NBA, too-often unwatchable, needs to go beyond lottery tweaks to a "Suck Tax" based on PPG diffs

I never made the argument that location doesn’t matter...no superstar is willingly going somewhere like Utah or Indiana, but they don’t have trash ownership or front offices, so they aren’t at the bottom of the league year after year doing some never ending tank job

ownership and FO is what is most important...things like location are just extra

Clippers are in LA, and nobody wanted to go there for years because of Donald Sterling

the Knicks have been rejected by many players because of Dolan and the mess they routinely had in the FO

no one wants to go to Chicago

The Lakers were getting rejected after the passing of Dr. Buss until Jeanie ousted her brother and cleaned things up. Are we gonna act like they didn’t have a summer where they had a ton of cap space, and in the end gave big deals to Mozgov and Luol Deng because the top players in free agency like LMA would rather go to San Antonio instead?

Are Kyrie and KD going to BK if Sean Marks didn’t clean things up and make them desirable?

this problem will never be fixed as long as bad owners keep on doing what they’re doing or trash front offices keep messing things up making bad decisions year after year...it’s funny how fans try to put this on the players

like I said earlier, Sacramento could’ve drafted Doncic...they’d probably at least be a playoff team right now for the 1st time since 2006, but nope

 

doing some suck tax or trying to limit player movement isn’t gonna magically make teams like the Wolves, Kings, Pistons, Magic, etc not be sh*tty

these franchises don’t want to be in the lottery year after year, but when u continuously make bad decisions, u find yourself in a never ending cycle of losing hoping to draft some savior who’s greatness can overcome the sh*ttyness of the owner or FO

look at the work Masai did in Toronto...that is not a desirable destination for NBA players by any means, and their history before he took over was quite pathetic...he gave them a good run and ultimately a title

some of these teams go years winning just 20-30 games

Timberwolves have had 1 season above .500 since 2005...that’s primarily because of ownership and FO, not location...yeah, Minnesota is definitely not a desirable city, so that means u need to have shrewd drafting, make good trades, know how to build a team, etc...a suck tax isn’t making any player decide they want to go and play for the Wolves

GS wasn’t a desirable place to play for awhile, but they drafted Steph, Klay, Draymond, signed Iggy, built a good bench, and became good and desirable

 

Solution: Relegation.

 

The nba season is already too long and this season is an outlier in terms of being a disaster because of empty arenas, covid, the protocols, and a grotesquely backlogged knee destroying schedule.

If you really want teams to play for now stop letting them hold/trade so much value in future picks.

 

Bottom two teams out of the league for a year.

 

Then you become baseball where there is the haves and have nots. The only reason the Dodgers and Yankees don’t win all the time is because parity is more built in because of the nature of the game. In the NBA the richest owners would buy the top 3 guys and win year after year.

 

That's why you have to have a hard cap to make it works. Hard cap + no max contract will prevent teams from signing multiple superstars without the stars making huge financial sacrifices.

While we have it, how about having a sort of Survivor game. Each year (or whatever number of years), the owners get to vote out one owner, forcing him to sell the team. Who do you think would be kicked out first?

 

Hard cap + no max contract isn’t even a realistic solution.

The stars will take all the money leaving all the hundreds of other players to fend for the scraps? Yeah right

 

It would be chaotic but to be honest if you paid players on their true value LBJ, Kawhi, and Curry would be worth like 90% of the hard cap. It would be interesting to see how the players handle trying to team up in that scenario.

 

Pretty much this.

The sport lends itself to dominance. Any decade is ruled by 2-4 teams taking turns winning rings mostly with an outlier like the Billups Piston's team or something.

One player can completely change your team's fortune which makes tanking appealing.

While the play-in tourney makes it harder to just throw your season away it doesn't stop tanking completely. Honestly, because of how the sport works, I feel the only thing to stop it would be a relegation system. It'll never happen of course because the owner of the Twolve's would hate to get replaced by the Rio Grande Vipers and players on the Twolves would hate it too...but that would end tanking completely.

The real issue is that the sport doesn't lend itself to parity. In the NFL it's not wild at all for a team to sneak into the playoffs on the last week of play and win a superbowl...the NBA? This isn't happening. Sure, the Warriors could get hot, sneak in, and very well beat the Jazz or something...but that's about as far as they'd go.

So a lot of owners/fans don't see the value in just being in the playoffs...I do think there is value in being an 8th seed especially if you're a young team. Like all the major stars were low seeds at one point in time and had to learn there are levels to this....but in general fans would rather play the lottery than get swept by an eventual champion.

The hard truth is...this is the NBA and it's always been the NBA. Only 3-4 teams have a shot at winning a championship any given year. MLB, NFL, that's not the case. A team can get hot at the end and ride that momentum for a championship.

There is no such thing as that in Basketball. You can't ride hot pitching, you can't lose a game because a guy fumbles a punt return...it's best of 7. You have 7 games against a better team...then if you win...you have another 7 games against an even better team...even teams that come in hot, luck runs out eventually.

 

Instead of a lottery, how about this weirdo idea:
Take the bottom handful of teams every year and then rank them by best PPG defense for the draft. So, you could have the fourth-worst record, but the best defensive effort of the sucky teams, and get the number one pick. And if you have the worst record but let people run 120 pts on you every night, you get like the 5th or 6th pick.

Talent-poor teams would have incentive to at least play people who would make games competitive and give hard fouls in the lane, try to take charges, etc.

I would kind of like to see the lottery go away, personally.

 

The problem with the NBA in regards to the competitive balance or parity. For a better part of 70 years, it's never really had league parity in comparison to say the NFL or NHL. The championship is reserved for the most part to 3-5 teams as true contenders, while some years only 1-2. If you go back and read older magazines, articles, and watch older TV shows. The spotlight still only shined mostly on great teams for the most part, and that's pretty true for other professional team sports. They aren't going to feature a small market team with a middling record and no star players. Even the NFL is very careful about that with the networks primarily looking at primer teams for their prime time schedule. Like really, do you think NBC/ESPN/FOX/CBS want to feature Jacksonville or Tennessee in a chunk of their prime time games. Absolutely not.

With superstar players, isn't it kind of miserable for them to be on a mediocre team with below average franchise and squander their talent for a better part of their career. If your team is not very competitive without that superstar and a small market team that can't attract quality free agents or draft well.

People have always geared their fan support to top-tier teams, even if their home-team is competitive. Look at how many fans the Celtics and Lakers had in other cities during the 80s, even if that city had a good team. Mainly, because of the appeal of Magic and Bird. Even, before those two and after, the NBA has always been about it's superstars (it's true superstars), which usually only about 3-8. More so, the players had much less power to move around in those days, so it wasn't like today. Can anyone point out any player who lifted a small-pond team into mainstream relevance in the NBA? That list is pretty limited, like LeBron, KD/Westbrook, Kemp/Payton, Stockton/Malone, Barkley (Phoenix), Robinson or Duncan (SA), and occasionally a good Detroit team.

Unfortunately, when the league did have parity, the ratings were at an all time low -- mid 70s to early 80s; mid-2000s; and right now (2018-2021). There are extenuating circumstances involved in all of these periods to be fair, but just because there was a more competitive product on the floor. Doesn't necessarily mean the ratings will be higher. It's an element. Even one conference being very well constructed (Western Conference) and is actually the most competitive conference in the last 25 year of any pro team sport. Competition balance may be a smaller problem in the grand scheme of things.

 

The NBA just had a 5th seeded Miami Heat ride a wave to the NBA finals. The MLB/NFL is no different. The teams that actually win the championship are in that elite tier of teams realistically able to win it all. You have sorry teams in those leagues, young potential teams, then you have pretenders. You're more likely to be in this complaining unwatchable mode about how the league is unfair if your team isn't one of those that's winning. People need to stop acting like cinderalla's go to the WS/Super Bowl year in and year out. That definitely doesn't happen.

 

The Miami Heat thing happens RARELY in the NBA though...and they were the 5th seed. Not a 7th or 8th.

Now compare it to the MLB...how many times has the wildcard made it to the World Series or got extremely close? There is an entire list of teams...

https://www.mlb.com/news/wild-card-teams-to-make-the-world-series-c273264024

No, they don't go year in and year out...but it happens far more often than the NBA. If you get hot pitching in the MLB, you can beat anybody.

 

it still doesn't happen often which is the point. the mlb playoffs consists of less teams at 10. There's more than 10 playoff caliber teams in the MLB. Their problem isn't there's too many teams in the playoffs. It's the opposite. And in the end a true elite team in that tier still wins it all

 

I agree with this, too. In the NFL, it was arguable at the start of the 2010s and 2000s, but it's almost a forgone conclusion that you need a superstar QB in some capacity to win a Super Bowl. The only teams that beat that trend are 2017 Philadelphia Eagles (lost their starting QB), maybe 2012/2000 Ravens and 2007/2011 GIants. Perhaps, 2015 Denver Broncos (Peyton was in his twilight years). Most of those teams had pretty stout on defenses, pretty good skill players, and home-field advantage. That brings down to just the Giants, but even they had a good defense with great skill players, while Eli could be outstanding at times.

MLB is a little more apt to that, but even then it's usually the powerhouse teams that win the World series or the teams with higher payrolls. It changes a little bit more, because of the nature of the game and number of players.

An average team across the board is just not supposed to win champions, every year. It's the teams with the best player(s); most competent front offices (pick the right FAs and draftees); crucial home-field advantage; or teams who spend the most money, it's not a magical formula to that. I think it would be an indictment against a sport, if weaker teams kept consistently winning championship, because it pretty much make the regular season obsolete. The same argument would still stand. I think people want that "happy movie ending in a sports movie," where the underdog wins, which is more prone to happen in College Basketball (player movement/a gigantic single elimination tournament/shorter season/different conferences). System works itself out, because even with super teams (formed by superstars) involved in the equation. There have been more of them that have failed than succeeded. The champions are still primarily from the teams who draft the best and pick the right free agents. People will bring up Lebron James, but he is transcendental talent and most of his teams are always going to be somewhat competitive with him. So, he's almost never a good example. Even with his worst indictment, the superstars that he eventually played with all pretty much came from struggling franchises (small market teams, mostly) or pretty non-competitive teams. He didn't exactly join the Yankees/Celtics, while being an unrestricted free agent. Even with KD, you could say he left for a bigger market (from OKC) and didn't like the way he was treated towards the end in GS (going to Brooklyn).

 

ppg defense can have a lot to do with pace tho

Magic give up 112.3 ppg which ranks 17th, but their defensive efficiency is 24th...Cavs give up 111.4 ppg which is 14th, but their defensive efficiency is 22nd

 

That there are less playoff spots in the MLB is a fair point, especially considering since both leagues have 30 teams...so you can argue that the Heat being a 5th seed is equivalent to the Nationals being around that mark too...so yeah the Nats were closer to being the Miami Heat than last year's Blazers.

Personally I'd say it's still pretty rare that a 5th seed or even a 4th seed makes it to the finals when compared to the MLB...but I guess your point is right, usually dominant teams have success...and it doesn't hurt leagues (financially) at all...people arguing that are just wrong. Soccer proves that and so does every other league. People here are kidding themselves, they are salty but they are watching the Nets in the Finals this year.

I do think that how fast a team can turn it around should also factor in to it too though. NBA takes YEARS of correct decisions. Even if you find your Zion (or Lebron) you have to build around him to keep him around.

NFL? Jags could win the AFCS next year and no one would be overly surprised. It'd be "Yeah, we told you Lawerence was the best QB prospect since Luck so there you go."

MLB takes a little longer and somewhere between the NBA and NFL...NBA it seems unheard of a team turning it around overnight to become a contender. 2-3 years at best and that likely means you've drafted some generational superstar player.

 

But the Jags won't be winning the AFCS. The colts/Titans are clearly better than them and are the favorites, especially when their win total consists of a o/u of 10 wins while the Jags sit at 6 which is sitting at bottom 4th worst

 

The NBA is unwatchable because it just sucks. Everyone plays the same. All offense and no defense. Everyone is a walking wide open lay up and open 3. Curry is the only one that amazes me tbh. Stats are a joke now. Entitled and spoiled players. Constant player movement. Buddy team ups and lack of rivalries. Lack of superstar personalities. Ref whining and whining in general. For many, political involvement. Overall, LeBron was the leader of most of this as the face of the league and the mercenary team cherry picking setting the example. Curry changed the league in terms of cheesing the 3 and there will be at least another decade of young prospects and kids trying to play like him that will fill out the future NBA.

I don't know if you can fix it. Maybe a once in a lifetime dominant big in the mold of Wilt or Shaq changes the league again and the rest adapt to try and stop him or maybe in this all offense league, a dominant defensive team takes over and it is a copy-cat league after all and the league balances out again with more teams trying to build in the mold of the dominant defensive team.

"I hate it, but I always have. I've hated the three for 20 years. That's why I make a joke all the time (and say) if we're going to make it a different game, let's have a four-point play. Because if everybody likes the three, they'll really like the four. People will jump out of their seats if you have a five-point play. It will be great. There's no basketball anymore, there's no beauty in it. It's pretty boring. But it is what it is and you need to work with it." - Gregg Popovich