i tell you what... make the rules like they were in the 80's where you had to actually create a disadvantage in order to be called for a foul... basically, better athletes started playing better defense in the early 90's. the game was slowed down and it became tougher to score. so to re-up the scoring, stern comes up with new rules to try and compensate for having better athletes. this whole "if you touch your guy on the perimeter it's a foul" stuff gives all the control to the refs. players almost can't control their own game. and it slows down the game because ticky tack calls happen ALL THE TIME. so i'd call the game like it used to be called back in the day. THEN? i'd resize the court. make it bigger. more freedom. more movement. more room to get by your guy.
How about this... Build a referee salary review board. This board of people analyzes tape of each game and takes note of when a ref makes a bad call/non-call. Refs who are accurate get paid a very high salary. Refs who are not accurate get paid a low salary and may lose their job. This provides the refs with a strong financial incentive on accuracy. Newbie referees would start off at moderate salary, but if the review board finds them to be inaccurate, they wouldn't be back the next year (or their salary would be reduced). On the other hand, if the review board found them to be accurate, they'd be paid a high salary and they'd be back the next year. So, basically, in each year, each referee's salary would be directly related to how accurate their calls were. Very high salaries would be paid to very accurate refs, and inaccurate refs would be paid low salary and possibly lose their job. (I also agree with the ideas of the instant replay/challenge rules)
