PDA

View Full Version : Would The NBA Be Better If There Were Just 22 Teams?



R_O_W_E
03-25-2010, 08:26 PM
Im talking about if the NBA were to contract maybe 8 teams from the NBA and have a Draft for their players to be picked up by other Franchises.

No offense to anybody on this forum who is a fan of their team but these would probably be the teams on the chop block.

Charlotte
Memphis
Oklahoma City
Miami
Indiana
Minnesota
New Orleans
Sacramento

With that you cut down on the small/poor basketball market teams and teams struggling with ticket sales. Of these 8 teams only 1 has won a Championship, and only the Pacers went to a NBA Finals.

For example, if the 13 players on each team are put up for grabs in a Draft. If you do 4 rounds, a team like the Spurs for example would get 4 players to add to their team. They could do something like this: Round 1-Rudy Gay, Round 2-David Lee, Round 3-Mike Conley, Round 4-Serge Ibaka.

The talent level in the NBA would increase to what it once was back during the prime years of the 70's and 80's with there being amazing teams loaded with talent rather than the stars being spread out all over the league with mediocre teams built around some of them.

Imagine adding 4 current starters basically to the Lakers or Cavs' bench? The talent level would be amazing to watch in the NBA and it might bring the league back to where it once was.


Would anybody like to see this happen?

asandhu23
03-25-2010, 08:59 PM
Remove Kings? they are one of the oldest teams in NBA.

Raph12
03-25-2010, 09:08 PM
Im talking about if the NBA were to contract maybe 8 teams from the NBA and have a Draft for their players to be picked up by other Franchises.

No offense to anybody on this forum who is a fan of their team but these would probably be the teams on the chop block.

Charlotte
Memphis
Oklahoma City
Miami
Indiana
Minnesota
New Orleans
Sacramento

With that you cut down on the small/poor basketball market teams and teams struggling with ticket sales. Of these 8 teams only 1 has won a Championship, and only the Pacers went to a NBA Finals.

For example, if the 13 players on each team are put up for grabs in a Draft. If you do 4 rounds, a team like the Spurs for example would get 4 players to add to their team. They could do something like this: Round 1-Rudy Gay, Round 2-David Lee, Round 3-Mike Conley, Round 4-Serge Ibaka.

The talent level in the NBA would increase to what it once was back during the prime years of the 70's and 80's with there being amazing teams loaded with talent rather than the stars being spread out all over the league with mediocre teams built around some of them.

Imagine adding 4 current starters basically to the Lakers or Cavs' bench? The talent level would be amazing to watch in the NBA and it might bring the league back to where it once was.


Would anybody like to see this happen?

Those are all playoff teams, with the Hornets being playoff potential with CP3 healthy, doubt they'd be on the chop block.

tredigs
03-25-2010, 09:33 PM
Those are all playoff teams, with the Hornets being playoff potential with CP3 healthy, doubt they'd be on the chop block.

For that exact reason, Memphis should be on the chopping block. That team is loaded with young talent and although they're not quite playoff ready, they're dang close in an ultra competitive Western conference. Yet they have HORRIBLE attendance. Every time I watch them on league pass I just feel bad for the players. The T-Wolves would be the other one I would consider axing if I were the commish and something like this were to happen. I wouldn't want to see any more than 2 teams axed (4 absolute max), because truth be told the league is as talented as its ever been, and I'd hate to see solid careers wasted riding the pine because they're playing behind two all stars. Not to mention it takes away a team from the fans that do actually care in those cities.

But yeah, Memphis and Minnesota probably shouldn't have NBA teams. The league as a whole would be stronger without them, they have horrible attendance, and combined they have only made it out of the first round of the playoffs one time, never reached a finals. I think it's safe to say that the expansion experiments have not worked.

billy17
03-25-2010, 09:43 PM
The Thunder really? One of the brightest young teams that just relocated and already has a terrific fan base.

Is the league really not competitive enough?

tredigs
03-25-2010, 09:49 PM
And yeah, saying the Thunder (10th best attendance in the league, JUST moved there, and has some of the best young talent in the NBA) or Miami (decent attendance even in an off year for them, a competitive team that recently won the finals and makes the playoffs most years, and a premier city/market in America) would be likely to get axed is just off. There's zero chance either of those teams would get the guillotine.

IAmKira
03-25-2010, 09:58 PM
this thread is full of fail.. Why isnt the Nets on the list? Why isnt Piston on the list!? :facepalm::facepalm:

Korman12
03-25-2010, 10:07 PM
So, get rid of eight teams to make the Cavs and Lakers better? Yeah, everyone wins there.

netsgiantsyanks
03-25-2010, 10:21 PM
this thread is full of fail.. Why isnt the Nets on the list? Why isnt Piston on the list!? :facepalm::facepalm:

why? because they dont deserve to be on the list and the pistons dont either the nets are havin a bad season and the pistons are too

tredigs
03-25-2010, 10:32 PM
this thread is full of fail.. Why isnt the Nets on the list? Why isnt Piston on the list!? :facepalm::facepalm:

YOU are full of fail. You want to get rid of the PISTONS??? The same Pistons that have been in the Eastern Conference finals or better 6 of the last 7 seasons? And the same Pistons who have great attendance this year despite having an off season? Give me a break dude.

And the Nets --despite their troubles the past few years-- are in a great market, have young talent, huge cap space for this summer, and a new Russian multi-billionaire for an owner (the richest owner in the game).

Did you just randomly pick two teams that are having a bad season and think that's why they should be dismantled?


So, get rid of eight teams to make the Cavs and Lakers better? Yeah, everyone wins there.

This comment can't apply to the Cavs. Just because they got lucky and got the lottery pick for one of the greatest players the NBA's seen, does not mean they're some money mongering juggernaut of a franchise like the Lakers. The players want to play in L.A. for the star appeal, I doubt many players want to play in Cleveland. If/when Lebron leaves, that's going to become a bottom rung organization once again.

asandhu23
03-25-2010, 10:34 PM
YOU are full of fail. You want to get rid of the PISTONS??? The same Pistons that have been in the Eastern Conference finals 6 of the last 7 seasons? And the same Pistons who have great attendance this year despite having an off season? Give me a break dude.

And the Nets --despite their troubles the past few years-- are in a great market, have young talent, huge cap space for this summer, and a new Russian multi-billionaire for an owner (the richest owner in the game).

Did you just randomly pick two teams that are having a bad season and think that's why they should be dismantled?

not for long.

dolfan720
03-25-2010, 10:36 PM
id be different to say the least...

tredigs
03-25-2010, 10:42 PM
not for long.

Hope you're right!

ShockerArt
03-25-2010, 10:48 PM
The NBA is loaded with talent. The current league isn't lagging behind other eras. Also, the Thunder have been to multiple finals and have won a championship as the Supersonics. Other than that, you're right on brother.

runforrestrunx9
03-25-2010, 10:56 PM
while the team picks wouldnt be easy... i actually think this is a pretty awesome idea... mabe cut out 6 teams and have it at 24... 12/conference... 8 man lotto... makes the league more competitive, makes games more exciting, brings up attendance rates, reduces bad attitudes (more stars on a team, less need for one player, they need 2 behave better).

And ill add another twist... There is almost a minor league... rosters r reduced to 10 and each team has reserves that play on like a summer league type system. Still playing, injuries occur, they move up... I think thatd be cool

tredigs
03-25-2010, 11:28 PM
while the team picks wouldnt be easy... i actually think this is a pretty awesome idea... mabe cut out 6 teams and have it at 24... 12/conference... 8 man lotto... makes the league more competitive, makes games more exciting, brings up attendance rates, reduces bad attitudes (more stars on a team, less need for one player, they need 2 behave better).

And ill add another twist... There is almost a minor league... rosters r reduced to 10 and each team has reserves that play on like a summer league type system. Still playing, injuries occur, they move up... I think thatd be cool

Minus the roster spots reducing, it somewhat exists. The D-League. You might be on to something though. I'm just trying to decide if the 4 or 5 guys that never see action except for random garbage time minutes would be better off playing against other garbage time players in the D-league, or if their time being with and practicing with the best in the game makes them better overall.

I'd meet you halfway and say that I'm into limiting the roster to 12 players, but having one D-League team assigned to one NBA team. That way they could be sent down to the D-League and get run in an NBA esque level game with people they could potentially get run with with the pro team.

Hellcrooner
03-25-2010, 11:31 PM
remove every team that joined after 1980 for example.


and YEs it would be it woudl be as strong as in the first half of the 80s

simple maths.

if you cut 8 teams these are

8 supposed franchise players that become second options

16 supossed second options that become third options

32 third options that become role players

100 players that get out of the league

Hellcrooner
03-25-2010, 11:34 PM
well not exaclty that numbers but you get the idea.

mzgrizz
03-26-2010, 12:15 AM
Not to offend anyone either, but would PSD be a better forum if there were only posters allowed who had 1000+ posts at this point in time?

soonabooma
03-26-2010, 12:52 AM
The Thunder really? One of the brightest young teams that just relocated and already has a terrific fan base.

Is the league really not competitive enough?

Exactly....good point. Only a douchebaggy tool would even attempt to put them on the list.

kblo247
03-26-2010, 02:38 AM
24 would actually be perfect:

- Drop the Timberwolves, Clippers, and Grizzlies from the West
- Drop the Bobcats, Raptors, and Nets from the East

Take the talent from those 6 teams and let their be a 2 round lottery for their players.

Keep the 16 team playoff format how it is, but make the 8 teams who miss the playoffs have an equivalent to March Madness to win their respective lottery picks.

Lakersfan2483
03-26-2010, 02:48 AM
The games would be much better with less teams. The gap between the really good teams and the bad teams would not be as wide and the competition would be much better.

GodsSon
03-26-2010, 02:50 AM
24 would actually be perfect:

- Drop the Timberwolves, Clippers, and Grizzlies from the West
- Drop the Bobcats, Raptors, and Nets from the East

Take the talent from those 6 teams and let their be a 2 round lottery for their players.

Keep the 16 team playoff format how it is, but make the 8 teams who miss the playoffs have an equivalent to March Madness to win their respective lottery picks.

Yes...get rid of a team that ranks in the top 12 in attendance, actually pulls in a profit, and is top 12 in net worth...excellent idea

jackdawson
03-26-2010, 02:57 AM
Fail. /thread.

kblo247
03-26-2010, 03:10 AM
Yes...get rid of a team that ranks in the top 12 in attendance, actually pulls in a profit, and is top 12 in net worth...excellent idea

They have a history of mediocrity and not mattering though more than being relevant

Plus I never thought Canada deserved a NBA team since they aren't part of the nation known as the USA

goldenstater
03-26-2010, 03:43 AM
They have a history of mediocrity and not mattering though more than being relevant

Plus I never thought Canada deserved a NBA team since they aren't part of the nation known as the USA

You do know that the great James Naismith was Canadian right? Maybe they deserve one team cuddy.

Sadds The Gr8
03-26-2010, 03:49 AM
you do know that the great james naismith was canadian right? Maybe they deserve one team cuddy.

+1

Hellcrooner
03-26-2010, 04:29 AM
+1 simpathy vote to the Canadians against american prejudices.
I would recommend tough buying the rights to the Huskies Name.
That way you are also a FOUNDER of the league.

R_O_W_E
03-26-2010, 11:09 AM
Wow some people really took this to heart over the teams I suggested. Let me explain myself.

The Nets should not and would not be on the chopping block for the same reason as a team like the Los Angeles Clippers.

1. They're in/going to be in the 2 biggest NBA markets

Thats the end of the discussion right there, the NBA makes more money from a team like the Clippers than a team like the Pacers for example. Both are struggling teams but the larger market allows them to make more money off of the Clippers.


Teams that would remain:


Boston Celtics
Toronto Raptors
Philadelphia 76ers
New Jersey Nets
New York Knicks

None of the Atlantic teams would be cut. They each play in major sports markets and bring more revenue to the league when they're successful. The belief that a team like Toronto would or should be cut is laughable, Toronto is one of the largest media markets in the world with a multi million population. Is professional basketball the biggest sport in Canada? No. However its closer to the top than it is in the United States. The Nets are moving to Brooklyn to a state of the art complex in the heart of Brooklyn.


Chicago Bulls
Cleveland Cavaliers
Detroit Pistons
Milwaukee Bucks


Chicago obviously is a historic team of a major market. Cleveland is an average media market but the revenue they generate based on their fanbase has been great for the NBA. Detroit is another historic team of a major market. It was tough deciding between Milwaukee and Indiana, however I'd give the edge to Milwaukee solely because their fanbase has been more active at games than the Pacers. The Pacers have ranked in the bottom of attendance for several years now, and weren't as highly ranked when there was a competitive product on the court in the mid 2000's. The Pacers would be axed solely because they are in a historic yet poor basketball market which has struggled with attendance and interest in what you could consider a "High school & college basketball" state.



Washington
Atlanta
Orlando

The DMV area is a major market featuring multiple cities with large populations surrounding DC with a short driving distance. Atlanta is a major market. Orlando is one of the 20 largest media markets in the United States, however Miami is a bigger market. The thing that seperates both is that Miami has a prime location in South Florida where there is other sports, activities that outweigh professional basketball while Orlando is almost you could say a typical southern city in the middle of Florida. The Magic also have plans to increase their attendance with their new arena coming soon, they'd be one of the smaller markets in the new league but have something to show for it. What is the Miami Heat without Dwyane Wade being marketed in the area? Miami is just a poor professional basketball market, the numerous open seats at their games is an embarassment to the league. The Bobcats would get the axe solely because they are the recent expansion team into an average market by the NBA.



Denver Nuggets
Portland Trailblazers
Utah Jazz

Denver is a great basketball market with an active fanbase. The same can be said for Portland which is now the only team in the Northwest. Utah isn't a great basketball market but has without question the most consistent fanbase in the entire league despite the size of the population in SLC. Minnesota would be cut solely because although they have a top 20 media market, they are an example of a failed expansion team that has never been able to compete with the major markets in terms of prolonged success. Oklahoma City is not the Seattle Sonics, they are their own Franchise as has been proven by the city of Seattle keeping all of the historic data for the Sonics. Oklahoma City could potentially become the likes of Utah in terms of a small market that brings revenue due to an active consistent fanbase. If anything I'd leave them on if the league were cut to 24 teams rather than 22, due to the potential of what could be.



Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
Phoenix Suns

Golden State is in one of the largest media markets in the country in the Bay Area. Despite prolonged failure in California they have still been able to keep a strong fanbase. The Lakers and Clippers are both in LA. Phoenix is in a major media market and their fanbase strong in recent years and their fans come close to filling up their arena nearly every night. The Kings are in a horrible media market being in what you could consider to be an industrial city, and if anything in order to salavage the Franchise they could finally relocate to Las Vegas as has been rumored for years.



Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
San Antonio Spurs


Great, great basketball markets for each team with strong fanbases. The Spurs' turnaround due to their success has been remarkable compared to where they were 10-15 years ago and the Mavericks are the best success story in terms of an expansion team. New Orleans is a poor basketball market, it is a football market. New Orleans will continue to rank at the bottom in attendance for years until the city is able to completely rebuild itself which could take anywhere from 10-15 years to finish the process. Memphis is the worst example of an expansion franchise in any sport, they were brought in as an expansion team to Vancouver and then were relocated within their first ten years to Memphis where they have continued to struggle and there stands a possibility they could end up relocating again once their lease at the FedEx Forum expires.


Like I mentioned earlier, no offense to anybody who is a fan of a team I had on the list. It has nothing to do with their current success, or the players they are building around. It only has to do with removing small market teams which can never compete with the likes of the major market teams without a very invested ownership group. It also removes the teams who are struggling in attendance as recent expansion teams aswell as teams who have been unable to build upon their attendance despite success.


David Stern is losing money for the league solely because he expanded it too fast, the NBA is not the NFL. The NBA is a unique sport that sometimes is not even a popular sport in the city a franchise is relocated to or is brought in via expansion. If you cut down on the small markets and the poor attendance rates you can build upon competitive basketball in the major markets which due to their size will be able to generate more money if even better than a small market team could.

CowboysKB24
03-26-2010, 11:16 AM
This will never happen. This is stupid.

ShockerArt
03-26-2010, 11:20 AM
The NHL needs contraction. The NBA just needs to get salaries under control. Too many GMs end up bidding against themselves for free agents.

R_O_W_E
03-26-2010, 11:25 AM
The games would be much better with less teams. The gap between the really good teams and the bad teams would not be as wide and the competition would be much better.

Exactly.

This reduces the gap and makes games more interesting to watch to generate ticket sales.

Most people aren't going to want to watch or pay high priced tickets to see a team like the T'Wolves or Grizzlies when they are on the road to play a team like the Knicks for example. It has nothing to do with the success of the team, it has to do with the relevance and the promotion used to generate interest for that team. Most people aren't really going to think about the likes of Minneapolis or Memphis in terms of the NBA, however you can get more of a reaction if the likes of Houston or Los Angeles goes on the road due to them being major market teams. People know their teams name, and know about the city they are from.

Im just being honest. Nobody outside of fans of teams like the Thunder and Kings care anything about a Thunder vs Kings game in the regular season. Cutting down on these useless matchups in the regular season between small market teams and when small market teams go onto the road to major markets for games, it increases the interest level to watch nothing but competitive games. Why does anyone not wonder why Thunder games are rarely aired on TV unless they're playing a team like the Lakers? Thats because the Los Angeles media market and Lakers fans across the country make up for the viewership that is being lost by showing a small market teams. Its a great matchup with Playoff implications but once the average person hears "Oklahoma City" they will change the channel and expect a Lakers win.


ABC has been very successful showcasing games of major market teams during their Sunday games. It draws in attention across the country for the simple reason of having 2 cities they recognize with teams facing each other. A matchup of Boston and Houston always will get great ratings because people will want to tune in to see these teams play because they're recognizable. These current expansion teams are just not recognizable to the general public and in some cases its been over 20 years and they still haven't reached a recognizable status. If you ask a casual basketball fan(the guy who thinks the best player in the NBA is Kobe) what city the team "Grizzlies" play in, they wouldn't have a clue. The expansion teams are only relevant to devoted basketball fans like on PSD who even know the names of players on their bench, let alone their stars.

R_O_W_E
03-26-2010, 11:26 AM
This will never happen. This is stupid.

It gets no better than a Cowboys and Lakers fan.:eyebrow:

Ethix11
03-26-2010, 11:28 AM
This is stupid. What would you say to 10 seasons from now when the NBA gets even more competetive. Have you not noticed the influx of talent over the past few years? And how is fans not filling up arenas bad for the NBA or bad for you? If anything its bad for the owners who arent making as much as they could be making. This is a hate thread. Theres no reason whatsoever why the NBA should cut down franchises because that would equal less fans!

R_O_W_E
03-26-2010, 11:29 AM
The NHL needs contraction. The NBA just needs to get salaries under control. Too many GMs end up bidding against themselves for free agents.

The salary issues is what ends up killing the small market teams. Unless you have an invested owner you usually end up in the red trying to sell tickets to bring in more money to offset the cost of paying overpriced Free Agents eating up salary on the roster. The likes of Jermaine O'Neal and Peja Stojakovic come to mind.

If you have nothing but competitive teams in the NBA featuring stars from other teams added on to the current teams to make them even better then it saves the GM because the draw of watching a talented team outweighs watching a star player with overpriced role players around him.

R_O_W_E
03-26-2010, 11:33 AM
This is stupid. What would you say to 10 seasons from now when the NBA gets even more competetive. Have you not noticed the influx of talent over the past few years? And how is fans not filling up arenas bad for the NBA or bad for you? If anything its bad for the owners who arent making as much as they could be making. This is a hate thread. Theres no reason whatsoever why the NBA should cut down franchises because that would equal less fans!

So you think that bringing a team to a place like Memphis creates "NBA fans"? There were basketball fans there before the Grizzlies even arrived, they either rooted for another team or were fans of a hometown player. A team coming there to Memphis does nothing more than try to make a profit off of those fans by having a way for them to spend their money on the league rather than cheering from a distance of their favorite team.

The NBA has multiple teams not even turning a profit and you think thats good for the NBA? There are several teams that are likely going to end up having to be relocated in order for the NBA to make a profit off of them, this always why you hear the likes of Seattle, Vegas, and Missouri(KC and St.Louis) when talking about relocation of struggling teams.

mser58
03-26-2010, 11:36 AM
while the team picks wouldnt be easy... i actually think this is a pretty awesome idea... mabe cut out 6 teams and have it at 24... 12/conference... 8 man lotto... makes the league more competitive, makes games more exciting, brings up attendance rates, reduces bad attitudes (more stars on a team, less need for one player, they need 2 behave better).

And ill add another twist... There is almost a minor league... rosters r reduced to 10 and each team has reserves that play on like a summer league type system. Still playing, injuries occur, they move up... I think thatd be cool

Cut the playoffs down to maybe 6 or 4 even?

I love the idea

R_O_W_E
03-26-2010, 11:46 AM
Cut the playoffs down to maybe 6 or 4 even?

I love the idea

Nah the Playoff at 8 is fine the way it is, but cutting the series down to 2 with aggregate is even better and makes the games more meaningful. Its clear in the ratings for the 1st Round Games in the Playoffs last season that the highest ratings came from the deciding games whether Game 6 or Game 7.

If you add the addition of aggregate to the Playoff Games just like in Soccer you make the games even more passionate and intense. For example if the Celtics win their first game 91-73 over the Hawks, in order for the Hawks to win the series they have to beat the Celtics by winning by 19 points. Can you imagine the pressure and intensity the players will be feeling having to score so many points just to advance? Shots become even more crucial and defense becomes a must in order to win. Everybody will have to give an A+ effort in order to win by a specific margin, and a team like the Celtics have to give an A+ effort to keep it from happening.

masalex1205
03-26-2010, 11:52 AM
How about we cut the Raiders from the NFL?

R_O_W_E
03-26-2010, 11:54 AM
How about we cut the Raiders from the NFL?

Wouldn't happen.:)

Its no need to get hurt feelings by this thread, Im just pointing out a major flaw in the league with Franchises that shouldn't exist draining away money from the NBA in this decade.

Hellcrooner
03-26-2010, 12:20 PM
Raiders jsut need to go back to L.A , or Rams or whatever but soon

then i can make a Lakers/Kings/Dodgers/Galaxy/+nfl team sig.