I do not like the way the NBA's playoff system is currently set up. The top 8 teams from each conference gets to play for the NBA championship. Luckily there is news now that Adam Silver wants top 16 teams regardless of conference, and that's great. However, there are then still 14 NBA teams that do nothing after the regular season is over. In fact, many non-playoff teams have already checked out for the season once their chances of playoff contention is either slim or gone. They have an incentive to be terrible to increase their lottery chances. Star players on those non-playoff teams take games off (Melo), shut it down for the season (Melo), and play meaningless games and are a waste of time (Knicks), unless they happen to be playing a playoff team fighting for seeding. Unfair for us as fans, especially the season ticket holders. My proposal would be to have the 14 non-playoff teams fight for something, to continue to compete, and put out a good product. I wish there was a relegation system in the NBA, like in European soccer leagues, where the worst teams will get dropped into a lower division, and lower division teams can be promoted to higher division leagues for their success. However, that kind of system will never work in America for several reasons (e.g. NBA draft instead of teams being able to sign whoever they want, the big money associated with NBA franchise ownership, etc). Owners will never go for relegation because of the hit to their wallets. So, how else do we get these 14 non-playoff teams to fight for something? How about the 14 non-playoff teams play a 14 team playoff, with the winner getting the 1st overall pick in the draft? The 2nd place team in this consolation bracket can get the 2nd pick, and so on. Since 3rd and 4th place teams will not have played each other, those picks can be based on a different tie breaker, like point differential throughout the playoffs or something. Same tie breakers for 5th and 6th, 7th and 8th, etc etc. Here's what the seedings would look like as it stands today. I think the first and second rounds can all be played at one neutral site over a weekend, with a one game elimination. Third and fourth rounds can be best of 3. I think a shorter series keeps things interesting w/ a 'anything can happen' scenario in play. Third and fourth rounds can be played at the participating teams' venues, to create a home court advantage for higher seeded teams. I wouldn't mind watching even these crappy teams play for a purpose, and maybe the NBA can sell this consolation playoff series to some random TV channels to create more content and revenue. I think the prize of getting the #1 pick in the draft, or even finishing as well as possible in the consolation bracket is enough incentive to keep players from taking the year off. I also don't think teams that have stars injured should get such a high chance of winning the lottery for just sucking that one year (i.e. Tim Duncan being drafted by Spurs because Robinson was injured, and the spurs tanked). This should help that, since essentially, the BEST of the non-playoff teams will be rewarded with the 1st overall pick. I understand that star players could still technically rest until the consolation playoffs start, so it's not going to solve that problem. But at least we could increase the number of watchable games in the postseason. And maybe some of the teams will play harder for a better seeding. Fight for your draft order...
No one wants to watch NIT when there is March Madness going on. And when CBS is carrying NCAA tourney, they sure will not want to carry NIT at the same time.
I don't think players on the teams care much about where the organization picks in the draft, especially since the higher up they pick, the more likely they could get replaced. Injuries during this consolation bracket would create a big debate also.
This gives a middle-tier organization incentive to tank. For example, there's no way Phoenix this year is winning the NBA title, even if they make the playoffs as the #8 seed. But they could certainly easily win the #1 overall pick by intentionally missing the playoffs. Beyond that, the whole reason that reverse draft orders exists is that the NBA *wants* the worst teams to get the best new players. This does exactly the opposite of what the NBA (and every other league) wants.
just give the worst team record wise like 50 balls and the 14th worst team 64, 2 having 52 balls, 3 53 balls and so on...or some sort of scale like this. This gives all the teams an equal chance at a good pick and takes away the incentive to tank.
airbulllard, Even if the Silver agrees with your idea, anything that requires veteran players to play more games requires approval of the Player's Union and a vote of Owners, because it would change the CBA. It won't happen. See Clutch's comment about injuries.
so the most talented team of the 14 teams gets the best pick... and the worst teams in the league continue to get late lotto picks so they will NEVER get any better? this is like letting the entire league into a playoff bracket where the champion also gets the #1 pick... and then everyone wonders why the same team wins the championship every year lol.
The op's idea sucks but not based off this logic. You realize OKC will be a perennial cesspool in two years? Kd and Westbrook are gonna leave, and ain't no free agents going to okc. I would say it's probably the least attractive city to play in in the entire NBA.
Clearly they aren't going to drastically reform it. I just hope they adjust enough to where the worst team is only at a slight advantage and so on.
I still like the credits idea that came and went in what felt like a matter of hours. I think the NBA is too scared foolish GM's will run their franchises into the ground with that system though.
Honestly i think the best thing to do is just let the worst team get the first pick like the NFL yes it gives teams a reason to tank but for example the Magic who have been bad since Dwight left have tanked and still not been given the 1st pick. I feel the worst team should get the best pick and allow the league to grow like the NFL does with the worst teams digging themselves out of the basement. Now if the front offices suck and do not know how to draft that is a different story but I have never been a fan of lottery just because especially in the NBA the talent drop off usually after the 1st or 2nd pick is drastic so for the worst team to possibly suck again because of how the ball bounces seems a tad pointless. Plus making the worst team better will expand the NBA in towns where the team has sucked......I live in orlando and I hear more about the new soccer team then I do the magic.....
Once they are eliminated from playoffs, I don't think players care about whether they finish from 9-15 in the conference either. The motivation is to play well so that they can get a new contract.
NBA is so much different than the NFL. 1 player can completely change a franchise instantly. You can't give that much incentive for a team to tank, it will turn into a **** storm quick. Also NFL teams can't complete "tank" like NBA teams can. If they don't try they'll get their heads knocked off.
That is true.....you do not see NBA players getting destroyed for slacking hahahaha and I would agree with you that one player can change a franchise, but idk something has to be done because I cannot think of many teams that were bottom dwellers that are now good? The bad teams seem to always be bad....yes they have short spurts of decent play but in the end they still are garbage.....the good teams always seem to be at the top.....it is likely if not all due to management bringing in the right pieces but idk NBA is really the only sport that you can pretty much pick the playoff teams every year without much knowledge (with a few exceptions here or there)