This Could Save the NBA
Though March brings out some of the best in basketball – everything that you love about the Tournament – it also inspires annual criticism of the NBA. Sports talking heads get on the League for a number of things, some valid and some not.
SI’s Ian Thomsen outlined five arguments that he’s heard from college hoops fans against the NBA: (1) that defense is better in college than the League, (2) that the NBA is “all about money” and college isn’t, (3) that NBA players can’t shoot, (4) that NBA players don’t care, and (5) that coaching doesn’t matter in the NBA. I generally agree with Thomsen that these are largely bogus.
However, I think there are some legit issues with the League, which have become more evident in March.
* There’s a real financial crisis happening in the NBA. Though nobody really wants to hear about this at length given the monetary troubles everywhere in the U.S. today, it’s undeniable that the NBA is suffering from financial issues that NCAA basketball doesn’t have to deal with. Attendance is way down in six markets. Though Stern’s office said that attendance is actually up across the board, that doesn’t account for people actually showing up to games – it’s just tickets sold. No one actually believes that more people are at games than in the recent past. Stern’s office borrowed $175 million on behalf of 15 teams. Even the Magic – a team with a bona fide superstar – have to get in on a $10 million loan.
More on a solution to this in a bit…
* Esquire, SPIN, and all-around genius writer Chuck Klosterman recently spoke about his preference for college ball in this podcast. He argues that he would rather watch a game of basketball played at a high level of intensity than a game played at a high level of skill. He says that he can’t sit through an entire non-playoff NBA game because players don’t put it all on the line every night.
Now I don’t think that Klosterman means he’d rather watch a group of four-year olds getting after it on every play rather than an NBA game. Nor do I think that he means he’d rather watch Wisconsin-Northwestern than Lakers-Celtics. But in general, a college game between two high-major teams is more intense than a regular season NBA game.
* This is of far less consequence than either of the aforementioned problems, but it’s worth mentioning. There is arguably less parity in the NBA today than in college hoops or any of the major sports. The Tournament is the great equalizer. Year-to-year literally any team in the NFL can make the playoffs without making any blockbuster trades (re: the NFC South). MLB doesn’t have quite an even playing field, as there are teams in MLB who pretty much never see the post-season. But with teams like the Rockies and Rays having a lot of success in the playoffs in recent years, teams can turn things around in a single-season without huge roster moves here too.
Is there anything that the NBA can do to account for these things?
There are some solutions which won’t change the way that we experience the game now. Nate Jones of Jones on the NBA proposed that the League strengthen its revenue sharing so that it more closely mirrors the NFL’s. Right now the NFL shares 75% of revenue among all teams, while the League shares 25%. This could help the financial straits, as teams like the Knicks who seem capable of weathering any financial storm would be able to help out other franchises. More money for more teams could help to address the issue of parity in the League.
But there’s another idea out there.
Contraction.
Fewer teams means fewer regular season games, which would naturally ramp up the intensity of every single contest. Fewer teams means that the last guy on the bench has to compete harder to hold his spot, and that teams will be stacked with more than one standout per. Fewer teams means that college kids will have incentive to stay in school longer to groom their games so that they’re really ready for the League. Fewer teams means that if the League decided to share revenue, they wouldn’t have to spread it as thinly as they would otherwise. Fewer teams means that the franchises currently requiring loans wouldn’t be weighing things down anymore.
Dave from Blazers Edge proposed this idea recently, and suggested that the League trim down to 24 teams, in which the Kings, Grizzlies, Pacers, Bobcats, T-Wolves, and Thunder hit the cutting room floor. That would mean that Kevin Martin, Andres Nocioni, Kevin Durant, Al Jefferson, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, Rudy Gay, O.J. Mayo, Gerald Wallace, Emeka Okafor, D.J. Augustin would be available to stack other rosters.
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.
Do you think that NBA contraction is the answer? Or do you think that the League will get through these issues without needing an overhaul of any sort?
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
weezy f says:
not the answer…the teams that you mentioned should get cut can get better too…memphis and sacramento were once really good teams as well as the pacers..the bobcats are on the verge of getting a playoff spot..the kings and thunder all have good young players that just need some more time
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
YO MOMMA says:
that would make the nba more exciting but it would also cost a lot of fringe nba players their jobs
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
craig990 says:
Good read Dime!
IMO…. It would be good to reduce the number of teams. Less teams = Less Games= Games hold more importance= Players play harder every game.
With more stacked teams, the odds would be even, and it gives each team an opportunity to win. However, from a financial stand point, players would make less money, the league would charge even more to attend NBA games because the quality of entertainment would greatly increase with stacked teams.
Another down side is that we won’t get to see a players true value and players and teams fighting against the odds.. i.e Dwayne Wade and the Miami Heat, with Wade practically doing something special every night just so the Heat can have a chance to win the game.
All in all.. its a good idea.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
bsteezy3 says:
I think it just SOUNDS like a good idea. Let’s be honest, the NBA is a major company in the USA, and although they want to show competitive basketball at high levels by some of the best athletes in the world, the NBA boils down to money. Contraction is good for now, since teams are struggling (I still can’t believe the Magic need a loan. I mean, they are in the same city as Disney…), but once the financial situation works out, then there would be expansion talk again. I think it’s getting out of hand though. I’m sure there were teams once thinking that Orlando was a bad place to have a NBA team, but when its at places like Oklahoma City and Toronto…uhhh…maybe we are overboard a little… I think the games may be a little more competitive with fewer teams, but I don’t think it would make a huge difference.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
craig990 says:
Also.. with that…records would be pretty much safe.
Scoring records, All-time leading scorers.. etc.. players wont have to put up such big numbers anymore..i.e Lebron and his triple -double threat every night
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
foolio_iglesias says:
D Wade ‘doing something special’ every night is virtually shortening his career.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Big Shot BOB says:
Yeah I think this idea would be going in the wrong direction. The NBA should expand not get smaller. The revenue sharing is a good idea but cutting teams is not. Stern has worked too hard at moving the league into a international business and I think they are almost there. Like everything else as the economy get’s better so will the financial situation. I can invision one day watching my Warriors play some team in italy one day then a team from france at home in oracle arena the next week. More teams sharing revenue also makes it so it’s not spread thin. Plus the fact there are so many good players that shortening the teams would mean we might not get to see alot of them play.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Banga says:
Contraction is a good idea however David Stern will NEVER agree to it
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Mr. Free Sports Betting says:
Contraction is an interesting idea. Usually it comes in the form of mergers and acquisitions, but in this case, you are referring to the collapse of teams. Perhaps NBA salaries need to come into question. These salaries are the biggest expenses and everyone knows that these teams could survive without having to shell out these huge contracts. So my question is, what is better, NBA players taking pay cuts or the loss of jobs from Team Execs, team personnel, security, cleaning crew, ticket staff, etc.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
MadSammyboy says:
It’s a great idea. Fewer teams means a less diluted talent pool. Two conferences of three divisions each, with four teams in each division. A 60-game schedule, where each team plays every team in the other conference twice, every team in its own conference thrice, and every team in in its own division an extra time. Division leaders plus one wildcard make the playoffs every year (just like in baseball- no more of this nonsense of more than half the teams in the league making the playoffs every year). The regular season would be more interesting to watch, which would mean the NBA wouldn’t have have to squeeze two months out of the playoffs (the first round is, like, two weeks long every year- why?!)
It’s absolutely insane to think of a league where the high-end players are bringing home 15-20 million dollars, and the teams have to take out loans to stay afloat. Let’s make the whole operation smaller and more streamlined, then look at growth later, after the operation’s profitable again and public interest has been rejuvenated by a more interesting, more exciting product.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
mosduff says:
best Dime article ever.
I haven’t thought about this contraction idea before but it makes sense. I’m all for it.
Won’t happen though. Vampire Lord Stern won’t hear it. The douche bag is trying to get a franchise in London in 2012 i heard.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Big Shot BOB says:
Now were talking Free Sports Betting. But it has to happen internationally. If the NBA cut it’s salaries too much players would just sign over sea’s.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
George W Kush Sr says:
Less would make a huge difference man. The NBA is a huge company in the USA but also world wide. They sell in Canada, Europe, China, etc.
They’re generating a lot of TV revenue both internationally and nationally, there is a lot of money, but certain markets are obviously small and dont generate revenue.
Trimming the number of teams will alos increase the level of competition undoubtedly. If they shorten the contracts to 5 years tops and $80M-$90M tops, I mean $16M-$18M/year is chump change compared to what you and I make but I’m sure these guys will find someway to survive off that. But it also makes less room for Fringe players that should be playing overseas. Teams can get rid of bad big men or old men’s contracts earlier. Salaries come off the books quicker, new players get signed quicker so you better bust ya ass or you’re out in a season or two, tops draft picks are waiting to take your place, etc, etc.
I agree with cutting some teams.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Kobeef says:
1. NBA is better than college because NBA athletes do things on every play that you will never see in a season og College ball. The competition is exciting in the NCAA but sometimes it gets frustrating watching them clang shot after shot off the rim. Also, having to wait through entire day of games to see a highlight reel dunk is frustratiing. Simply put, the game is played on another level in the NBA and real fans appreciate that.
2. While I do like the idea of contraction I can’t see it happening. If anything the NBA will have more teams in 5 years than they do now – especially when the NBA starts setting up teams on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean AND across the Pacific Ocean. I can imagine NBA teams in London and Beijing before 2015.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Austin Burton says:
I actually prefer college ball: the rivalries, the variety of styles, the fans’ enthusiasm, and you don’t get situations like players being paid to stay away from a team. Yeah, college is a money game just like the NBA, but with college there’s less focus on the business end.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
doc says:
All that shit is bullshit.The league fine just like it is.Or u motherfuckers wouldnt be on here every day.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Paul says:
The NBA should implement both ideas. Revenue share should be increased from the 25% to at least a 50%; giving smaller markets a bigger chance to compete.
Although contraction seams like a good idea, it should be taken carefully. Remember that competition in Europe is getting better by the minute, so an approach to make the NBA more competitive is a MUST (in other words, no more Vince Carter’s that don’t play 100% in every game and more LeBron’s and Wade’s playing at a high level).
If we cut teams in the small markets, the bigger markets should not be allowed to increase their ticket prices, it won’t be fair to the common fan. Also, I think GM’s should manage their cap in a more efficient way (how come a benchwarmer like Jerome James is a 6M man? or No. 2 guys like Iguodala or Marion pocketing 12M and 17M, respectively?
Sadly, it has become a numbers/money game, and it’s time to change that culture.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Dime Magazine says:
A-Train I’m with you.
I can see what everyone’s saying about Stern not wanting to make this move. The notion of contraction is almost like admitting defeat. And, it goes against his biggest point of emphasis – to try to expand and spread basketball throughout the world. Like Kobeef said, we’ve heard rumors about creating a franchise in London – and nothing about pairing down the number of teams.
But aside from those two issues – which are more about Stern’s and the League’s pride – should Stern be averse to making this move? As we establish above, it could seriously help the game play, and ultimately help bring the NBA back to prominence. Among mainstream American’s and mainstream sports fans, the NBA is almost seen as second-tier to the college game.
I can’t imagine that this would hurt the NBA’s bottom line right now. Remember – these six franchises are currently in the red. It wouldn’t cut into the number of games played. The remaining 24 teams would still play 82 game seasons. Thus, they’d play each other more often, and hopefully create more heated rivalries in doing so.
Wouldn’t that help the League’s finances?
- AK
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Dime Magazine says:
haha Doc I didn’t mean to piss you off – I think that the League is really good right now, but I think that it could be better…
- AK
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Big Island says:
If people really wanted to watch a “game where people care more”, they would watch women’s games. People watch the NBA because LeBron and Dwight can jump out of the building and guys do stuff nobody else can. A good college game is better than a good pro game because for most college guys, that is it.
I do agree that contraction would be great for the competition and how hard guys play, but mostly because the season is shorter. It’s easy to take a night off when you know you are getting into the playoffs and then bust your ass to go for the title. If they revamped the playoff system to take the division winners and the next 10 teams by record or something like that there would be a ton of interest and you could get a Finals matchup like the Kings/Lakers a few years back or Cavs/Celtics now. Just kill the Clippers.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Shrink This says:
Contraction will never happen (though i’d volunteer the raptors if the NBA’s looking).
The NBA, its teams and just about everyone else will survive this recession (and hopefully learn something from it).
While I enjoy college basketball, I wish that the players could benefit more financially from it. The schools make huge amounts of money off these guys and while I understand that the schools provide ‘an education’, it doesn’t seem fair that the Colleges get to keep ALL of the money.
If they’re worried the players will blow it all during college, pay them a living allowance during their playing years and then some every year to help them get their lives started after college. Of course this will never happen either…
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
FIRE KATZ says:
you really should go to school and learn some economics.
where does the nba makes the most money? Tickets? haha no.
TV broadcasting, less games = less target audience = less advertising which means small tv deal.
your idea would cause a downward spiraling black hole from which the league would never recover from.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
karizmatic says:
The league doesn’t really need a contraction, but a contraction would definitely help to make the league more competitive.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Dime Magazine says:
my dude,
I promise I’m not disagreeing with you because your choice of names.
I just don’t think that’s right. Right now, how often do you see the T-Wolves, Kings, Thunder, Pacers and Bobcats on national TV?
The League doesn’t make any real money from those local broadcasts – they’re only shown in tiny markets or on the League Pass, which isn’t nearly as lucrative as some of the other major sports TV packages (MLBTV or NFL Sunday Ticket).
The League gets a good chunk of cash from ABC/ESPN for those high-profile games.
But I think that you’re missing the jist of what I’m saying here. If you cut out the fat from the League, it will create a better overall product. Instead of watching a game in which guys aren’t really going 100% and the talent pool is somewhat diluted, the League could present 24 teams stacked with better players, in which guys play as hard as they do in college ball.
That would only drive more people to watch, and thereby create more demand for advertising. That’s where the dollars are, right?
-ak
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
doc says:
@aK-I love my ball dog lol.Only thing I dont like is the flagrant calls these days.College ball do let u foul harder.Half of Nova players would’ve got kicked out a damn NBA game for good hard fouls they put on UCLA.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Heckler...formerly 'Yallallreadyknow' says:
bogus column. there is no need to compare ncaa college basketball and nba basketball. they have NO similarities except for the concept of basketball itself.
nothing mentioned is a surprise to anyone. thats why college is college and the nba is the nba.
now…as for contraction, that doesn’t really solve any issues. the league will lose money if they contract six teams. not to mention jobs.
the nba is contracted (in terms of total team count) as compared to the nfl and mlb. not to mention ncaa bball which has over 90 division 1 teams.
the nba already has less teams….so how does contraction really help?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Bilal says:
contraction is never going to happen. not only is it detrimental to the economy generally (increasing unemployment, further decrease the sales of businesses in the cities where the franchises would be removed from) but how do you determine which franchises to remove? do you base it on revenues solely or valuation of the team or record?
i was looking on the forbes site about the nba teams and based on valuation of the team for 08, the teams that would be removed from the nba would be the nets, clippers, grizzlies, hornets, bobcats,and bucks. Also all those who mentioned the raptors as a potential team to contract, little do you know that last year they were 11th in terms of revenuee and valuation.
sports teams seem to live by different rules regarding the economy, here in UK the EPL soccer teams continue to increase the wages for players and spend money on strengthening the team.
regarding the competitivness of the NBA,teams need greater incentives to become more competative. i think that revenues sharing needs to increase but on a gradded scale, such that the teams have to be higher placed to get more money. i also like the idea of scrapping the divisions and just having 2 conferences where record gets your place for the playoffs
playoff also need to be shorter. yes stern wants to maximise the earnings from tv and having competitive series is good, but really why not make the 1st and 2nd rounds of the playoffs best of 33 games or just a single game
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Bilal says:
i mean best of 3 games not 33
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
mosduff says:
“playoff also need to be shorter. yes stern wants to maximise the earnings from tv and having competitive series is good, but really why not make the 1st and 2nd rounds of the playoffs best of 33 games or just a single game”
disagree with this. Long playoff battles are what differentiates NBA and college postseasons. I like em both, but 7 game playoff series are dope.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
nao_diga says:
Revenue sharing, yes.
Fewer games, yes.
Contraction, no.
It’s the players’ league. They own 55%, and they aren’t going to do anything that reduces their income unless there is no other option. Empty arenas show that there is potential to generate the same profits with fewer games. But fewer teams mean less demand for players, which will reduce salaries.
There isn’t that big a difference between the talent of the 50 worst players in the NBA and the next 50 players available (D-league, CBA, international, college players that don’t make it, etc.) Spread the superstars around (revenue sharing, fewer games and more teams will do that) and they’ll shine even more. That will be augmented by the improvement in intensity and reduction in injury by shortening the season.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Bilal says:
fewer teams would drive up the price of the elite players as they will be in short supply and high demand
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
POPPI GEE says:
Yea, yea, yea I know it’s long, but read it bums!
All against the grain I guess.
I am thinking I am the only dude that wants even more teams to be added. I am down with some other states having squads that don’t have ANY NBA squad. More the better to me.
This way you got more jobs, more players in college lookin forward to the L to rep a state (more on that later) and even more excitement for when those new teams become part of the haves and not the have-nots.
Of course then you don’t have teams loaded down with 3 and 4 stars. Then again you do because some no name cats step up and become stars.
Now what you do to make all this worth it’s while is
1. Shorten the NBA season. First off cut pre-season out all together and if you make it say 30 or 40 games plus conference tourneys (more on that in 2) then that helps with players bring it hard more often and rival games more intense cause they count so much more.
2. You want the intensity of college then you have to do and mirror things that the college game does. Just like you have an ACC and Big East Tourney, make your different divisions have tournaments to crown the winner fa sho. This is how your big games like Duke vs. Carolina, Georgetown vs. Syracuse and others become so big, they see each other about 2 to 3 times and those times count in a big way.
3. Then instead of the playoffs in the NBA follow the college format. Say with 8 teams added then you have a selection committee and they grant only say 32 teams a chance to dance. Now I know that with the dropping the best of 7 NBA stuff people will argue that the best team really won’t be crowned. Still, if you run a tournament table to win in the end you most def. the best squad for that year in my book.
So now look what’s added, you got fans hoping there team can get off the bubble, a whole selection show for when the teams are selected and your top teams (just like now) still get to be high seeds.
Plus your teams that don’t make it still can do the NBA style lottery for a great player coming out of college.
4. The NBA needs to lower some of these player contracts for real. This is a whole notha soapbox for me. I am just thinking though, the reason you have to borrow and otherwise is because the players make way to much, WAY to much for a sport they play all the way to college for free.
Now I ain’t saying they gotta make what teachers make(that needs to be fixed too) but at the same time some contracts different guys have are plain outrageous and many don’t even live up to the dollars they sign for. And this just ain’t for the NBA, but it’s for all sports. Again this is another soapbox.
I know subtracting money from players is way easier said than done and likely to never happen, but it is a solution that could work. Trust me, players still gonna play and college dudes still gonna look to making it to the L. Also, now you have money to create jobs for your new teams and lower ticket prices which will bring even more fans to the arenas.
5. On reason the college game is so intense is because so many cats that did attend or are currently attending the school they cheer for feel that belonging with players that attend the same school they did and walk the same grounds the walked or walk.
So, while the NBA is not a college what must happen is the states that have 3 and 2 teams must only have 1. This is the closest way you have that feel of riding with the team representing your state. Mind you tickets are lower so more fans will come out. What you do is have that 1 team of the state play in different venues in that state for their home games. So your teams losing 3 teams still have a game to go to when it hits their city. Might not be as frequent but it will just make you really not want to miss it when they come. With each team reppin a state it will increase the intensity much closer to a college level.
6. Players have to stay on their teams longer and not hop around. One thing we love about the college game is because you get to know the players and expect that same star player or those same players back year after year (for those that stay). Do the same with the L and require dudes to stay with their teams for say 4 or 5 years. Again this breeds more fans of the players cause they stick around. Your additions of excitement to the team happen in the draft. Just like when freshmen enter your college.
7. Fouls gotta happen. I am saying keep it basketball but stop letting every time a player breaths extra hard be a foul. Bring back that old toughness that gave and made the good rival games. Teams remember the fouls, fans remember and rival games and teams are born.
I don’t expect agreement and ain’t askin fo it, but in my mind this works to me. Plus if nothing else I can create this situation or kinda close to it on a videogame at least.
Sorry so long.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
dagwaller says:
Decent idea in theory, but I hate the idea of contraction. Also, consider that San Antonio is probably considered “too small” of a market that, under separate circumstances would be contracted also.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
res. says:
Won’t happen though. Vampire Lord Stern won’t hear it. The douche bag is trying to get a franchise in London in 2012 i heard.
************************************************************
that’s not true. There are rumors to play a couple of regular season games in London and/or the all-star game in order to promote basketball since the 2012 Olympics will be there.
I HIGHLY doubt we will ever see teams in Europe. There are too many issues at work to make it happen anytime soon.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Dime Magazine says:
GEE nicely put.
- ak
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
e says:
i always say i wonder what nba players would be able to score facing various zones and different defenses and if the nba didnt have these ticky tack cant touch the defender rules i just like the college game way better than nba gets worse there some young guys on the come up im fond of though and at point in nba games you can clearly tell either refs make bets and throw games or some type of pay off is happening and stern knows this
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Willis says:
sorry. nobody was calling for contraction when the blazers sucked so how come the fans there can call for contraction of teams with pretty awful records?
there is no argument for pulling Sac out. None. In fact, there is a better argument for keeping them in than even Cleveland has.
Andrew Katz, you suck for putting up this stupid ass idea. Nothing more than a two bit blogger.
No argument for Indy either.
The Kings have made money every season before this one. Two season ago, they had sold out every game for the previous decade. For a while
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Willis says:
ps…
lets be consistent and ask for the removal of six more bad teams five years from now. hell, why not keep doing it until there is only one team that everyone can be a fan of! and, oh my, imagine the talent on that team! we could just watch them practice!
AK you are the worst. At least provide a counter-argument.
for some proper journalism, go here
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/03/18/nba-contraction-isnt-the-answer/
AB, Pat, and Christian should be the only people allowed to write online for you guys. God damn.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
king ralf says:
poppi gee, that´s just plain brillaint imho
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
POPPI GEE says:
Thanks AK and king ralf. I will always be a fan of the game regardless in so many degrees but just thinking what could be.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:55 am
sans says:
This will never happen, especially with Seattle as an open market right now. It’s a good idea, but saving the NBA is like saving Hip Hop, terribly trying to resuscitate living entities. The League could benefit from more hustle, a contracted schedule, more revenue sharing, and lowered ticket prices to garner more attendance, but contraction will never happen.
Isn’t Stern trying to expand with Euro squads by 2012?
March 24th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Dime Magazine says:
Willis,
I wasn’t saying that the Kings should automatically be cut if the NBA decided to contract. In fact, I was quoting Dave from Blazers Edge when choosing which teams to lop off.
The central idea here is not about which teams to eliminate, it’s about a suggestion to solve a number of issues in the NBA today. That’s what the article you linked to is missing. They talk about the financial crisis in the League – and the world in general – but they fail to talk about the issues with the NBA’s style of play, it’s second-place to college hoops in the eyes of mainstream Americans, and the complete lack of parity year-to-year without major roster changes.
I’m suggesting that contraction might be able to address all of those issues, but no where in this article do I say that it’s the definitive, final answer.
- ak
March 24th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Mr. Free Sports Betting says:
The Clippers just got a hostile bid from the Lakers….Contraction is starting!!!
March 24th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Willis says:
And I told Dave what I thought of that idea on that blog. I just thought that Dave (and you for that matter) were trying to use teams with bad records and attendance this season as scapegoats. I’d understand if we threw a few good teams in the discussion. (Like Atlanta, which happens to be one of the teams with the worst attendance numbers over the last decad, not one of the best ie. Sac)
The reason this really irks me is because Kings fans might end up losing their team anyway because of arena complications, so even suggesting contraction of a recently successful franchise and one of the original NBA teams hurts as well.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Dime Magazine says:
Willis,
Totally understand where you’re coming from. Someone else in this chain suggested a completely different lineup of teams to cut off if the NBA ever decided to contract, leaving the Kings and Pacers off.
I think it would be a big loss for the NBA to lose that Sac franchise. And I’d throw Indiana and Atlanta in that boat too. But, I also thought that it was a terrible thing that the Sonics left.
I’m all for holding on to the League’s best franchises – whether they’re having great or terrible years. But I’m also for improving the quality of play in the League so that it takes its rightful place as the unquestioned “best basketball” in the world. It irks me to think that college ball is a better “brand” of ball, simply because guys play harder at that level.
As Klosterman said in that podcast, “If college players practiced as hard as NBA players play, they’d be thrown off their team.” That’s not always the case – last night’s PHX/Denver game was hotly contested for 48 minutes with ‘Melo diving on the ground in the 3rd quarter, and everyone going all out. However, that was also a must-win game for Phoenix if they’re going to make the playoffs.
I’m all for any suggestion that would help to improve the quality of play.
-ak
March 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
mykee says:
Where’s the Clippers on that poll question? L.A. doesn’t need two franchises. Contraction wouldn’t work with Stern’s implemented me-first-I-am-a-superstar attitude. There is way too much ego in the League to implement some of those players into other teams.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
ur brother says:
nice article, but there has to be more solutions than to just cut those teams
March 26th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Detroit Dave says:
Im all for having cutting out a few of those teams but I dont believe it would happen. How about the NBA try this plan for 5 years. Cut the regular season to 60 games. Seed the best teams 1-16. Add 1 extra wild card rounds to the playoffs. Out of the rest of the teams that didn’t make the playoffs let them play an elimination tournament to get in the playoffs with the winner playing against the TOP overall seed.
How about cutting the rosters down to 12 players with no IR List?
Who needs OKC, Memphis, BOBCATS, CLIPPERS, T-WOLVES?
July 19th, 2009 at 5:17 am
Strength says:
How do you decide which teams/markets get cut and which don’t?
Is it really that easy to just say poof Sacramento you’re done?
Why cut Memphis when they’re no worse in attendance than Atlanta?
I don’t think contraction works. Some teams have good GMs some don’t.
I’m also not sure about revenue sharing. The Hornets almost traded Chandler because of financial reasons.
Revenue sharing could effect actual rosters and why would the Knicks go for that?
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Strength says:
came back to this again. I don’t think the NBA is going to contract to 24 teams. There’s too much money on the table for that.
I think instead the NBA should look to have more games between the top teams.
If the teams in both conference finals played eachother at least 4 times they’d have 10 additional games. the NBA would have 10 more high profile games.
The NBA could also regulate schedules based off the 16 teams that made the playoffs last year. Playing each playoff team one additional game would create a more competitive league.