It's an interesting idea, but with basically no minor league system it would take a lot of investment to even give them a league to relegate to.
It's not that hard. Relegate the bottom 10 teams in the first season and that's your minor league. It's the simplest solution for eliminating tanking and keep the regular season interesting from top to bottom. Like DD said, it'll never happen because the NBA doesn't have a will to overhaul the system.
derrr, okay george how is it bad that we have 16 playoff teams? you seriously think 8 or 4 would be better? a good way to look at something is to look at 2 extreme ends of the spectrum, as well as in the middle and other various points. for example - what if there were only 2 teams in the playoffs? skip all the other crap and get straight to the finals. what kind of effect on the league would that have? now campare the 32-team proposition to the 2-team proposition. which scenario looks better and why? the status quo is 16 right now. how does 16 compare to 2 and 32? how 16 compare to 8? imagine all these different scenarios and the effects you think they might have. basically it seems to me, the more the merrier. if there were only 2 teams, i think it would be complete crap. the vast majority of teams would have no incentive to keep playing hard because it only takes roughly 20 games to see the pecking order and know who the contenders are. 4 teams doesnt seem any better than 2 to me. 8 teams can be good, but i cant see how it be an improvement to the 16 we have now. so basically, to me it boils down to option 1) keep it the same, or 2) add more teams. i've already explained why i think more teams would increase compeition. you haven't really explained why it would decrease as you claim. you entire argument boils down to "derp derp you dont know nothin, derp derp." ... and to that i say: with all due respect, suck my nuts and choke on them, good sir.
I'll 1-up that... I say have all teams in both conferences make the playoffs. More games, more ratings, more more more MOOOAAAARRR...!!!
Players can play a maximum of 110 games and a minimum of 98. Barring injuries. That is an insane amount, and its pointless. It barely insures that bad teams will never have a chance in the playoffs. In a best of seven game, nine times out of ten the team with the better average players will win. Unlike the one-game NFL playoffs where its only one game between you and the other team. There's little chance for a dark horse to win anything. Not only this, but this allows crappy ass teams to make the playoffs. Which means earlier in the season, players in the top half of the playoff guaranteed spots will just sit out. And now you are talking about having players play even MORE games? If only six teams miss the playoffs, why not have all of them play in the playoffs? Dude. Plain and simple more games and more teams will NOT increase competition. Whatsoever.
I haven't watched a full baseball game in a few seasons, but would point out that on the contrary, the season this year went down to literally the very last day for multiple squads. To your point, however, all four of those squads one would have expected to be in or near that position before the season started. There are very few Colorado Rockies World Series run type seasons. However, the same is true of basketball. Same teams every year, seemingly. I support a top 16 team playoff. However, only in the event you have equal schedules. Unbalanced schedule means not every record is equal.
Honestly? I say eliminate conferences altogether. What point do they serve today? Even divisions only really exist to anoint 6 division "champions" each year and hand out extra banners to make fanbases feel good about a season and keep buying tickets and merchandise. Why stay inside a box just because it's there? Either contract a team, or go forward with the rumored Bobcats/Hornets merger to become a 2nd Chicago team (30 teams become 29). Get rid of divisions. -->Every team plays 3 games against all other teams (84 game season), alternating the extra home game in each matchup every year. Head to head tiebreakers will be there for all pairs. -->Worst team in the league is excluded from the playoffs and automatically receives the #3 pick in the draft. This discourages tanking twofold - no one should be out of the playoffs in March anymore, fanbases would go insane if they ever missed the playoffs, and you are precluded from the top pick in the draft if you do miss out, so there's stone cold zero incentive to not make an effort. -->The bottom 12 playoff teams are given an equal probability chance in a lottery for the #1 pick in the draft. The top 16 teams in the playoffs are given equal chance for the #2 pick. The remainder of the picks are in order of regular season standings. -->Current takes all month first round format is scrapped for a faster tournament. Bottom 12 playoff teams are seeded and play a single elimination round. The 6 winners face the next lowest seeded 6 teams for a second single elimination round. The 6 winners then join the top 10 playoff teams for a 16-team bracket style playoff. First round is (best of ) 3 games, Second round is 5 games, Semifinals and Finals are each 7 game series. Tons more action, but the best teams are protected from being eliminated way too early and enjoy the extra benefit of a "bye week" - providing incentive to get the highest seed possible. Bottom tiered teams still have the hope of going on a cinderella run, though the odds are stacked against them.
^ way too complicated and too much change for the sake of changing. For one, as much complaint as there is at times around the NBA draft lottery, it doesn't seem to be broken to me. Smart teams that are bad and in the lottery multiple years typically draft well and then move onto the playoffs. It's the poorly managed teams that have high lotto picks year after year. And teams rarely all-out tank. Some may towards the end of the season, but even then its only by playing younger players to see what upside they have, if any. The worst teams rarely get the top pick anymore anyway. Moreover, this isn't college. 7 game first round series might be too long, but there is no point in single elimination playoff games, even if it is to just seed teams 11-16. Consider in 94/95 the Rockets would have been tied for the 10th best team in the league with the Bulls (who they split the series with)... meaning they would have possibly been in a single elimination game if your system was in place... sure it would have been against a worse team that already had played a single elimination game, but you never know what could have happened. Single elimination, and shorter series, as we all know, allows lesser teams the ability to upset higher seeded teams more easily. Again, it works in college because there are so so many teams, many of whom never play each other or even common opponents, so there is no real way to have a legit playoffs (with series) when there are so many squads. In the NBA, if you changed to every team playing every other team an equal amount of time (the suggestion of yours I agree with), it is pretty apparent by the end of the season whom is better than whom. Which is why you don't need to have every team still in the playoff hunt at the end. To the point of ultimate competition, the better course would be to demote bad teams, like they do in Europe... but we don't have that system here. Instead, you've suggested a system that does the complete opposite, which is give bad teams more opportunity. Allowing 50% of the league to make the playoffs, as they do now, seems more than fair.
Well for one thing, there's only 30 NBA teams. I'm not necessarily in favor of adding two more teams when there's already a dilution of talent. And second, I disagree with the NBA playoffs being more exciting than the NFL, which is a one-game elimination series.
