How about a tiered system?

[Celtics18]

Let's make the NBA competitive again.  As a fan, the single most frustrating thing about the NBA is watching half of the teams in the league simply not being competitive and not even wanting to be competitive.  Every year, half the teams in the league are jockeying for lottery position, knowing they have no real shot at being a top contender. 

The fans have bought into being bad as a viable strategy to build an NBA franchise.  They feel that striking it big in the lottery is the only way out of being mediocre or bad.  Fans jump on board with the tank mentality because that's how the system is set up.

I'd love to see them change this system that rewards losing.  I think a tiered system like the one they have in European soccer could chance the loser mentality that exists for a majority of NBA franchises.

  We wouldn't need to contract any teams.  Keep 30 teams, but break them up into a first division, a second division, and a third division, with 10 teams in each division.  At the end of the season, relegate the bottom two teams in the first and second division to the second and third division, respectively, and promote the top two teams in the third and second division to the second and first division.  Each team would only play the teams in their own division during the regular season.

Scrap the playoffs and give the championship trophy to the team in each division that finishes with the best regular season record.  If two teams are tied for the lead or for relegation or promotion, have a two game home and home playoff to decide who advances or wins the division.

The season could be shortened to, say 54 games, meaning you would play each of the teams in your division six times over the course of the season. 

Along with this new system, I would eliminate the draft and simply make young prospects eligible to be signed as free agents as soon as they turn 18.

I'd eliminate the salary cap, too, but now I'm probably going overboard. 

I know most will hate this idea, saying that the rich will only get richer, but I say "so what?"  This is competition.  It shouldn't be about parity.  The small market teams will inevitably be outspent, but they'll have something to compete for other than a winning lottery ticket.  They can have dreams of winning their division, and getting promoted as their ultimate prize. 

Every team will have to bring it every night.  There won't be a meaningless 82 game preseason where half the games are against glorified D-League teams. 

Anyway, I know it's a crazy fantasy, but that's what I'd like to see. 

[Roy H.]

The problem with a tiered system in American sports is that nobody wants to pay top dollar for second-, third-, or fourth-tier games.  Fans won't pay the ticket prices and won't buy the merchandise at the same prices, and television revenue wouldn't be in the same ballpark.

Vastly lower revenue would mean less money for the lower-tier teams to spend.  They couldn't attract the top talent, so basically you'd have the English Premier league:  a handful of teams that are competitive, and a bunch of also-rans. 

It would downgrade the quality of play league-wide significantly, and it would bankrupt 2/3rds of the league.  Not a great idea, in my mind.

[kozlodoev]

The problem with a tiered system in American sports is that nobody wants to pay top dollar for second-, third-, or fourth-tier games.  Fans won't pay the ticket prices and won't buy the merchandise at the same prices, and television revenue wouldn't be in the same ballpark.

I've always found this funny in a country that goes ga-ga for college sports (that are clearly second-tier), and shows Little League on national TV

[Donoghus]

Don't like the idea of the tiered system at all.  Like Roy mentioned, its really a concept that wouldn't work over here.  If your team is relegated,  the interest is going to wane for those franchises and then you're talking serious financial lossses.  Maybe even teams folding.

Has the NBA ever really been that competitive, though?  Its certainly never been on par with the parity of the NFL and even Major League baseball has seemed to have more postseason diversity (despite the lack of salary cap).  You're talking about a league that has roughly had only half their franchises win a title and its really a top heavy contingent at that with teams like the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and Spurs dominating things in the 60+ years the league has been around.

[Celtics18]

The problem with a tiered system in American sports is that nobody wants to pay top dollar for second-, third-, or fourth-tier games.  Fans won't pay the ticket prices and won't buy the merchandise at the same prices, and television revenue wouldn't be in the same ballpark.

Vastly lower revenue would mean less money for the lower-tier teams to spend.  They couldn't attract the top talent, so basically you'd have the English Premier league:  a handful of teams that are competitive, and a bunch of also-rans. 

It would downgrade the quality of play league-wide significantly, and it would bankrupt 2/3rds of the league.  Not a great idea, in my mind.

What we have now is a handful of competitive teams and a bunch of also-rans.  Under this proposed system, at least the also-rans would have something more to play for.  I don't see why fans would be less interested in seeing the Detroit Pistons or the Cleveland Cavaliers compete for a title in the third division and promotion to the second division than they are watching them compete for a perennial shot at a fortuitous bounce of the ping pong balls.  

[kozlodoev]

The problem with a tiered system in American sports is that nobody wants to pay top dollar for second-, third-, or fourth-tier games.  Fans won't pay the ticket prices and won't buy the merchandise at the same prices, and television revenue wouldn't be in the same ballpark.

Vastly lower revenue would mean less money for the lower-tier teams to spend.  They couldn't attract the top talent, so basically you'd have the English Premier league:  a handful of teams that are competitive, and a bunch of also-rans. 

It would downgrade the quality of play league-wide significantly, and it would bankrupt 2/3rds of the league.  Not a great idea, in my mind.

What we have now is a handful of competitive teams and a bunch of also-rans.  Under this proposed system, at least the also-rans would have something more to play for.  I don't see why fans would be less interested in seeing the Detroit Pistons or the Cleveland Cavaliers compete for a title in the third division and promotion to the second division than they are watching them compete for a perennial shot at a fortuitous bounce of the ping pong balls.  

You forget that even if your team is miserable, you still get to see them play against top teams, rather than other scrubs.

[Celtics18]

Don't like the idea of the tiered system at all.  Like Roy mentioned, its really a concept that wouldn't work over here.  If your team is relegated,  the interest is going to wane for those franchises and then you're talking serious financial lossses.  Maybe even teams folding.

Has the NBA ever really been that competitive, though?  Its certainly never been on par with the parity of the NFL and even Major League baseball has seemed to have more postseason diversity (despite the lack of salary cap).  You're talking about a league that has roughly had only half their franchises win a title and its really a top heavy contingent at that with teams like the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and Spurs dominating things in the 60+ years the league has been around.

To me your points about lack of parity are an argument for tiering.  Let the Celtics, the Lakers, the Spurs, the Bulls, the Heat, the Mavericks, and maybe a couple of other teams fight it out in a really competitive league without having to play the likes of the Bobcats and the Raptors for half their games over the course of a tedious 82 game season.  

If you are a fan of Utah, Houston, Portland, or Denver, you can keep hope alive that you'll finish first or second in the second division and earn the right to join the big boys.  If you get there, maybe your team's not really playing for a title, but they are playing to stay in the top division.

It beats playing to lose as the ultimate goal for half of the franchises.  

[Celtics18]

The problem with a tiered system in American sports is that nobody wants to pay top dollar for second-, third-, or fourth-tier games.  Fans won't pay the ticket prices and won't buy the merchandise at the same prices, and television revenue wouldn't be in the same ballpark.

Vastly lower revenue would mean less money for the lower-tier teams to spend.  They couldn't attract the top talent, so basically you'd have the English Premier league:  a handful of teams that are competitive, and a bunch of also-rans. 

It would downgrade the quality of play league-wide significantly, and it would bankrupt 2/3rds of the league.  Not a great idea, in my mind.

What we have now is a handful of competitive teams and a bunch of also-rans.  Under this proposed system, at least the also-rans would have something more to play for.  I don't see why fans would be less interested in seeing the Detroit Pistons or the Cleveland Cavaliers compete for a title in the third division and promotion to the second division than they are watching them compete for a perennial shot at a fortuitous bounce of the ping pong balls.  

You forget that even if your team is miserable, you still get to see them play against top teams, rather than other scrubs.

But, there's no real incentive to win when your miserable team is playing against a good team.  You hope to see your guys put up a good fight, see some young guys develop, but ultimately lose so you can stay in the hunt for a good lottery position.  It's lame.

[Donoghus]

Don't like the idea of the tiered system at all.  Like Roy mentioned, its really a concept that wouldn't work over here.  If your team is relegated,  the interest is going to wane for those franchises and then you're talking serious financial lossses.  Maybe even teams folding.

Has the NBA ever really been that competitive, though?  Its certainly never been on par with the parity of the NFL and even Major League baseball has seemed to have more postseason diversity (despite the lack of salary cap).  You're talking about a league that has roughly had only half their franchises win a title and its really a top heavy contingent at that with teams like the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and Spurs dominating things in the 60+ years the league has been around.

To me your points about lack of parity are an argument for tiering.  Let the Celtics, the Lakers, the Spurs, the Bulls, the Heat, the Mavericks, and maybe a couple of other teams fight it out in a really competitive league without having to play the likes of the Bobcats and the Raptors for half their games over the course of a tedious 82 game season.  

If you are a fan of Utah, Houston, Portland, or Denver, you can keep hope alive that you'll finish first or second in the second division and earn the right to join the big boys.  If you get there, maybe your team's not really playing for a title, but they are playing to stay in the top division.

It beats playing to lose as the ultimate goal for half of the franchises.  

People haven't tuned out the NBA despite the top heaviness of the league.

If you're a fan of those second tier teams and not able to see the Lebrons, Durants, and Howards of the world, why the heck would you go?  You're second tier.  Those teams would lose money and probably fold after a handful of seasons if they couldn't break out of that tier.  Fans are going to treat it like the minors.

You're better off contracting than creating a tier system. 

[celtsfan84]

Don't like the idea of the tiered system at all.  Like Roy mentioned, its really a concept that wouldn't work over here.  If your team is relegated,  the interest is going to wane for those franchises and then you're talking serious financial lossses.  Maybe even teams folding.

Has the NBA ever really been that competitive, though?  Its certainly never been on par with the parity of the NFL and even Major League baseball has seemed to have more postseason diversity (despite the lack of salary cap).  You're talking about a league that has roughly had only half their franchises win a title and its really a top heavy contingent at that with teams like the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and Spurs dominating things in the 60+ years the league has been around.

To me your points about lack of parity are an argument for tiering.  Let the Celtics, the Lakers, the Spurs, the Bulls, the Heat, the Mavericks, and maybe a couple of other teams fight it out in a really competitive league without having to play the likes of the Bobcats and the Raptors for half their games over the course of a tedious 82 game season.  

If you are a fan of Utah, Houston, Portland, or Denver, you can keep hope alive that you'll finish first or second in the second division and earn the right to join the big boys.  If you get there, maybe your team's not really playing for a title, but they are playing to stay in the top division.

It beats playing to lose as the ultimate goal for half of the franchises.  

Better management is the answer, not a tiered system.  All teams have a shot at being competitive over the long haul.

Didn't Houston win the NBA title twice less than 20 years ago and take the Lakers to 7 games about 5 years ago?  Wasn't Utah in the finals twice 15 years ago and in the Conference Finals with a completely different roster about 5 years ago?  Wasn't Portland in the Conference Finals about 10 years ago? Wasn't Denver in the Conference Finals about 5 years ago?  You all realize that Boston was a poor team for a decade, right?

Why are we relegating these teams to a secondary division?

[BballTim]

  What if they'd implemented this 6 years ago? Boston would be in a lower tier. That means they'd lose PP (who wouldn't want to play in the D league and they couldn't afford, given a much smaller fan base and no national tv contract and a much smaller local tv contract. They can then try and claw their way into the top tier for one season, since all of the star players will be on 7-8 teams. Sound like a peachy future, or a great investment for Wyc and his partners? You'd basically be contracting 20 teams, and the nba as a whole would have a smaller footprint and much smaller fanbase.

[celtsfan84]

  What if they'd implemented this 6 years ago? Boston would be in a lower tier. That means they'd lose PP (who wouldn't want to play in the D league and they couldn't afford, given a much smaller fan base and no national tv contract and a much smaller local tv contract. They can then try and claw their way into the top tier for one season, since all of the star players will be on 7-8 teams. Sound like a peachy future, or a great investment for Wyc and his partners? You'd basically be contracting 20 teams, and the nba as a whole would have a smaller footprint and much smaller fanbase.

Exactly.  Please keep in mind when talking about a tiered system, that until we acquired KG and Ray, we would have been in the second or third tier.  

Ray and KG would've never agreed to go to a second tier team.  Paul would've demanded out of a second tier team (and rightly so).  Please keep in mind that this suggestion would have effectively taken away Banner 17 and made us the Raptors.

I sat through about a decade of awfulness from the Celtics.  ML Carr, Rick Pitino, Chris Wallace, etc...  At no point did I ever want to be in a lower tier and think, well, I never want to see Michael Jordan again.  I'd feel really nice about a win over the Vancouver Grizzlies.  That's silly.

Might as well root for a D-League team.  Every star on the second and third tier teams would demand a trade, which would leave those teams in an even worse spot.  I think this idea bankrupts 20 teams, as BBallTim just stated.

[Celtics18]

  What if they'd implemented this 6 years ago? Boston would be in a lower tier. That means they'd lose PP (who wouldn't want to play in the D league and they couldn't afford, given a much smaller fan base and no national tv contract and a much smaller local tv contract. They can then try and claw their way into the top tier for one season, since all of the star players will be on 7-8 teams. Sound like a peachy future, or a great investment for Wyc and his partners? You'd basically be contracting 20 teams, and the nba as a whole would have a smaller footprint and much smaller fanbase.

If they'd done this 6 years ago, Paul Pierce probably wouldn't have missed half the season and the Celtics would have had to find a way to stay competitive enough not to get relegated.  If they couldn't manage that, then I'm rooting for them to win the second division and get back to the top.

I knew I'd be alone on this.  If it's an awful idea, then I'd rather see half the teams eliminated.  If they balk at that, offer them the tiered option as an alternative. 

[Who]

I'd love to see them do that with the D-League. Relegate teams down there and promote teams. Say the five worst in the NBA for the five best in the D-League (which would switch to a straight league with no playoffs).

Find a way to make it work with the draft lottery. Maybe the promoted teams are guaranteed the top picks in the draft and the relegated ones get no picks.

Have a clause written into the NBA players' contracts saying that if they are relegated, their deals are null and void. They enter free agent market. Team has to rebuild via D-League.

[celtsfan84]

  What if they'd implemented this 6 years ago? Boston would be in a lower tier. That means they'd lose PP (who wouldn't want to play in the D league and they couldn't afford, given a much smaller fan base and no national tv contract and a much smaller local tv contract. They can then try and claw their way into the top tier for one season, since all of the star players will be on 7-8 teams. Sound like a peachy future, or a great investment for Wyc and his partners? You'd basically be contracting 20 teams, and the nba as a whole would have a smaller footprint and much smaller fanbase.

If they'd done this 6 years ago, Paul Pierce probably wouldn't have missed half the season and the Celtics would have had to find a way to stay competitive enough not to get relegated.  If they couldn't manage that, then I'm rooting for them to win the second division and get back to the top.

I knew I'd be alone on this.  If it's an awful idea, then I'd rather see half the teams eliminated.  If they balk at that, offer them the tiered option as an alternative.  

The question is . . . why?  I don't think very many fans want their teams to be relegated to a lower division.  Why wouldn't you just root for a D-League team instead?  Or just root for a different team if you are so jaded about your team?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not understanding why the NBA, on the heels of a successful season, needs this.

Weren't the Thunder a 20-win team a few years ago?  With great attendance, by the way?

And that would also drastically impact the value of a franchise.  Pretend you paid $500 million for an NBA team.  It gets relegated to a lower league and is now worth $50 million.  Are you thrilled about losing $450 million?  This idea would kill 20 teams, at least. Just outright kill them.  The NBA would be left with 6-10 teams and a far smaller national influence.

Why?