NBA rule changes ( both realistic and fantasy)

[michigan adam]

I'd really like to see much more consistency in the shooting foul rules. Stars are breathed on and are shooting foul shots and normal Joe's get mauled and have to suck it up and keep playing. I also dont like the traveling calls not being enforced. Sometimes it's many extra steps too...

[Celtics2021]

Introduce a live challenge.  A coach can challenge something immediately after it was not called (say 3-5 seconds).  A failure, in addition to the loss of timeout and future challenges, also results in a technical free throw, and change of possession of applicable.

I hate obviously missed calls that lead to breakaways the other direction (for example, when Jaylen got tripped at the end of the Utah game at the beginning of the year), but obviously there needs to be a stiff penalty for an incorrect challenge so coaches do not challenge just to eliminate a breakaway.  Maybe it should be two free throws and the ball.

[CFAN38]

Listening to "The game theory podcast" hosts Sam Vencenie and Bryce Simon had an interesting take on tanking related rule changes.

To paraphrase:

tanking is never going away and either is the draft

the goal should be to incentives fewer teams to tank

every rule change comes with consequences


One of their ideas was to make the 1st pick solely based on record, worst record gets 1st pick. After that go to a lottery for 2-14. This means the worst team every year gets the "best player" in theory moving the talent where its needed. While teams will still tank realistically only 4-5 out of 30 teams have a shot at being that bad.

Rachel Nichols said the same thing - she added that you shouldn't be able to have the top pick (or top 3, I really don't remember) two years in a row. Though I'm not sure it will work, it is worth discussing. It's based on the thought that you'll never be able to completely eliminate tanking, so you may as well put in policies to minimize it. On the other hand, when there is a player like Flagg or Wemby available, I do think it may create a race to the bottom.

I was a big fan of the top teams not being eligible for top picks the following year(s) but sam made a good point in the pod. If 2-3 teams are not eligible for 1-3 but are able to land 4,5,6 they might still tank and a team in playin contention might have more incentive to loose given that less teams are eligible for the top picks.

[Moranis]

As I've said elsewhere if the league really wants to stop tanking the only way to do it is to make it financially hurt the owners.  I'm talking massive fines, like 8 figure type stuff.  When the money doesn't make sense to tank, teams will stop tanking.  You just have to be careful between being bad and tanking and that is often a very fine line.

The one thing I've mentioned in the past (probably several years) that I think would help is to make a rule that for games 1-80 of the season a player can only miss 1 game 2 times.  After that, each time they miss a game, they must miss a minimum of 3 games.  That would stop teams from resting players.  They'd obviously have to have rules about a guy that normally plays 30 minutes, but only plays 10 in a game, and things like that, but that would stop the resting, at least to the degree they do it now.  It would also probably help players not play through injuries that perhaps they should really be resting for.  So you slightly tweak your ankle early in the year, maybe the team just holds you out 3 games to save the 1 game rest for later in the year.  Things like that.  That to me would stop that. 

You do that hand in hand with heavy fines for tanking, and now all of a sudden the bad teams can't just randomly sit their best players for 3 games either without heavy financial consequences unless they are actually hurt or sick. 

[aefgogreen]

As I've said elsewhere if the league really wants to stop tanking the only way to do it is to make it financially hurt the owners.  I'm talking massive fines, like 8 figure type stuff.  When the money doesn't make sense to tank, teams will stop tanking.  You just have to be careful between being bad and tanking and that is often a very fine line.

I know the owners would never agree to it but I would implement the following. If a team:

1) misses the playoffs and play-in for consecutive seasons
2) has a losing record during that same period
3) does not improve their record during that same period

then the team must give season ticket holders a discount the next season.  Maybe 5 or 10 percent.  It may not stop tanking. And some teams that have bad luck with injuries will get hurt no doubt.  But it will give fans a break when the team is usually the only game in town. Unlike clubs, restaurants, or bars, you can't simply choose a new team to go to if you don't like the old one.

[Celtics2021]

Mike Zarren has had anti-tanking ideas for the draft for over a decades. I wonder if they are taken seriously this year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nba/news/re-inventing-the-wheel-mike-zarren-presents-modified-nba-draft-lottery-reform-proposals#

[aefgogreen]

Mike Zarren has had anti-tanking ideas for the draft for over a decades. I wonder if they are taken seriously this year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nba/news/re-inventing-the-wheel-mike-zarren-presents-modified-nba-draft-lottery-reform-proposals#

I think the league doesn't want bad teams to have no hope of getting better.  It's tricky to balance two conflicting ideas - bad teams need a way to acquire talent but the league doesn't want teams to be bad on purpose to acquire talent.

[Celtics2021]

Mike Zarren has had anti-tanking ideas for the draft for over a decades. I wonder if they are taken seriously this year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nba/news/re-inventing-the-wheel-mike-zarren-presents-modified-nba-draft-lottery-reform-proposals#

I think the league doesn't want bad teams to have no hope of getting better.  It's tricky to balance two conflicting ideas - bad teams need a way to acquire talent but the league doesn't want teams to be bad on purpose to acquire talent.

It seems like the pendulum has swung far enough in the other direction that maybe it is time for something drastic.  Has the existence of the lottery stopped Sacramento from being Sacramento (just bad regardless of intention)?  The NBA is a meritocracy, and the salary cap is supposed to already help with competitive balance (and the second apron rule seems to be having some real bite), so maybe it is time to stop rewarding losing.

[aefgogreen]

Mike Zarren has had anti-tanking ideas for the draft for over a decades. I wonder if they are taken seriously this year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nba/news/re-inventing-the-wheel-mike-zarren-presents-modified-nba-draft-lottery-reform-proposals#

I think the league doesn't want bad teams to have no hope of getting better.  It's tricky to balance two conflicting ideas - bad teams need a way to acquire talent but the league doesn't want teams to be bad on purpose to acquire talent.

It seems like the pendulum has swung far enough in the other direction that maybe it is time for something drastic.  Has the existence of the lottery stopped Sacramento from being Sacramento (just bad regardless of intention)?  The NBA is a meritocracy, and the salary cap is supposed to already help with competitive balance (and the second apron rule seems to be having some real bite), so maybe it is time to stop rewarding losing.

Valid point. I would also be in favor of having teams in the top five (or so) have their lottery odds based on the average of the past three seasons.  Front offices may be less likely to tank over time.  On the other hand, as you said, Sacramento is still Sacramento.  I live in the DC area, and I'm amazed how long the Wizards have remained bad.