How about a tiered system?

[celtsfan84]

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.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

[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.  

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?

  Yes, there would be 6-7 teams with almost all of the top 20-30 players in the league. How many superstars do you think you'll find in the 2nd division in England? Answer: none.

[Celtics18]

I just want to ask you all, Tim, Roy, Celts84;  how do the teams in Europe, the teams not named AC Milan, Barcelona, Manchester United, Arsenal, etc., survive?  

I'd also like to note that the European Football Champions League has had thirteen different winners in the last twenty years.  

[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.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

I don't think twenty teams would go bankrupt. 

The farm system is essential, particularly for the smaller market teams, because that would be one of the best ways to find and retain really good, young talent and to build up your team.  You wouldn't be in the market for the top name superstars so you'd have to build from the ground up. 

[Boris Badenov]

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. 

I'm not sure I buy the premise.

When I look at the list of NBA finals teams, in the last ten years 12 different teams have made the finals and six different teams have won.

Many of the finalists - and winners - have been small-market teams (SA, OKC, CLE, etc.). Most finals teams rose from the scrap heap to the top of the league in relatively short order. The only real equivalent to the Yankees or Man. U. in the NBA are the Lakers, and even they have had some lengthy dry spells.

There does tend to be some repetition in who's good year to year, but this is not because of lack of parity. It's because in basketball one player can be dominant enough to give his team a chance for a decade - think Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron, etc.

[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?

  Yes, there would be 6-7 teams with almost all of the top 20-30 players in the league. How many superstars do you think you'll find in the 2nd division in England? Answer: none.

Roy's saying that a second division team wouldn't even be in the running for a Danilo Galinari or a Javale McGee.  

A major difference between soccer and basketball is that in basketball you can only have 5 guys on the court at one time.  In soccer you get eleven.  

There's no way the Heat are going to have Kevin Durant, Dirk Nowitzki, Kobe Bryant, Blake Griffin, Tony Parker, and Russell Westbrook all on the bench just because they can afford it.

I think there's enough talent in the league for this to work.  

[Roy H.]

I just want to ask you all, Tim, Roy, Celts84;  how do the teams in Europe, the teams not named AC Milan, Barcelona, Manchester United, Arsenal, etc., survive?  

I'd also like to note that the European Football Champions League has had thirteen different winners in the last twenty years.  

Champions League draws from the best of the best of all those top tier leagues, which have top tier talent.  I'm not sure how that's comparable.

[Roy H.]

There's no way the Heat are going to have Kevin Durant, Dirk Nowitzki, Kobe Bryant, Blake Griffin, Tony Parker, and Russell Westbrook all on the bench just because they can afford it.

If they can afford it, and the other teams can't (because of lower ticket revenue, a much smaller TV deal, less merchandise sales, etc.) then why wouldn't OKC have that team?

Stars are going to go where the money is, and where the glory is.  They're not going to take lesser roles on second tier teams.

[celtsfan84]

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.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

I don't think twenty teams would go bankrupt. 

The farm system is essential, particularly for the smaller market teams, because that would be one of the best ways to find and retain really good, young talent and to build up your team.  You wouldn't be in the market for the top name superstars so you'd have to build from the ground up. 

How would you find and retain good, young talent if that good, young talent doesn't exist?  You said yourself that there is only enough talent to support 10 teams.  There would be no talent in these farm systems.

I just want to ask you all, Tim, Roy, Celts84;  how do the teams in Europe, the teams not named AC Milan, Barcelona, Manchester United, Arsenal, etc., survive?  

I'd also like to note that the European Football Champions League has had thirteen different winners in the last twenty years.  

They operate on a much smaller scale.  That is like asking how a Canadian Football League team exists.  They weren't bought for 300, 400, 500, 600 million dollars that was financed partly in debt and has to be paid back.

For instance, the most recently finalized sale of an NBA team, the Hornets, was for $340 million dollars.  If Tom Benson didn't think he could earn that investment back, he wouldn't have bought the team.  The finances are completely different.  This comparison is way off base.  You are turning a $350 million dollar franchise into a minor league team.  How much did the low level soccer teams cost their owners?

[celtsfan84]

Worth noting, the Milwaukee Bucks, the least valuable NBA franchise, is worth about $280 million according to Forbes.  The 30th most valuable NBA franchise.

Only 6 English soccer teams are worth more, according to Forbes, and all play in the Premier League.

This idea is throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars.  Perhaps billions.

These minor league soccer teams weren't purchased by people who spent $300 million and are worth far less.  BIG difference.

[action781]

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.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

[celtsfan84]

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.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

[action781]

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.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

Because the teams weren't unprofitable because the split.  I know that's what they say, but that's not the truth.  If that were the case, then why were teams previously profitable under that split and why was at least 1/3 of the teams making a profit last season?  Because they were competently managed and competitive.  The teams were unprofitable because they weren't competitive.

So, chop out 4 teams.  (Cities like Memphis and Sacramento absolutely shouldn't have NBA teams.)  Yes, this would nearly bankrupt these teams.  But it would spread talent way better over the other previously unprofitable teams, make them more competitive, and hopefully you've saved some if not all of those other teams.

Then, make those 4 teams into d-league teams which keeps them from literal bankruptcy.  Now, with 4 less NBA teams, you've got more talent in the d-league, which raises the value of the d-league in general and all of its teams.

I think it's a net gain.  But anyone's opinion is just pure speculation. 

[celtsfan84]

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.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

Because the teams weren't unprofitable because the split.  I know that's what they say, but that's not the truth.  If that were the case, then why were teams previously profitable under that split and why was at least 1/3 of the teams making a profit last season?  Because they were competently managed and competitive.  The teams were unprofitable because they weren't competitive.

So, chop out 4 teams.  (Cities like Memphis and Sacramento absolutely shouldn't have NBA teams.)  Yes, this would nearly bankrupt these teams.  But it would spread talent way better over the other previously unprofitable teams, make them more competitive, and hopefully you've saved some if not all of those other teams.

Then, make those 4 teams into d-league teams which keeps them from literal bankruptcy.  Now, with 4 less NBA teams, you've got more talent in the d-league, which raises the value of the d-league in general and all of its teams.

I think it's a net gain.  But anyone's opinion is just pure speculation.  

But it isn't all pure speculation.  There are financials, financial models, and financial valuation systems behind the data that the NBA uses to make decisions.  A D-League team is far less valuable than an NBA team.  Keep in mind that if you contract a team, you would be obligated to pay those teams a fair value or there would be a lawsuit, which the NBA would lose.

How would you feel if you spent $350 million on a team, and the NBA just said, well, it's a D-League team now.  You invested $350 million, but it is worth $10 million now. Sorry.

You would sue.  Now think of whether paying these owners over $1 billion is worth their teams going away. The NBA bought the Hornets years ago, which is why they could threaten to contract them.  They would have to buy the four teams they wish to contract.  You can't just steal the property of other people.

And relegation is totally different from contraction, btw.  And as you yourself said, they used to be profitable under this model.  Why contract 4 teams?

[celtsfan84]

And the Grizzlies, as an example, have a lease (an NBA lease for NBA games) with FedEx Forum until 2021.  If the NBA breaks this lease, they owe millions of dollars to FedEx Forum as there are steep penalties for breaking the lease.

It isn't as simple as just telling four teams to go away.  It isn't as simple as making four teams into D-League teams.

This idea would cost the NBA about a billion dollars. Easily.  When you break leases and agreements, you have to pay them off.  That isn't pure speculation, it's the law.