How about a tiered system?

[bcgenuis]

3 tiers wont work.

2 tiers will stand a better chance.

16 (Tier 1) + 14 (Tier 2).

Rules - Top 8 of each tier make playoffs.
Bottom 8 of Tier 1 swap with playoff teams from Tier 2.

Draft: top 3 teams of each tier get first 6 picks.  The rich get richer.  Adds to the premium of winning. But remember you need to pick well - plenty of busts up there.

So the prize for winning T2 is promotion to T1 plus a potential top 6 draft pick.

Thinking about a best of five between T1 and T2 champs. Winner gets first pick and loser gets last pick. If they win they get the #1 pick. Otherwise picks are in best record order. After top 6 worst record order.

Salary cap - cut the cap by 60-70%.  Salaries of your own drafted or undrafted FA's do not count towards the cap.  Some relief on FA's you signed and have been with a team for 4+ years. Premium on developing your own talent and keeping FA's.  No MLE's or BAE's. Keeps in check ring chasers.

[Who]

I liked this idea from the MIT conference thingamigger

"We should never have to consider that a loss can be more helpful than a win," said Gold, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Missouri. While fans and hoops bloggers all criticize teams for tanking, Gold also brought proof: in the seven years following the 2004-05 season, teams that missed the playoffs won just 32 percent of their games after they were mathematically eliminated from the postseason compared to 37.5 percent beforehand.

For Gold, this became a logical time to gauge when teams would start to tank -- and the mark when the system should help ensure they don't. His solution:

Give the first pick in the draft to the team that wins the most games after being officially eliminated from playoff contention. Then the team with the second highest number of wins gets the second pick. And so on.

The theory is that the worst team in the league will be the one that is mathematically eliminated first. Thus, it will get the most chances to pile up wins. If it takes advantage of those opportunities, it will be rewarded with the No. 1 pick.

If we use last season as a guide, the Sacramento Kings played 20 games (going 9-11) after being eliminated whereas the Milwaukee Bucks played only four (going 3-1). Those nine wins would have given the Kings the No. 1 pick under Gold's scheme. Under the current draft lottery system, however, they picked seventh: not exactly a reward for a team that managed a winning percentage of .450 for the final quarter of the season after playing .319 ball up to that point.

Presumably, it would have also led to the Minnesota Timberwolves not opting to keep Kevin Love on the bench with an achy leg for his team's final six games, which the Timberwolves lost by a combined 80 points. Such futility helped them end up with the second pick. I'm sure Timberwolves fans are happy about that fact now, but I doubt the ones who bought tickets to watch their favorite team lose by 19 to the Rockets on the final night of the season enjoyed it at the time.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/39750/fix-tanking-the-sloan-solution

I thought that was the best idea that I have come across so far.

[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.

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. 

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

[celtsfan84]

Yeah, the Celtics were a bad team before we even drafted Paul Pierce and for a while with Paul Pierce.  It wasn't just one bad year due to a Paul Pierce injury.

We would've been relegated to 2nd or 3rd tier a long time ago.  Pierce would've demanded a trade.  We would've lost boatloads of money.  If this idea were installed in the late 90s, the Boston Celtics would not exist today.

I think it's cool that we have the D-League.  I just don't understand the need to bankrupt 20 teams and cost the US thousands of jobs to build a new one.

[Roy H.]

  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. 

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

Yeah, the worst thing is, Paul Pierce wouldn't even be on the team, as he would have signed with (or, if we're talking European soccer, would have been sold to) one of the big clubs after his rookie deal ran out.

[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. 

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

I don't get your comment about not being able to sign stars for that first year.  Are you saying that the Boston Celtics would go completely broke based on one year outside the top division?  No way that would happen.  

I wouldn't stop watching if the team had to spend a season battling it out with DEN, ORL, NYK, UTA, DAL, PHI, HOU, PHO, MIL, and POR.  There's even some reasonable star power in that division.  

[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.  

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

I don't get your comment about not being able to sign stars for that first year.  Are you saying that the Boston Celtics would go completely broke based on one year outside the top division?  No way that would happen.  

I wouldn't stop watching if the team had to spend a season battling it out with DEN, ORL, NYK, UTA, DAL, PHI, HOU, PHO, MIL, and POR.  There's even some reasonable star power in that division.  

No, there wouldn't be reasonable star power.  All of the star players on those teams would demand a trade to the first tier teams.  The second tier teams would have to trade them away.

The financial losses would be staggering.

And the Celtics spent 11 years out of 14 in the late 90's-early 00's playing below 500 ball.  Sometimes well below .500.  We would've been in the bottom tier.

[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.

The list of NBA champions over the past twenty years isn't too much more diverse than the lists of European champions.  They have their Arsenals, Chelseas, and Manchester Uniteds, we have our Bulls, Lakers, and Spurs. 

Top, rich teams have dry spells over in Europe, but they don't go under.  I don't think it would happen with top teams like the Boston Celtics and NY Knicks over here, even if they struggled for a while. 

We like to pretend that we have parity over here.  We don't have any more parity.  We just like to pretend we do.  I say take out the pretense, and let those teams that don't have much of a realistic shot have something to compete for. 

I would also add a tournament that's separate from the regular season championship like they have in European leagues.  That way the second and third division teams would get their chance to play against the top teams.  They might even pull some upsets along the way. 

Another thing that would be crucial to the success of this league would be a development league team for each of the 30 teams where you could call up from or assign players to like they do in baseball. 

[Roy H.]

  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. 

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

I don't get your comment about not being able to sign stars for that first year.  Are you saying that the Boston Celtics would go completely broke based on one year outside the top division?  No way that would happen.  

I wouldn't stop watching if the team had to spend a season battling it out with DEN, ORL, NYK, UTA, DAL, PHI, HOU, PHO, MIL, and POR.  There's even some reasonable star power in that division.  

Sure you would, at least over time.  Boston wouldn't be "Boston", and Denver wouldn't be "Denver".  We wouldn't have Paul Pierce, the Knicks wouldn't have Amare or Carmelo, Denver wouldn't have McGee or Gallinari, etc.  Instead, the rosters would be stacked with all the players the top tier teams didn't want to pay.

[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.

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. 

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

I don't get your comment about not being able to sign stars for that first year.  Are you saying that the Boston Celtics would go completely broke based on one year outside the top division?  No way that would happen.  

I wouldn't stop watching if the team had to spend a season battling it out with DEN, ORL, NYK, UTA, DAL, PHI, HOU, PHO, MIL, and POR.  There's even some reasonable star power in that division.  

  You'd have all of those teams, with their top 2-3 players in the higher division. If the Celts get promoted next year they'd have less money that the top teams because they would have had a tiny budget the year before and have none of the advertising deals or the like that other teams would. And the only players we'd be able to try and get would be those who were out of contract, it's not like we'd have any tradeable assets either.

[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.

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.  

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

I don't get your comment about not being able to sign stars for that first year.  Are you saying that the Boston Celtics would go completely broke based on one year outside the top division?  No way that would happen.  

I wouldn't stop watching if the team had to spend a season battling it out with DEN, ORL, NYK, UTA, DAL, PHI, HOU, PHO, MIL, and POR.  There's even some reasonable star power in that division.  

No, there wouldn't be reasonable star power.  All of the star players on those teams would demand a trade to the first tier teams.  The second tier teams would have to trade them away.

  No, they'd have clauses in their contracts that they get their release if the team is relegated.

[wdleehi]

If NBA is going to adopt a system, how about a real farm system like MLB or NHL.

[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. 

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

I don't get your comment about not being able to sign stars for that first year.  Are you saying that the Boston Celtics would go completely broke based on one year outside the top division?  No way that would happen.  

I wouldn't stop watching if the team had to spend a season battling it out with DEN, ORL, NYK, UTA, DAL, PHI, HOU, PHO, MIL, and POR.  There's even some reasonable star power in that division.  

Sure you would, at least over time.  Boston wouldn't be "Boston", and Denver wouldn't be "Denver".  We wouldn't have Paul Pierce, the Knicks wouldn't have Amare or Carmelo, Denver wouldn't have McGee or Gallinari, etc.  Instead, the rosters would be stacked with all the players the top tier teams didn't want to pay.

Really?  So, the Heat and the Lakers would have every good player in basketball?  There's enough talent to go around for 10 really competitive basketball teams in the NBA.  There isn't enough for 30, though.  

[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.  

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

I don't get your comment about not being able to sign stars for that first year.  Are you saying that the Boston Celtics would go completely broke based on one year outside the top division?  No way that would happen.  

I wouldn't stop watching if the team had to spend a season battling it out with DEN, ORL, NYK, UTA, DAL, PHI, HOU, PHO, MIL, and POR.  There's even some reasonable star power in that division.  

No, there wouldn't be reasonable star power.  All of the star players on those teams would demand a trade to the first tier teams.  The second tier teams would have to trade them away.

  No, they'd have clauses in their contracts that they get their release if the team is relegated.

Yeah, that's even worse.  So a relegation would be more or less a death sentence for these teams.

Step 1 - Get relegated due to poor record
Step 2 - Lose all star players on your team
Step 3 - Lose all sponsors and naming rights, because they wouldn't want to pay for a second or third tier team
Step 4 - Drop ticket prices because you can't price the same as the first tier
Step 5 - Lose all of your top attended home games, because Kobe, LeBron, and Durant aren't coming to your arena anymore
Step 6 - Never be able to rebuild because nobody wants to play for a bottom tier team
Step 7 - Fold

Good way to cut the NBA's revenue in half and lose 20 teams to bankruptcy for really no adequately explained reason.

[Celtics18]

If NBA is going to adopt a system, how about a real farm system like MLB or NHL.

I'm for that as well.  That's an essential component of my system.