In light of JVG's comments regarding the fact that winning 33 games in a row is more difficult than winning a championship series, I've started thinking about whether or not the system we have in the NBA actually crowns the most skilled team or not. In the English Premier League (as well as many other soccer leagues) the format goes as follows: "There are 20 clubs in the Premier League. During the course of a season (from August to May) each club plays the others twice (a double round-robin system), once at their home stadium and once at that of their opponents, for a total of 38 games. Teams receive three points for a win and one point for a draw. No points are awarded for a loss. Teams are ranked by total points, then goal difference, and then goals scored. At the end of each season, the club with the most points is crowned champion. If points are equal, the goal difference and then goals scored determine the winner. If still equal, teams are deemed to occupy the same position. If there is a tie for the championship, for relegation, or for qualification to other competitions, a play-off match at a neutral venue decides rank. The three lowest placed teams are relegated into the Football League Championship, and the top two teams from the Championship, together with the winner of play-offs involving the third to sixth placed Championship clubs, are promoted in their place." I know its a bit of an anticlimatic system, but can someone argue that this system is not a more fair representation of the "best" team than the playoff/champion system?
But they have a knockout cup competition (or two in england's case) as well, the whole relegation, other divisions etc make their format functional, for the nba it just wouldn't work.
What about relegation to the D-League? Each year, the worst NBA team is relegated to the D-league and the best D-league team is promoted to the NBA. It would make the D-League a lot more exciting!
No, for the same reason why you've never been windsurfing, you don't view it as being worth your time.
I like the idea of the best D-league team being called up to the nba. but it would be immensely difficult to implement though. Considering the fact the the host city, ownership, money involved that the relocation of the D-league team. it would be almost impossible to implement. But there has to be a way to punish the worst team in the league to prevent outright tanking. Right now it seems that the worst 3 teams in the league are almost awarded for being bad.
Agreed, the first round is too long... Also, I think the NBA really has the best playoff process to determine the champion. Just look at how many different teams have one championships in the past 20 years, only 8 different teams. You can't really say that anyone of those teams wasn't the best team that season either, except maybe the Mavericks and possibly the Pistons.
I like the idea too but the d-league teams have to become pretty much seperate entities. Instead of a player going down to a NBDL team, the NBDL team would pay a fee to loan said player. It would also completely 100% eliminate tanking and make every team put the absolutely best team they could on the court. It would be a huge improvement to the sport and every game would mean a lot more, even for bobcat fans right now. It could be implemented, it would just take a lot of baby steps to get to that moment. As for the format, I think a points systems would work if there was a bigger tournament like there is in soccer but there isn't. It would be anti-climatic and boring.
I agree that just basing the title on regular season games would be more accurate and you would be more likely to get the true best team that way, but the playoffs are WAY too exciting to do away with.
Winning 33 games in a row is a whole hell of a lot more difficult than winning a championship series. It doesn't mean it's in any way "better" but it is harder to accomplish. Someone wins a championship every year, but winning 33 games in a row happened only once, 41 years ago. It doesn't mean the championship format is in need of change, though. A player averaging a triple-double for a whole season is more difficult than a player winning a scoring title while winning a ring. It doesn't mean the triple double season met that player's goals, if it didn't end in a title (and it didn't, since it only happened once, to the Big O in 1962).
if you use the Euro soccer system, you better shorten the season at least in half. Also, add a bunch of other cups next to the NBA where the Bobcats, Rockets and other teams with no realistic chance of winning could compete. Also, add a legit international club tournament a la Champions League where you could still qualify if you finish 5th or 6th in the NBA. Also, add a relegation system with the NBDL so that the bottom teams' fans would have a reason to watch games. Otherwise, it would be damn boring and most arenas would be empty from the start of the season till the finish.
It'd change the priorities of constructing teams a lot. The importance of individuals is more important than in soccer by virtue of having fewer players on the court/field. So, you'd have to build your teams to be more solid 1 thru 12, then just focusing on extraordinary talent 1-3. And, ironmen would go for a premium because injuries could be so devestating. One unfortunate injury and a championship-bound team is out of it, unless you have back-ups who are practically as good. In the current system, you just have to be healthy at the right time (though, of course, injuries are part of the story there too). So, I don't think the greatest teams would be rewarded with championships, it'd be the most steady teams. Imagine a team of Rose, Roy, McGrady, Love, and Yao -- in the current format, if the injuries fell the right way so that everyone happened to be healthy in May and June, they'd win the championship. But, I don't think they'd get the best record in the regular season because there'd always be a broken finger, or broken foot, or bad knee or sore back. And, finally, the NBA does both right now. They hand out banners to division and conference winners in the regular season. It's just that nobody much cares. I think it's too bad the regular season isn't more important to the championship, considering how many games they play. I think the (untenable) solution is to play fewer games.
We should give a trophy to someone who gets a quad-double too. I mean it's only happened four times in NBA history so it's better than a championship! And if someone every averages 40ppg.. they should get a trophy too regardless of how their team does.. I mean 40ppg happens way less often than a championship too! It's way better and much better accomplishment!
Well except for increased interest in the DLeague and the accompanying television contract that would come with showing the final few games of their season, you are right. On a serious note, it would be impossible because the league has no interest in the NBA team (and NBA arena) in Charlotte becoming a ghost-town next year while McALlen (Rio Grande locale) has no ability or business supporting an NBA team. It would make the fanship too volatile in markets that are ill-equiped for that volatility. As to the current format, it's fine. The first round seems too long but it helps ensure that the #1 seeds aren't often beaten by the 8, which is bad for the game. It SHOULD matter that if you are one of the top 2-4 teams in the league you make it to the round of 8.
You wouldn't be "gaining" there, you would be buying "paper" profit by spending insane amounts of money. All those "gains" would laughable compared to losing just a single NBA team (lets say the Rockets) to the D-League and the accompanying loss in ticket sales, tv contract value and overall franchise value. Now make that several teams every year. Add the costs of building and maintaining 16 NBA level arenas and facilities in Rio Grande Valley or Des Moines, Iowa and similar locations. Add revenue sharing to support these less profitable organizations.
