one home game.
I hope I can get a bunch of championships, like 15. " - Greg Oden
Because
First off, a ton of people cared about that series. Once Atlanta got things to 2-2 it become extremely interesting. Now if Boston won 2-1, then nobody would care. Big deal Atlanta one their one home game like they should, yippy.
1. Moneyz
2. Setting a series up for the sole purpose of trying to induce upsets is a bad idea.
3. I hate the idea of the road team getting 2 chances to steal a road win and only defending the home turf once. If the higher seeded team gets upset 1/2 times, they only get one chance to redeem it. (The current system if 4/3, or a 1.333 ratio of home/away games. In a 2/1 ratio this becames very inflated.)
4. I watch my team for 82 games during the regular season, I am insulted by a 2 game series if it happens.
Forget about the NBAs opinion.
The Player’s Union would go berserk. Never happen.
Teams would have to go bankrupt with no City that wanted them for a contraction to happen. That would mean the NBA as a sport was dying in the public’s eyes.
Is that what you are proposing? The beginning of the end?
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
chaos and armageddon
sounds like fun. I’ll bring the marshmallows.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
Disagree
I’m not sure what word best describes this idea, shortsighted, conceded, convenient? None of them accurately describe my feelings for this idea. But the distaste I have for this idea stems from the fact that the blazers were in a bleak situation 2 years ago, and had been in a bleak situation for some time. Now that the entire world has tightened it’s grip on it’s money, and the 6 worst teams would rightfully see drops in attendance, these teams are suddenly expendable for the sake of league salavation? Not only is there no evidence that the league would financially benefit from contraction, but the timing, and selection of the teams feels very convenient. Especially for someone who’s team suddenly became the jewl of the NBA in the last year, while also having just escaped from the dungeon it had been relegated to in recent history.
Feels kinda like OJ advocating for capital punishment shortly after having been acquitted.
AK47, SN13, B52, and K9. One guns, Another runs, He fits, while it licks.
Dude.....re-read his paragraph about the specific teams...
….feel free to substitute the Clipper for the Kings.
I don’t think Dave is advocating any specific teams. He used those 6 teams as examples….
by antediluvian on Mar 18, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I repeat
It may be a few teams too big (not sure I agree), but it would look like the beginning of the end to the casual, but vitally important, fan.
Psychology is everything.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Mar 18, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
agreed
If people didn’t completely freak out, they’d raise eyebrows. In this climate you’re more likely to hear people freak out. I know people in my industry are starting to run around with their heads cut off in fear… those that still have a job.
The goal is not to be better, the goal is to be the best.
No, it would have to be one from each conference.
Grizzlies and one Eastern conference team, like the Bobcats or the Heat (No offense to DWade but he IS the team)
Blazers win!
Have you seen the Grizzlies and Timberwolves blogs?
Reason enough to contract those teams.
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
by tominhawaii on Mar 18, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
When has there ever been a mass contraction in American sports of which you speak?
Never.
It is far, far more likely that the problem of half the league losing wheelbarrows of cash (and the rest of the league losing shovels of cash) will find its resolution in the next CBA.
I hope they go for changes that won’t necessitate a long strike — like, for example, the elimination of guaranteed contracts (perhaps in exchange for a 10% buyout provision or some such to lessen the perceived blow on the part of the union). The league’s financial model could be fixed fairly fast using that tool.
On the other hand, if the league goes for something like a hard cap at a lesser level, get ready for a washed out season….
If they lose money, the Blazers will lose money this year because of Steve Francis and Darius Miles and Raef LaFrentz pushing the organization into tax hell — not because of anything fundamentally wrong with the existing salary structure of the team. Of course, they’re a very young team and their salaries will be headed up. But that’s just the market at work. The problem is that it’s virtually impossible for teams to take things the other direction when player performance plummets. There is nothing “free market” about the contracts of Francis, Miles, LaFrentz, ad infinitim. They are a market anomaly that needs to be corrected….
I absolutely do not buy the argument that there are too many teams at this point. Nothing that moving teams won’t fix. There was nothing broken with Seattle other than the fact that the old owner sold the team down the river. Las Vegas was a huge city. Vancouver, BC remains physically large enough to support a team, etc.
Pontiff of the Pryz for Prez Posse...
The NHL WOULD be fine.....
….if their owners were smart enough to have a realistic salary cap. But in their quest to one up each other, they drive up ticket prices and player salaries past a reasonable level for a league without a better network deal.
It’s really sad too cause hockey is such a great sport.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
Yah......this article has definitely angered some out there in the blogosphere.
Despite the carefully worded introduction, some people aren’t very happy:
http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2009/03/18/apparently-portlands-gotten-too-big-for-its-britches/
Does anyone have a phone number for the waaaaaaaaaahmbulance?
Yes! Yes! In the face!
I think they misinterpreted the point Dave was trying to make.
I hope I can get a bunch of championships, like 15. " - Greg Oden
Yah, it's pretty clear they didn't read the whole introduction.
They didn’t read the part where it said it was hypothetical. They just saw contraction, saw the list of teams, and figured they were putting two and two together.
I don’t agree with Dave’s argument either, but they seem to be a bit harsh in this instance.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
Deleted
While I still don’t think he should outlined teams at all, I reread the piece and the hypothetical paragraph was relevant enough for me to eat my words. It’s been deleted.
My bad.
<3 U Portland/HOPE U GET CONTRACTED/NOTREELY
-Matt
HP
Ridiculous Upside: All the "Almost NBA" info you can handle!
by Ridiculous Matt on Mar 18, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Convienant
I’d like to point out that you are making this argument now, in 2008, when the Blazers look pretty safe as far being on the chopping block. Had you made this argument 3 years ago, the Blazers would have been in a much more precarious situation. We’ve gone from carrion to vultures and a few injuries and a few bad decisions from the front office and we could be back to where we were a few years ago. Would you make this argument then? Would you prefer a tight, rivalry filled exciting NBA if it didn’t include the team from Portland?
"It all depends on where his growth will come and we think his growth will come within us" -- Kevin Pritchard on Jerryd Bayless
I don't think
that “it may apply to me” is a valid reason not to consider something, if that’s what you mean. Throw Portland’s name in the list right now if you want. One reason I didn’t was that it would have caused such a massive reaction here that the other points would never have been considered. Plus the Blazers had one season at the bottom of the attendance pile but not more than that.
But in any case, even saying this much turns it into a “which teams” argument, which as I said is not the point. Contract the L*kers, Celtics, Blazers, Cavaliers, and Spurs if you want.
—Dave
In that case
Fuhgeddabout. I think the only teams that should be considered for contraction are the redundant ones: the Clippers, the Nets, the Heat, Sacramento-or-Golden State, one of the Texas teams.
But I don’t care about the NFL because there are no NFL teams nearby. I’m not going to care about the NBA if there are no NBA teams nearby. Geography should be the determining factor.
And as far as the talent level goes, the talent level in the NBA is pretty high. The worst teams are occasionally bad because they have not enough good players, but usually it’s because of injuries or bad coaching or personality conflicts or youth. You’re still going to have all that in smaller league. And then you’ve got teams like the Blazers who are amazing even though they start Nic Batum, Steve Blake and Joel Przybilla most nights. Would swapping some dudes from that list make the Blazers better? Like maybe 1 or 2 wins better at the most. Is that worth shutting down some kids home team?
"It all depends on where his growth will come and we think his growth will come within us" -- Kevin Pritchard on Jerryd Bayless
In your scenario
I would have to become a Warriors fan. Not happening Jumbo.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
We'll take you on
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio
should combine into one team located in the triangle between them. Two fewer losses for the rest of us.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 19, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Thats true of the Kings too Dave
Which is why I thought your argument, as Henry Abbott did point out, was more about raising the level of talent rather than anything else. I don’t agree, but I don’t think you were personally dumping on Sacramento to say that you think the NBA would benefit by concetrating it’s talent to a higher level.
Bill Simmons has said the same thing for years. Why don’t people freak out like they’re doing now? Because Simmons is a big city guy, and you’re not is the reason I come up with.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
And by true of the KIngs
I mean at the bottom attendance wise. That was not the case until a year ago.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
Ugh.
If a team dies a natural death, that’s one thing. But killing off a viable team is no better than moving it to another city.
And league revenues won’t be unaffected. If you have 30 teams, that’s 30*82/2 = 1230 events where people are paying big money to watch basketball; with 24 teams, assuming the schedule stays the same, that becomes 984 games. National TV revenues will probably be unaffected; as the number of TV games probably won’t change. But still….
A few other issues as well—assume a team is contracted and its players under contract are offered in a dispersal draft. Assume that Stromile Swift, or a similarly overpaid cancer, is on one of those teams. Is some other NBA team going to be FORCED to assume his contract in an dispersal draft, or will teams have the right to pass? And if Swift isn’t selected—who (if anybody) pays for his contract? If a team is to be contracted, is there a chance it becomes a dumping ground (in trades) for all the bad contracts?
I remember when baseball considered contracting the Twins and the Expos a few years ago. While Montreal probably deserved to lose the ‘spos, the good folks in Minnie-Sota supported their team quite well—they were just burdened with a cheapskate owner who was more than happy to take a pile of cash to rip up his team. Fortunately, that didn’t happen…
I have not yet begun to defile myself.
by EngineerScotty on Mar 18, 2009 10:16 AM PDT reply actions
I hate Soccer, but...
those Premier League euros know what they are doing. If they set a cap where only the top 24 teams get to compete in the NBA, and all other teams are apart of a vagabond group of basketball teams that all compete to be an NBA franchise we’d have a winning formula. The Clippers and Grizzlies would cease to bother us, and stingy ownership groups would get what they deserve, less money. It’s too perfect to work though, the owners would never agree to the changes.
Golly Gee, I sure hope I didn't huwt anybody's feewings.... sniff...sniff....
GO G.O. ! You've got a calcium supplement endorsement waiting for you!
I would take it one step further with the EPL comparison.
We need contraction!!!! Have some big money owners buy the D-League teams. The team with the worst record in the NBA goes down, and the D-League Champion goes up.
Yes, I know there’s about 532,763 reasons why this will never happen, but it sure does give incentive to those weaker teams to not tank too much!
Yes! Yes! In the face!
That vagabond group in England is the fifth most watched league in the world. Topping many major european countries top leagues.
It takes a while but you can build a truly successful second tier league with the right pricing and marketing. Of course, we are talking about America, you have three major sports there now. England has, well, football. Rugby and Cricket are small time in comparison to the NBA, NFL and MLB. Is a second tier really viable?
by Se Hace La Vista Gorda on Mar 18, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I actually like the current NBA setup
Sure, there are a lot of weak teams. But isn’t it nice when the Blazers get to play one of them? When the Blazers were bad, I never for one second thought that the NBA should just kill the franchise. The bad teams become good teams rather quickly sometimes. Remember the ‘06-’07 Celtics won 24 games, then won a title two years later. The Blazers are also on track to win a title a few short years from being horrible.
Some people are suggesting fewer playoff games, which I think is a bad idea financially.
Almost every playoff game is sold out. If the premise is that the NBA is having money problems, why would you be suggesting to reduce the number of sold-out games between good teams on national TV? How does that make any sense financially?
by unblindloyalty on Mar 18, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions
Oops
Actually, I meant to say that the Celtics won the title the very next year after winning 24 games, not two years later. We all know they had a little help getting KG, but my point is still valid. There are many teams that have gone from horrible to title contender in a couple years with the addition of just a player or two. The Miami Heat are another recent example, they went from 32 wins to 61 wins and rings in just two years.
by unblindloyalty on Mar 18, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Blogfather gave big play to this Dave piece....... Get ready for the rain of excremental fury................
Pontiff of the Pryz for Prez Posse...
Yeah timbo that'll happen
Hopefully Bedge has the 24 hour rule, or else this piece is going to make Dave sorry for saying it. (I doubt that’ll happen anyway. Jes sayin.)
Henry made every point I could make and more. It just wont happen anytime soon. Here’s another point Henry makes (I did cut it down some):
Teams, like all businesses, only ever close at the behest of their owners.
That’s pretty much it. As long as the Maloof’s continue to want to own the KIngs, contraction won’t happen. Just that simple.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
My personal opinion
Is that the NBA is at it’s peak limit of teams, and expansion is not possible anymore. That ship has sailed several times over now. Now it’s time to let time do it’s duty.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
The Kings were just an example
If you get a new arena thanks to CalExpo, the Maloofs have no reason to move anyway.
Regardless of Cal Expo
They don’t have much incentive to move. They’re not going to have made the investment of owning the land around Arco pay off as much as it would if they keep the Kings in town.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
32 is a much better number
1,2,4,8,16,32 are factors instead of just 1,2,15,30.
Also 32/16 = 2.
Also
16*2 = 32
8*3 = 24
7*4 = 28
Crud, that’s 84 games. Make the season longer!
The ABA had 84 game seasons
"I saw him in the face" Sergio's quote on the latest alley-oop to Rudy.
by blazermaniac32 on Mar 18, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Crud
32 teams? Ugh, no thanks. It’s one thing to argue detraction. It’s another to argue expansion. I would like to see the league make a long term commitment to the cities that are committing to them in return. Rather than when times get tough in OKC, I would hope the team has long term viability there rather than break those people’s hearts like the people in Seattle (although it’s hard to find people who are really that broken up about it).
I think the NBA nearly hurt itself by expanding so much in the 80’s & 90’s. But there was demand then, and there is demand for franchises now.
I do think, the bottom line, is the quality of play. The longer the NBA runs, there will be cycles where this will run high, and cycles where this will run low.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
ARgh
I meant to say contraction instead of detraction. I’m a dum dum.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
Ah okay
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
Curious as to how you re-allocate the talent?
Just straight draft type? Off the top of my head, I would say the worst remaining team would be the Clippers. So they would be able to draft i would say either Al Jefferson or Durant? I have thought of contraction, and think it would be awesome if there was 6 r 7 teams with 4 studs on it and the others with 3 at least 2. What do you think, how would we spread out the remaining guys
by captain flitzy on Mar 18, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions
Portland gets first, second and third pick of available players.
Lakers get only the inactive players from each contracted team.
by torsoheap on Mar 18, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
What I'd like too see:
Eliminate games between the Eastern and Western conferences. That would remove most of the grind for the players, as there would no longer be long cross country road trips. It would also create more games between intra-conference rivals, of which there are far more potential matchups than inter-conference rivals.
The NBA’s big lose would be L*kers/Celtics, but they would gain more games that would have direct implication on playoff seeding.
"I don’t have the first clue who he is talking about, because all I worry about is Jerome." – Jerome James, on comments by coach Nate McMillan about Seattle SuperSonics players being selfish.
You know how to light a fire Dave
I am with you that the NBA has gotten too large. I think it has happened in all the major sports. I think it was an error that all the sports haven’t built up their minor leagues to be ready-for-prime-time television products. I think there would be plenty of people who would enjoy having a competitive team in a PCL type of baseball league rather than be the doormats of the American League West every year, as long as they could see this imaginary team on the TV on a regular basis, playing in competitive games for a decent prize.
That being said, it’s probably a pretty tough deal to figure out which of the teams to break up – there probably aren’t too many teams out there that want to be the first to volunteer to be demoted to a lesser league. – Elgin
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
i read your subject line too quick and thought it said you wanted to fire Dave
mutinous pirate!
Bedge or go home -- Sabonis4Ever
by prezofdeath on Mar 18, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Ack
I disagree with Dave on this, but even I don’t believe that’s necessary. LOL
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
yeah
i would hate the mutiny. We would toss him to an island with nay but a pistol and a single shot and then we would take the treasure of Cortez, become immortal but unable to take pleasure in anything, and then Dave would lash some sea turtles together, escape the island, and come back to haunt us.
Sea turltes, you ask?
Aye, sea turtles.
Bedge or go home -- Sabonis4Ever
I'm with you on the minor league idea. It solves a lot of problems.
Not the least of which is that non-wealthy fans can afford to bring their families to watch pro sports.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 18, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
There are definitely enough players
to support a minor league system. It’s hard to say how the NCAA would deal with it, but they forget that college is to educate folks, not make money for CBS.
Ergo, it could never work?
You think the league has implemented and marketed the D-league to the best of its ability?
It’s never had a chance to be successful.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 18, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know if I agree with that
The NBDL is so new that people haven’t had time to embrace it. There was a time when there were minor league teams in big cities in baseball. That was before the Dodgers and Giants moved to the West Coast in 1958. Since then, how many minor league teams have been on the West Coast?
The point is simple: the minor leagues have to be in smaller markets because the biggest markets already have pro teams.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
Location is one important component.
Another is simply having a consistent vision of a minor league. Right now, who even knows what the D-league is? A development league? What’s that? Call it the NBA Minor League or AAA League and start taking it seriously and promoting it that way.
The D-League has real potential if invested in
You don’t need relegation to have a successful second tier league. If it continues to strengthen in quality of players it could make some Europe bound players seriously consider staying, especially if they can begin to bump up the contracts. It is going to start off slowly, without massive amounts of money respect isn’t earned instantaneously but with time it could garner some real attention and be a successful farm league while providing entertainment for smaller market teams.
by Se Hace La Vista Gorda on Mar 18, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
This is the thing about getting more money in contracts
Stay close to home, earn some money and potentially get called up to the NBA. It would tempt some people.
by Se Hace La Vista Gorda on Mar 18, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay Miled I'll bite
If the NBA marketed it as the “D League” and what not, then who knows? What I do know is that the NBDL has a chance to stick if the league, and the teams, really take it seriously. I hope they do.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
The Rivercats do pretty well in Sacramento, from what I hear.
Nice stadium, low prices, great place to take the family, chance to see some players who might become stars. It’s all good. I don’t know why it wouldn’t work for the NBA, but the NBA will have to invest money and resources for that to happen.
The funny thing is Miled
Raley Field is nicer than the Oakland Coliseum for baseball.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
I doubt it
They’re not likely to make Sacramento their home and leave the Bay Area for good.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....
I love it when that happens
Not that it happened to Dave, rather that most the heat had nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with the teams mentioned. It happens in FanPosts all the time.
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
Guaranteed Contracts
The first thing the NBA needs to do next collective bargaining agreement is figure out a way to get non-performing players off NBA rosters. If you are not an NBA caliber player anymore, teams need to have a way to clear your roster spot for someone who is to improve the level of their product. The only reason a lot of guys are still in the league is that they have a large guaranteed contract. I’m all for partial guaranteed contracts, but fully guaranteed is insane and is hurting the league. I’m not against contraction, but would give it more time and try to fix the CBA first.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Video: Boston works in a half-court football snap after winning the tip
- Judging the choices for the Eastern Conference All-Star team reserves
- Judging the choices for the Western Conference All-Star team reserves
- Jeremy Lin draws inspiration from Tim Tebow
- Stephen Jackson is already tired of Milwaukee
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
