Bill Simmons Article on "How He Would Fix The Lockout"

[Kane3387]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6749669/if-ruled-nba-world

It's long but it's good. There are good points in there and some of his solutions while a bit radical make sense. He can sell his ideas and I like the Lottery teams tournament idea. It be tight.

[PosImpos]

It's interesting, although I'm not sure I really agree with him about the whole "small market teams have no place in the NBA" and "parity is for the NFL" thing.

I don't think I prefer a "top-heavy, bottom-heavy" league.  I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two and a bunch of role players and just see which one comes together / employs the best strategies / gets luckiest from year to year.  Sure, it makes it harder for there to be truly "great" teams that dominate for 5-6 years at a time, but it also means more teams get a chance at greatness. 

Dynasties are great for the fans of the teams dominating.  They suck for everybody else.

[Bahku]

It's interesting, although I'm not sure I really agree with him about the whole "small market teams have no place in the NBA" and "parity is for the NFL" thing.

I don't think I prefer a "top-heavy, bottom-heavy" league.  I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two and a bunch of role players and just see which one comes together / employs the best strategies / gets luckiest from year to year.  Sure, it makes it harder for there to be truly "great" teams that dominate for 5-6 years at a time, but it also means more teams get a chance at greatness.  

Dynasties are great for the fans of the teams dominating.  They suck for everybody else.

Well said, Pos, (TP) ... I don't read much Simmons of late, (for personal reasons), but I felt this was worth a perusal. "Dynasty" teams really are a part of what's wrong with the NBA, (and part of me hates to say that) ... the inbalance between the real contenders and the small market teams doesn't really serve the people who this whole show is about, (or should be about), the fans. He has an interesting take, but as usual his (somewhat) tunnel-vision doesn't really provide the answer we're all hoping for, or even put us on the right track.

[PosImpos]

It's interesting, although I'm not sure I really agree with him about the whole "small market teams have no place in the NBA" and "parity is for the NFL" thing.

I don't think I prefer a "top-heavy, bottom-heavy" league.  I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two and a bunch of role players and just see which one comes together / employs the best strategies / gets luckiest from year to year.  Sure, it makes it harder for there to be truly "great" teams that dominate for 5-6 years at a time, but it also means more teams get a chance at greatness.  

Dynasties are great for the fans of the teams dominating.  They suck for everybody else.

Well said, Pos, (TP) ... I don't read much Simmons of late, (for personal reasons), but I felt this was worth a perusal. "Dynasty" teams really are a part of what's wrong with the NBA, (and part of me hates to say that) ... the inbalance between the real contenders and the small market teams doesn't really serve the people who this whole show is about, (or should be about), the fans. He has an interesting take, but as usual his (somewhat) tunnel-vision doesn't really provide the answer we're all hoping for, or even put us on the right track.

Yeah.

The argument that I most often hear in support of dynasties / a top heavy league is that it's much more exciting to watch teams full of stars, to watch truly great teams square off in the Finals.  That's how it should be, right?

Yet I pose this counter-example:

The NBA champion Dallas Mavericks this year were a high salary team, well over the luxury tax.  That's true.  Yet they were not heavily laden with superstars.  Instead, they had one really good players and a great supporting cast and they played really good basketball and they beat a team full of superstars.  That team full of superstars, by the way, played a pretty ugly brand of iso-heavy basketball.  I, for one, do not enjoy watching the Heat.

Oh, and by the way, the Bruins team that just won the title wasn't the favorite to win the title by any stretch.  They had a magical post-season run, overcoming teams that they weren't supposed to beat.  Yet what we got out of an unexpected Stanley Cup Finals matchup was an epic 7 game series.

I could point to the 2010 World Series Champion Giants as another example of a team not full of superstars that played really well as a team and had a magical, incredibly entertaining post-season run.

I would rather watch any of those very un-dynastic teams than a high payroll team of in-their-prime stars -- not only because they play great team ball, but because the storylines surrounding them as underdog champions of teams that hadn't won in many years (or ever) were really enthralling.

[RAG50K]

It's interesting, although I'm not sure I really agree with him about the whole "small market teams have no place in the NBA" and "parity is for the NFL" thing.

I don't think I prefer a "top-heavy, bottom-heavy" league.  I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two and a bunch of role players and just see which one comes together / employs the best strategies / gets luckiest from year to year.  Sure, it makes it harder for there to be truly "great" teams that dominate for 5-6 years at a time, but it also means more teams get a chance at greatness. 

Dynasties are great for the fans of the teams dominating.  They suck for everybody else.

The thing that sells the most in the NBA is winning. Not superstars, not large markets, just winning. So if a team has a 50-55 win season, they're well on track for a profitable and successful season.
However,if the league wasn't top and bottom heavy, the talent would be far more diluted. Teams would struggle to win 40-45 games. You can argue that this would make the season more interesting, but lack of truly great teams would create teams playing sketchy, inconsistent basketball, and winning championships at it. That's one of the reasons the NBA was so terrible in the 70's, despite 8 different teams winning championships.
All of us agree that the 80's were the era with the best basketball. But imagine if Bird was alone in Boston, with McHale stuck in Kansas City and Parish in Golden State, Magic alone on the Fakers,Kareem putting the Bucks on his back, Moses in Houston, Dr. J in Philly or Isiah alone in Detroit? If Pippen and Jordan had never teamed up, would either of them have won a championship? If the Spurs weren't lucky enough to get Duncan, would Robinson have won? Or would Pierce, Garnett or Allen ever won in Boston,Minnesota and Seattle alone?
The greatest period for any sport has been one in which only some teams are very very good. It may suck to be a fan of a very very bad franchise, but league-wise, these are the most successful times

[Casperian]

Well, I definitely agree with him that NBA salaries have to be incentive-based. I would go even a step further and connect the amount of the "incentives" to the shared league profit in a given year instead of a fix sum. There would be no need for rules to regulate player behaviour if your salary is directly tied to the profit of the league as a whole, in my opinion (I know, keep dreaming).

I also agree with his practical suggestion that the league should adopt jersey sponsors as european teams do. I´ve always wondered why the league doesn´t even look into the possibility, since euro teams make a considerable amount off of these deals. With the league losing money, it´s almost a criminal act of gross negligence.

I agree with PosImpos, however, in that I believe the league has to make sure there is some kind of parity between teams. From a pure fan perspective, I don´t want to see the same usual suspects at the top of the league year in and out (except for the Celtics, of course^^). The thing is, if money is the league´s biggest concern, then the league needs big brands (dynasties in big cities), and the big brands need a competitive league.

[TheReaLPuba]

The deal would only promote selfish stat padding basketball.

I'm glad Simmons is only a fair weather writer.

He would totally ruin basketball for everyone.

[LooseCannon]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

[cman88]

a hard cap HAS to be put in place to save the league...this is something that the players are going to have to cave into. and of course they consider it a "blood issue"....

everyone outside of the players can see that NBA players are some of the most rediculously paid athletes. this is a league where Eddy Curry can make 11million$ sitting on the bench over-eating

the league with the formation of the Heat, Knicks etc. is migrating into this era of stockpiling as many ISO player stars as you can..if thats the brand of basketball you want to watch, il stop watching..

a hard cap will promote putting together teams that are "Really good" around a superstar and playing more team ball....The 2010 Celtics that pushed the Lakers to 7 didnt have any superster player, just alot of "really good" players...same with the 2011 Dallas mavericks

[Kane3387]

I really got a kick out of how the agents look at negotiating with some of these GMs as taking candy away from a baby. Those guys really are master negotiators and there should be rules or something to protect some of these GMs from being manipulated into these horrible mid-tier player contracts.

[KGs Knee]

Read this article last night.  After some thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that his ideas aren't that bad.  Some I agree with, others not so much.

His idea of a lottery tournament for the 8th seeds is awesome.  I would tweak it a little though.  1st get rid of divisions, keep the conferences.  The NBA doesn't really have very many true division rivalries.  The sport's greatest rivalry isn't even a conference rivalry (C's/Lakers).  Have the bottom 8 teams from each conference play a single-elimination tournament with the East tourney-final in NYC and West tourney-final in LA, drop the extra draft pick idea.  Maybe with the incentive of getting at least one pseudo-playoff home game, seeding for the tourney would be important enough to prevent tanking, and at the same time eliminate the need for the draft lottery (I just hate the lottery).  Draft picks would then be strictly based on regular season record.

As far as his idea that having a top/bottom heavy league being ok, I'm torn.  Having dynasties is a good thing (it draws casual fans).  On the other hand, having consistenly bad teams creates less interest in local markets.  Also, why can't these owners agree to revenue share?  Are the rich NBA owners somehow more important than rich owners in any other sport?  If the Yankees, Red Sox, Cowboys, NY Giants, and other rich team's owners can agree to revenue share, why can't NBA owners?  They need to get over themselves.

The BRI splits, cap system, salary slotting sytem he suggests might work and it is definitely progessive.  Honestly, I'm not sure about it, but, at least it's better than what either side currently is after.  The owners must realize the players are not going to allow them to lock the players out of the potential revenue increase that may come with a new TV deal (which is up for renewal in 5 years).  The players need to realize the length of their current contracts just isn't working.  I would suggest nothing more than 3 year gauranteed contracts (longer can be offered-just not gauranteed).

Overall, this was actually one of the few pieces from Simmons that wasn't complete garbage, which surprised me.

[KGs Knee]

a hard cap HAS to be put in place to save the league...this is something that the players are going to have to cave into. and of course they consider it a "blood issue"....

everyone outside of the players can see that NBA players are some of the most rediculously paid athletes. this is a league where Eddy Curry can make 11million$ sitting on the bench over-eating

the league with the formation of the Heat, Knicks etc. is migrating into this era of stockpiling as many ISO player stars as you can..if thats the brand of basketball you want to watch, il stop watching..

a hard cap will promote putting together teams that are "Really good" around a superstar and playing more team ball....The 2010 Celtics that pushed the Lakers to 7 didnt have any superster player, just alot of "really good" players...same with the 2011 Dallas mavericks

A hard cap is a must?  Naw, I don't buy it.  You say the 2008 Celtics were a team without superstars.  Not according to their salaries.  The 2008 C's would never have been allowed to happen with a hard cap.  Pierce, KG, & Ray would have been over the cap just by themselves.

Everyone out side of the players can see the NBA players are some of the most over paid?  So, what am I? A nobody?  I don't think they are all that over paid at all, outside of a select few.  NBA players make some of the highest salaries simply due to the fact the NBA has the least number of players compared to other leagues.  The revenue created per player is probably the highest of any league.  Of course it stands to reason their salaries are going to be the highest.

[soap07]

Every now and then, Simmons still brings his fastball.

[KGs Knee]

I really got a kick out of how the agents look at negotiating with some of these GMs as taking candy away from a baby. Those guys really are master negotiators and there should be rules or something to protect some of these GMs from being manipulated into these horrible mid-tier player contracts.

TP

Only in the NBA would this happen.  Look at football and baseball.  The teams making smart decisions all have one thing in common, smart, business-educated GM's, not ex-players.

NBA owners need to smarten up and stop hiring ex-players as GMs, and start going after guys like the Epsteins and Cashmans of the world.

[mgent]

It's interesting, although I'm not sure I really agree with him about the whole "small market teams have no place in the NBA" and "parity is for the NFL" thing.

I don't think I prefer a "top-heavy, bottom-heavy" league.  I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two and a bunch of role players and just see which one comes together / employs the best strategies / gets luckiest from year to year.  Sure, it makes it harder for there to be truly "great" teams that dominate for 5-6 years at a time, but it also means more teams get a chance at greatness.  

Dynasties are great for the fans of the teams dominating.  They suck for everybody else.

Well said, Pos, (TP) ... I don't read much Simmons of late, (for personal reasons), but I felt this was worth a perusal. "Dynasty" teams really are a part of what's wrong with the NBA, (and part of me hates to say that) ... the inbalance between the real contenders and the small market teams doesn't really serve the people who this whole show is about, (or should be about), the fans. He has an interesting take, but as usual his (somewhat) tunnel-vision doesn't really provide the answer we're all hoping for, or even put us on the right track.

Yeah.

The argument that I most often hear in support of dynasties / a top heavy league is that it's much more exciting to watch teams full of stars, to watch truly great teams square off in the Finals.  That's how it should be, right?

Yet I pose this counter-example:

The NBA champion Dallas Mavericks this year were a high salary team, well over the luxury tax.  That's true.  Yet they were not heavily laden with superstars.  Instead, they had one really good players and a great supporting cast and they played really good basketball and they beat a team full of superstars.  That team full of superstars, by the way, played a pretty ugly brand of iso-heavy basketball.  I, for one, do not enjoy watching the Heat.

Oh, and by the way, the Bruins team that just won the title wasn't the favorite to win the title by any stretch.  They had a magical post-season run, overcoming teams that they weren't supposed to beat.  Yet what we got out of an unexpected Stanley Cup Finals matchup was an epic 7 game series.

I could point to the 2010 World Series Champion Giants as another example of a team not full of superstars that played really well as a team and had a magical, incredibly entertaining post-season run.

I would rather watch any of those very un-dynastic teams than a high payroll team of in-their-prime stars -- not only because they play great team ball, but because the storylines surrounding them as underdog champions of teams that hadn't won in many years (or ever) were really enthralling.

Yet the Mavs were still at the top of a top-heavy league.  It's not that the Heat were significantly more talented, their talent was just focused in two players.  If the league was more evened-out then you wouldn't have good well-rounded teams like the Mavs and the Celtics.  You'd either have average well-rounded teams with no stars, like the Nuggets, or teams with only 1 star and a bunch of crap, like the Pacers, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Clippers, 76ers.

Nobody wants to see the game go back to the boring AI/TMac/Vince isolation days of the last decade (which made a huge comeback last year between Miami, Melo going to NY and hogging the ball twice as much, and the recent change in style of Westbrook) but I don't see how watering down the league and making it more even would fix that.  If anything it would actually encourage it (AI, Vince, and TMac were all pretty much the only stars on their teams).

It might make for a more interesting regular season, but at the cost of a more boring playoffs (aka the games that matter).  Who wants to see the Nuggets play the Pacers?  I'd rather watch a clash of the titans any day, even if it means having to only watch big market teams.