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

Sure they aren't the favorites but they could. In the NFL we had an entire division, the NFCS, that had insane parity for a long time.

The Titans and Colts were trash for example, the Colts...sucked for one year post-Luck and then back to contending for the AFCS.

Post Manning...sucked for one year. This happens a lot in the NFL.

 

just because they "could" doesn't mean it's likely going to happen, which it isn't. You can play this "could" game in so many other areas, doesn't mean it's going to happen which is what matters

insane parity in the NFCS? I mean in the last decade they had one year in 2017 where 3 teams had 10,11,11 wins. Other than that, it never happened again. There was always at least 2 teams under .500. Not much parity there

 

It would be hilarious if all the worst teams started slowing their awful games down tho.

 

The NBA is too often unwatchable because the regular season isn't taken seriously. The play-in tournament has been a help and should never go away, but there needs to be greater incentive to make the everyday weeknight game meaningful.

What you have going on instead are your best players taking nights off all the time, extended breaks under trivial/non-existent injuries, and good players on bad teams who basically check out and stop trying because they're unhappy.

I'd love to see the playoffs reformed even more - extend the play in tournament so only the top-4 seeds on each side avoid it, reformat the playoffs so the seeding is across the league and non-conference based, and restructure your agreement going forward with players to financially incentivize playing and discourage 'load management'.

I would reformat the lottery so only the bottom-3 stand the highest chances of getting a top-3 pick (give each a 33% shot), and then make the rest of the lottery far more "open" - bottom 4-10 all get equal chances of ending up with a pick in the 4-10 range, and then the rest 11+ just get ranked where they fall.

 

The Parity I'm talking about is not in records, it is that one team can be on the bottom in one year and the top in the next. Just like the Colts who only have one bad year and then return to be a playoff team the very next year. This happens every year in the NFL, every single year, in the NBA? Not so much. A team has to basically go through stages to reach the top again. You can't just draft Andrew Luck and be a playoff contender in a snap like you can in the NFL.

 

Well if you're talking about parity, records should be taken into account. Were the suns not just in one of the worst stretches. And in the flip of an off-season grabbing a few players they now have one of the top records in the league.

 

Why not just keep the max contract, but raise it to a level that would make three near max-players 100% impossible under any conceivable circumstance. It would make having 2 max players more painful in the process (though still possible).

 

Hmm, I think he's talking about going up and down in a shorter period of time. I think he was saying it isn't as common for NFL teams to languish for 10+ years before finally make the playoffs. It doesn't require things like drafting future superstars with the 13th pick to even sniff being successful. A lot of things had to go right over a long period of time before it finally made sense for the Suns to "go for it" this offseason.

 

The nature of the NBA to the NFL is completely different. Everything from the roster,draft,player impact, money, games, playoffs, coaching etc.There's no such thing as trying to make the NBA like the NFL or any other professional league for that matter. Notice how the NFL has expanded the playoff teams. So is the standard now just making the playoffs as "successful"

 

I'm not sure. Maybe? I'm just saying your response didn't appear to be addressing his point that the "bad years" for small market teams in the NFL typically aren't as common or as long as they are in the NBA.

 

this just goes back to the difference between the NBA and NFL for reasons previously mentioned. 2 completely different played games, 2 completely different ways they operate from top to bottom

 

That was an odd year with Covid going on but the Suns were in that mediocre tier last year, you have to go through like tiers in the NBA. Suns weren't exactly garbage, they were just...there, kind of like the Pacers now or the Spurs...now add a top player to either of these teams and they jump into that next tier of 'Sure-fire' playoff team...add depth around superstars then they jump into the 'Contending tier' I guess the Suns jumped a tier because adding CP3 who has been playing MVP caliber ball has allowed them to...but say they just added Jrue Holiday or something then they'd be more of a 4-5 seed than a top 5 overall team.

In the NFL you can really be a trash team one year drafting top 5 and then a top team, just like that. All it takes is a superstar QB or a transcendent generational defensive player like Ray Lewis, Watt, A.Donald or getting a coach that is a great strategist that gets the most out of your team and you're right there again. In the NBA it's going to take years to get back into serious contention.

And just the sport of football itself just means more parity, less games mathematically means more wackiness, I think that's the biggest reason it has the parity it has along with the nature of the game.

 

Yeah, I agree there are a lot of differences. However, before I thought you were using the Suns as an example to says that is possible for teams to go from bad to good quickly in the NBA, which I disagreed with, because it ignores the 10 years of team building and good fortune that had to happen to even it make it possible. Basically, seemed like you were implying that that the quick turnarounds that happen in the NFL can be done just as readily in the NBA (using the Suns as an example). But now you're saying you do agree with his point? That's it's a lot harder for NBA teams (particularly small market) to go from bad to good when compared to the NFL (due to the nature of the sports/leagues)?

It sounds like everyone agrees. I think the disagreement is that you think there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

 

Before the bubble, the suns were 13 games under .500. They were well on their way to another bad year.

 

I am pointing out things happen in the NBA just like it happens in other leagues. but you also have to take into account the differences. No other league is going to be like the NBA. In fact, a lot of NFL players look at the NBA in jealousy and it's growing freedom

You do see teams like the Jets/Browns suck for a very long time

 

It was a season cut short by the virus halfway through, the Suns could have still ended the season as a mediocre team, could have gotten hot...

But even still, it took years for them to even get to that point. Add CP3...now take away Booker and Ayton...and you get a mediocre team. It still took the Suns years to get to the point they are at now where it makes sense for them to add CP3 to their team.

I think the NBA it takes minimum 2-3 years, in the best of cases, to get back into contention and everything has to go right...like for the Nets or Lakers.

NFL it's just a faster track because of a ton of reasons, sure, but while it can take 3 years just to be a 4-5 seed in the NBA in the best of cases, it can take 2 years from being mediocre to championship winning team in the NFL. The Jags, if they made all the right moves. Could be winning a superbowl in 2023. Tampa Bay did it, KC did i, Rams too (although they did not win a superbowl they turned it around quickly.

Can you say the same for the Rockets? There is no realistic pathway for the Rockets to be in the finals in 2023...they'd be lucky to be a 10th seed. If the Rockets are competing for an 8th seed in 2023 thanks to Cade and KPJ people would say "They are really on the right track here..."

 

NFL can turn it around quicker, but you can also drop just as fast. When you're an actual realistic contention in the NBA there's a window where you're there for a significant stretch, unless you have a dumbass owner like someone in Houston

you still have teams like the jets/browns that suck for years in the nfl

 

The superstar players are miserable only when a few other teams have multiple superstars you have no chance to beat for the better part of your prime. This is what is going on in the NBA. That's why those superstars want out to join teams that already have superstars. So it's pretty much a vicious cycle. The good teams (usually big market teams) get better and the rest of the league can't catch up. The only hope those other teams have is tanking and getting a superstar from the drafts. Even if you are lucky enough to do that, you still have the problem of getting at least one more superstar soon enough before your own superstar gets impatient and leave.

But if the system spread out superstar talents, then each superstar, at least theoretically, may have a chance to lead his team to compete during his prime years.

 

I think we're mostly agreeing anyway and agree that in the end, there really isn't anything wrong with superteams or dominant teams in the NBA in terms of finances which is all that matters to the NBA as a business. So the NBA is far from 'unwatchable' as the OP suggests. I mean it's unwatchable if you plan on watching the Rockets or Pistons every night...sure.