PDA

View Full Version : The Concept of 1-3-5-7 playoff format



PeanutPunch33
08-12-2016, 03:58 PM
A friend and I were having an interesting conversation today about the lack of talent disparity in the league and how in any given year, perhaps 26 teams have realistically have zero chance of winning a championship.

At the current rate, the league is lacking in parity due to the formation of super teams and the dominance of upper echelon talent, like a Lebron or Steph. Do you think the league can address the disparity by changing the playoff format?

1-3-5-7. Win or go home in round 1. Winning that game earns you more security with a best of 3 game format in round 2. Best of 5 in the conference finals and best of 7 in the finals.

This will obviously never happen but I thought it was a neat idea. What do you guys think?

One understandable concern is that it's pretty ****** to play an 82 game season just to go home after 1 bad shooting night, but we believe in the future the 82 game season will be shorter, and this could be a complementary idea.

DanG
08-12-2016, 05:38 PM
I think only round 1 needs a chance, but definitely not to best of 1. I still want to see the best team win.

5-7-7-7 seems perfect to me.

best of 3 in round 2? No injuries and we would have had a GSW-LAC 2nd round last year. Damn sure I want to see Steph go up against CP3 as much as possible.

IndyRealist
08-12-2016, 05:54 PM
League would never go for it, because of all the TV revenue playoff games generate. Players would never go for it, because the better team would lose too often. When the first round was best of 5, #1 seeds kept getting eliminated. That's why they went to best of 7 in the first place, to minimize the upsets.

What you're essentially doing is making everything more random. While technically that is parity, that's not what anyone wants.

Scoots
08-12-2016, 06:18 PM
A friend and I were having an interesting conversation today about the lack of talent disparity in the league and how in any given year, perhaps 26 teams have realistically have zero chance of winning a championship.

At the current rate, the league is lacking in parity due to the formation of super teams and the dominance of upper echelon talent, like a Lebron or Steph.

And before the Heatles and these Warriors? What was happening then? Total parity?

In the 20 years before the Heatles the Spurs won 4, the Bulls 6, the Lakers 5, and the Pistons 2 times. Yeah, any team had a chance before the "Super team" came around. :rolleyes:

PeanutPunch33
08-12-2016, 08:23 PM
You realize how many teams have never sniffed a championship appearance and/or a title win right? there was never that much parity even before super teams

McAllen Tx
08-12-2016, 08:24 PM
Me and my friend were having this same disparity conversation. We came up with the 1 vrs 8 and 2 vrs 7 should have best of 7 rock, paper, scissors battles. Any draws then the next counts for 2 wins.

Can you imagine the pressure if a series starts with 3 straight draws? The next battle will be for a series sweep.

D-Leethal
08-12-2016, 08:25 PM
I would be down with 3-5-7-7. NBA playoffs are absurdly long. I wouldn't mind cutting it down while giving us less predictability with a 3 game and a 5 game series in the first two rounds.

1 game in round 1 is just a little overboard with the upsets and would create too many bad matchups in round 2. In the NCAA tourny when the low seed makes an upset in round 1 they almost always get the brakes beat off them in round 2. We would want to avoid TOO much of that.

JordansBulls
08-12-2016, 08:48 PM
I think only round 1 needs a chance, but definitely not to best of 1. I still want to see the best team win.

5-7-7-7 seems perfect to me.

best of 3 in round 2? No injuries and we would have had a GSW-LAC 2nd round last year. Damn sure I want to see Steph go up against CP3 as much as possible.

Round 1 needs to go back to 5 game series.

hugepatsfan
08-13-2016, 06:08 PM
I can see the 5 game 1st round coming back down the line. It's a loss of revenue so it will never happen now. BUT, if stars continue to team up and a rich get richer while the poor get poorer situation continues to take place more and more I can see fan interest overall starting to decline if it just keeps happening to absurd levels like it is with Durant going to GS. Then the 5 game series can help create more upsets, thus more intrigue and an overall rise in profits from what they'd be with declined interest.

That's a long ways away because we'd need what happend this year with GS to keep happening to extreme levels. With the cap smoothing out and GS just being a rare case where they drafted so well it's unlikely it ever gets to that point.

warfelg
08-14-2016, 07:47 AM
I can see the 5 game 1st round coming back down the line. It's a loss of revenue so it will never happen now. BUT, if stars continue to team up and a rich get richer while the poor get poorer situation continues to take place more and more I can see fan interest overall starting to decline if it just keeps happening to absurd levels like it is with Durant going to GS. Then the 5 game series can help create more upsets, thus more intrigue and an overall rise in profits from what they'd be with declined interest.

That's a long ways away because we'd need what happend this year with GS to keep happening to extreme levels. With the cap smoothing out and GS just being a rare case where they drafted so well it's unlikely it ever gets to that point.

Agreed 100% on the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer eventually having an effect on the league. Yea right now you can point to interest int the game growing, but you can say that about almost any sport right now.

hugepatsfan
08-14-2016, 12:36 PM
Agreed 100% on the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer eventually having an effect on the league. Yea right now you can point to interest int the game growing, but you can say that about almost any sport right now.

I wonder if it could end up like the housing market where the bubble bursts. These super teams are exciting but is there a point where it's too much?

What made MIA so great for the NBA was that even though they were a super team, they didn't actually play as well on paper as they should have. Obviously they were great but still beatable. There's intrigue in that. GS seems to be on another level with an extra elite player (impact can't be understated of an extra elite player in a game where each guy on the court is 20% of his team) and how their games figure to mesh so flawlessly. Their role players (Iggy, Livingston, Zaza, West) probably are better than what MIA had supporting their Big 3 (not 4) as well. If they just steamroll everyone like they should at what point does that become no longer intriguing. Will people want to watch if they're leading by 15-20 point at the half in pretty much every game? That's the level of dominance they should be asserting with what they have. Only the Cavs/Spurs should be able to keep it closer than that and even then they shouldn't be able to win, on paper at least.

JasonJohnHorn
08-14-2016, 04:40 PM
This isn't college ball. I wouldn't mind the first round going back to 5 games, but I mean, the teams who are most likely to lost in the first round are those that are seated 2-4, and therefore would make it even easier for the 1 seed.

As to 26 teams having zero chance.... I don't agree with that. I think most people said the East had zero chance of winning the finals, and yet they did. And in the West you had people arguing that the Spurs would beat the Warriors, while the Thunder actually were in a position to beat them. So there are four teams right there. I think a healthy Clippers team would have matched up well with the Warriors too.

I think this upcoming season, teams will struggle to compete with the Warriors, and the East will likely be dominated by the Cavs again, but I don't think a 1-3-5-7 format is the answer. All that will have is fluke series eliminating true competitors.

5-7-7-7 is fine. If you want to expand the playoffs and let the 7 and 8 seeds and the 9 and 10 seeds have a 1 or 3 game series with the to decide who gets 7th and 8th spots, that'd be fine. But putting seeds 2-4 in a position to lose in the first round on one game will only make it easier for dominate teams to dominate.

TylerSL
08-14-2016, 04:43 PM
The NBA needs to adopt the NFL playoff structure if they want to have the best system in place. They'll never do it because less playoff games would mean less money but if they only allowed the top 6 teams in each conference in it would make the playoffs a more prestigious event and would allow for better playoff series. Also allowing the top 2 seeds in each conference more rest and an automatic pass into the conference semi-finals would make the regular season more meaningful. The 3-6 and 4-5 seeds would play in best-of-5 series and everything else would be best-of-7.

But in the scheme of things, no there is nothing that can be seriously done about the lack of parity in the league. The league has never really had great parity. In EVERY era there is only a handful of teams that have a chance (baring injury of course). Now it's the Cavaliers/Warriors/Spurs, a couple year's ago it was Heat/Spurs/Thunder. In the mid 2000's it was Lakers/Spurs/Pistons, and mid-late 90's it was Bulls/Rockets/Jazz. Early 90's Bulls/Lakers/Pistons/Blazers. Throughout the 80's it was Celtics/Lakers/Pistons/76ers. Only three or four teams truly competing has literally always been the case.

TylerSL
08-14-2016, 05:03 PM
The NBA could also change the playoff format by going the world cup soccer route and having the playoffs be Group Stages. The top 8 in both conferences get in and split the teams into Group A and B. The 1, 4, 5, and 8 seeds would be Group A and the 2, 3, 6, and 7 seeds would be Group B for both conferences. Each team would play the other teams in their group two times (6 games, 3 home/3 road) and the teams with two best records in each group move onto the conference semi-finals. If two teams tie say 2nd and 3rd in the group they could play a deciding 7th game to determine who advances (the higher seed gets home court). The seeding for the conference semis would be based on regular season seeding so even if the #4 seed has a better group record than the #1 seed, the #1 seed will still have home court advantage. The semi-finals/conference-finals/NBA Finals should all be 7 game series.

ombada
08-14-2016, 06:20 PM
The NBA could also change the playoff format by going the world cup soccer route and having the playoffs be Group Stages. The top 8 in both conferences get in and split the teams into Group A and B. The 1, 4, 5, and 8 seeds would be Group A and the 2, 3, 6, and 7 seeds would be Group B for both conferences. Each team would play the other teams in their group two times (6 games, 3 home/3 road) and the teams with two best records in each group move onto the conference semi-finals. If two teams tie say 2nd and 3rd in the group they could play a deciding 7th game to determine who advances (the higher seed gets home court). The seeding for the conference semis would be based on regular season seeding so even if the #4 seed has a better group record than the #1 seed, the #1 seed will still have home court advantage. The semi-finals/conference-finals/NBA Finals should all be 7 game series.

What if they just kept the format the same but changed which seeds play each other?

first round would be 1v4 2v3 5v8 6v7. Those first round games would be much closer and more exciting. It would give the top teams a more difficult path to the finals and perhaps if they arent ready upsets could happen.

Jeffy25
08-14-2016, 10:40 PM
League will continue with a 2 month playoff because of the revenue it creates.

That said, parity can be fixed by a few ways. For one, get rid of the stupid salary cap. All it does is force players to make less money so why not go to a place to win considering it's the max they can make any way. I believe several players in the NBA make more in endorsements than they do in salary, you won't see that in the MLB.

The two ways to fix the super team creation is to allow teams to control their drafted players for longer than 4 years. In baseball for example, it's 6 years.

And I'm not just talking rookie scale extensions either and not restricted free agents either.

No salary cap, and guys can't reach free agency until they have 6 years of service time. And after 6 years, a team can still apply a franchise tag like in football for one additional season.

This would get teams through the majority of a players peak before they have to fear bidding for their own star.


Too much super team attraction. I would prefer the game evolve more to simply fit of teams, rather than superstar attempts at big 3's.


I don't blame the players for jumping, but we should give the team that developed the player a better chance at keeping those guys. Maybe this isn't the solution, but the salary cap is one way to help slow that down.


If basketball had baseball's salary distribution and revenue sharing model with a luxury tax, you would see a better distribution of talent.

People think a salary cap keeps teams like the Lakers and Knicks from forming super teams, but it's the opposite. When there is no financial motivation to go to those teams, players will simply team up where the endorsements are strongest (i.e. those cities any way).


You would see player salaries sky rocket and lower revenue teams a chance to pay to lock their players up.

Jeffy25
08-14-2016, 10:51 PM
League will continue with a 2 month playoff because of the revenue it creates.

That said, parity can be fixed by a few ways. For one, get rid of the stupid salary cap. All it does is force players to make less money so why not go to a place to win considering it's the max they can make any way. I believe several players in the NBA make more in endorsements than they do in salary, you won't see that in the MLB.

The two ways to fix the super team creation is to allow teams to control their drafted players for longer than 4 years. In baseball for example, it's 6 years.

And I'm not just talking rookie scale extensions either and not restricted free agents either.

No salary cap, and guys can't reach free agency until they have 6 years of service time. And after 6 years, a team can still apply a franchise tag like in football for one additional season.

This would get teams through the majority of a players peak before they have to fear bidding for their own star.


Too much super team attraction. I would prefer the game evolve more to simply fit of teams, rather than superstar attempts at big 3's.


I don't blame the players for jumping, but we should give the team that developed the player a better chance at keeping those guys. Maybe this isn't the solution, but the salary cap is one way to help slow that down.


If basketball had baseball's salary distribution and revenue sharing model with a luxury tax, you would see a better distribution of talent.

People think a salary cap keeps teams like the Lakers and Knicks from forming super teams, but it's the opposite. When there is no financial motivation to go to those teams, players will simply team up where the endorsements are strongest (i.e. those cities any way).


You would see player salaries sky rocket and lower revenue teams a chance to pay to lock their players up.

Based on revenues, you would see the following payroll budgets:
in millions = 45% of team revenue (average spending in baseball of payroll vs revenue)
Knicks - 140
Lakers - 137
Rockets - 107
Bulls - 103
Nets - 99
Warriors - 90
Cavs - 86
Celtics - 81
Heat - 80
Mavs - 80
Clippers - 79
Spurs - 77
Raptors - 73
Thunder - 71
Blazers - 71
Pistons - 69
Suns - 69
Grizzlies - 66
Wolves - 66
Jazz - 66
Wizards - 66
Magic - 64
Pelicans - 64
Hornets - 64
Hawks - 64
Kings - 64
Nuggets - 64
Pacers - 63
Bucks - 57
76ers - 56


Players would be league minimum for their first three years, and then arbitration controlled at 20, 40, and then 60% of their projected free agency salaries, and then a franchise tag for the 7th year at 80% of their free agency value.


The Pelcians would have Davis for 3 more years at suppressed salaries and have the ability to add talent around him easily for 3 more years. Guys that would be good fits.

No more Manu or David Robinson taking salary cuts just to be loyal to a team. The team can actually pay them.

The players would make so much more money as a whole.


Unfortunately, something like this would require the players union to walk out like they did in baseball to get rid of a owner friendly salary cap.

Scoots
08-14-2016, 10:53 PM
Great owners always result in winning teams ... the problem is how do you get rid of the lesser owners.

I think there should be winning based incentives just to the owners. Miss the playoffs 3 years in a row and you are not allowed to attend all-star games or any award ceremonies. Finish in the top half of the lottery and you are not allowed to attend more than half as many games as your team won the next year, i.e. The Lakers ownership group would be allowed collectively to attend no more than 8 games next year. I'm sure we could come up with some better disincentives that make the owners want to win without messing with the money situation in the league itself because we don't really know what the current situation really means in the long run yet.

hugepatsfan
08-14-2016, 10:56 PM
Based on revenues, you would see the following payroll budgets:
in millions = 45% of team revenue (average spending in baseball of payroll vs revenue)
Knicks - 140
Lakers - 137
Rockets - 107
Bulls - 103
Nets - 99
Warriors - 90
Cavs - 86
Celtics - 81
Heat - 80
Mavs - 80
Clippers - 79
Spurs - 77
Raptors - 73
Thunder - 71
Blazers - 71
Pistons - 69
Suns - 69
Grizzlies - 66
Wolves - 66
Jazz - 66
Wizards - 66
Magic - 64
Pelicans - 64
Hornets - 64
Hawks - 64
Kings - 64
Nuggets - 64
Pacers - 63
Bucks - 57
76ers - 56


Players would be league minimum for their first three years, and then arbitration controlled at 20, 40, and then 60% of their projected free agency salaries, and then a franchise tag for the 7th year at 80% of their free agency value.


The Pelcians would have Davis for 3 more years at suppressed salaries and have the ability to add talent around him easily for 3 more years. Guys that would be good fits.

No more Manu or David Robinson taking salary cuts just to be loyal to a team. The team can actually pay them.

The players would make so much more money as a whole.


Unfortunately, something like this would require the players union to walk out like they did in baseball to get rid of a owner friendly salary cap.

This would be terrible for basketball. baseball is very different in that one player is a small percentage of the team. In baseball you can win without a big payroll. You can get multiple stars cheaply. In basketball you don't find stars late in the draft other than super rare cases. There's no international FA signings. There just isn't the opportunity to do it like baseball teams can. At least not consistently.

You have to keep the salary cap to prevent the big market teams from killing the small market teams in NBA. But you get rid of the max or at least give some sort of "bonus" that each team can only pay one of. That would more evenly spread the stars and have more parity.

IndyRealist
08-15-2016, 08:06 AM
What if they just kept the format the same but changed which seeds play each other?

first round would be 1v4 2v3 5v8 6v7. Those first round games would be much closer and more exciting. It would give the top teams a more difficult path to the finals and perhaps if they arent ready upsets could happen.

That would eliminate the advantage of being a #1 seed. You're beter off being #5 or #6 and having a weaker opponent rd 1.

IndyRealist
08-15-2016, 08:39 AM
Half of these would be rejected by the player's association, the other half would be rejected by the owners.

If you want to limit super teams there is an easy answer. Hard cap, no exceptions, 50% max salary, drafting team can offer 55%. Not even vet minimum exceptions. You can make uneven trades as long as you have cap room to fit the salary, and if you are under the cap at the end of the year that unspent money gets distributed among your players.

But realize, what this says is that most teams will either be unable to retain star players they drafted because you can't exceed the cap, or be unable to build really good teams around them because they have to free up cap space to retain him.

Clint Olbrock
08-15-2016, 09:38 AM
I like it how it is.

ManRam
08-15-2016, 09:40 AM
Never ever ever ever should baseball, hockey or baseball (:sigh:) have a one game playoff. Reducing 82 games, or even worse -- 162 games -- to a one game playoff that essentially determines entirely whether or not your season meant anything at all is so incredibly dumb. What's the point of a long regular season if you're gonna decide anything from just one game?

I don't get why we wanna shorten conference championships either. 5-7-7-7 was the right format.

warfelg
08-15-2016, 10:01 AM
5-5-7-7 would be a bit better. I think it would make some upsets a little more possible, while allowing the NBA to keep the current timing of the playoffs by having 2/3 game nights as opposed to 3/4 game night.

Scoots
08-15-2016, 10:02 AM
Half of these would be rejected by the player's association, the other half would be rejected by the owners.

If you want to limit super teams there is an easy answer. Hard cap, no exceptions, 50% max salary, drafting team can offer 55%. Not even vet minimum exceptions. You can make uneven trades as long as you have cap room to fit the salary, and if you are under the cap at the end of the year that unspent money gets distributed among your players.

But realize, what this says is that most teams will either be unable to retain star players they drafted because you can't exceed the cap, or be unable to build really good teams around them because they have to free up cap space to retain him.

It's not possible to stop super teams. The Heatles all chose to take less money to play together. No cap adjustment will change that.

Fans (and thus the owners) like continuity, the players union doesn't. The union likes the max contracts, and they don't want them to be made bigger. The owners of the smaller market/cheaper teams don't want to lose the tax money and the rich owners don't want to lose the roster flexibility.

There is never going to be a hard cap in the NBA unless it is way higher than the soft cap is now, and if there is a hard cap the max contracts will be a lower percentage than they are now not higher.

IndyRealist
08-15-2016, 11:33 AM
It's not possible to stop super teams. The Heatles all chose to take less money to play together. No cap adjustment will change that.

Fans (and thus the owners) like continuity, the players union doesn't. The union likes the max contracts, and they don't want them to be made bigger. The owners of the smaller market/cheaper teams don't want to lose the tax money and the rich owners don't want to lose the roster flexibility.

There is never going to be a hard cap in the NBA unless it is way higher than the soft cap is now, and if there is a hard cap the max contracts will be a lower percentage than they are now not higher.

They all took less money, but they didn't take THAT much less except for Wade. A 50% max and hard cap mean that you literally cannot have 2 max players on your team, because you wouldn't have any salary left over to fill the roster. Players might take less, but how much less? 10%? 20%? For a big 3 to form each has to take less than 33% when the max is 50% or 55%. Remember, vet min contracts wpuld not be able to exceed the cap anymore. Who is doing that aside from past his prime players like David West?

A higher cap with a lower max only exacerbates the problem.

I don't think the union is for max deals, the owners are. It's dummy proofing so they can't be cornered into having out cap crippling contracts (i.e. Garnett). The owners also fought for shorter contracts (aka against continuity) so they weren't tied into their mistakes as long. Flexibility is a boon to players, not owners, who are complaining there is too much player movement.

I agree that tax sharing could hold it up, but with the new TV deal I suspect no team is losing money now. By next summer the cap will have gone up around 40% over 2 years, which means revenue went up 40%. Costs aside from player payroll stayed the same, so all teams are making a lot more money.

warfelg
08-15-2016, 11:48 AM
They all took less money, but they didn't take THAT much less except for Wade. A 50% max and hard cap mean that you literally cannot have 2 max players on your team, because you wouldn't have any salary left over to fill the roster. Players might take less, but how much less? 10%? 20%? For a big 3 to form each has to take less than 33% when the max is 50% or 55%. Remember, vet min contracts wpuld not be able to exceed the cap anymore. Who is doing that aside from past his prime players like David West?

A higher cap with a lower max only exacerbates the problem.

I don't think the union is for max deals, the owners are. It's dummy proofing so they can't be cornered into having out cap crippling contracts (i.e. Garnett). The owners also fought for shorter contracts (aka against continuity) so they weren't tied into their mistakes as long. Flexibility is a boon to players, not owners, who are complaining there is too much player movement.

I agree that tax sharing could hold it up, but with the new TV deal I suspect no team is losing money now. By next summer the cap will have gone up around 40% over 2 years, which means revenue went up 40%. Costs aside from player payroll stayed the same, so all teams are making a lot more money.

My only issue is you would hurt the teams that had the good fortune to draft 2+ max quality players.

Could you imagine the revolt in Minny if they say Wiggins is a max then had to let KAT walk?

IndyRealist
08-15-2016, 02:07 PM
My only issue is you would hurt the teams that had the good fortune to draft 2+ max quality players.

Could you imagine the revolt in Minny if they say Wiggins is a max then had to let KAT walk?

Very true, but if you're trying to keep superteams from forming, then mission accomplished. I could see two players taking 40% instead of 50% elsewhere, and in a league without big 3s, two might be enough.

Plus, it's not like the player just walks. You play him for 3 years and trade him in his 4th, for draft picks and secondary players. Not as good as keeping him, but cap management separates good organizations from bad.

Scoots
08-15-2016, 02:11 PM
They all took less money, but they didn't take THAT much less except for Wade. A 50% max and hard cap mean that you literally cannot have 2 max players on your team, because you wouldn't have any salary left over to fill the roster. Players might take less, but how much less? 10%? 20%? For a big 3 to form each has to take less than 33% when the max is 50% or 55%. Remember, vet min contracts wpuld not be able to exceed the cap anymore. Who is doing that aside from past his prime players like David West?

A higher cap with a lower max only exacerbates the problem.

I don't think the union is for max deals, the owners are. It's dummy proofing so they can't be cornered into having out cap crippling contracts (i.e. Garnett). The owners also fought for shorter contracts (aka against continuity) so they weren't tied into their mistakes as long. Flexibility is a boon to players, not owners, who are complaining there is too much player movement.

I agree that tax sharing could hold it up, but with the new TV deal I suspect no team is losing money now. By next summer the cap will have gone up around 40% over 2 years, which means revenue went up 40%. Costs aside from player payroll stayed the same, so all teams are making a lot more money.

My point was there is no way to keep a "super team" from happening. If the players WANT it it will happen. I did say it would be less likely with a 50% max.

I said that if there was going to be a hard cap it would be a LOT higher than the current soft cap because the soft cap isn't a real cap now and any new hard cap brought in would have to reflect the current state of spending including all the money spent over the soft cap now.

The owners want longer contracts and they want the ability to not-guarantee money. The shorter contracts are a compromise because the players want all contracts guaranteed. The owners definitely prefer longer contracts.

The players are for the max because it spreads the money around. There are ~450 players in the NBA and they know that the vast majority of them will not get a 50% max contract and the 5 year vet bench contributor's vote has equal weight to LeBron's vote and the non-superstars know they make more money when the max contracts are in place and the lower the max the more money the rest of the players make. The low money owners like the max and the big money owners don't like it as much because it reduced their leverage in free agency.

The tax sharing is a boon to the lower spending teams and that is the majority of the teams so they would not vote for a hard cap. Revenue is up, but doing away with the tax would mean that revenue would go down for the majority of the teams (those not paying the tax) so it's not likely to get passed among the owners. The players like the soft cap too because it gives them more choices.

A hard cap and no max contracts would be fine by me as a fan, but there is just no way it happens, and in the long run it has essentially no effect in creating parity because in my experience winning teams win regardless of the rules they operate under.

I wish we could find a way as fans to vote out an owner. The Warriors suffered for 20 years under a crap owner, I knew several Raiders fans just praying for Al Davis to die, the 49ers fans want a new owner, Clippers fans suffered for decades. Meanwhile the best owners in sports win over and over and while they have ups and downs their downs are shorter and ups are longer.

lol, please
08-15-2016, 02:41 PM
A friend and I were having an interesting conversation today about the lack of talent disparity in the league and how in any given year, perhaps 26 teams have realistically have zero chance of winning a championship.

At the current rate, the league is lacking in parity due to the formation of super teams and the dominance of upper echelon talent, like a Lebron or Steph. Do you think the league can address the disparity by changing the playoff format?

1-3-5-7. Win or go home in round 1. Winning that game earns you more security with a best of 3 game format in round 2. Best of 5 in the conference finals and best of 7 in the finals.

This will obviously never happen but I thought it was a neat idea. What do you guys think?

One understandable concern is that it's pretty ****** to play an 82 game season just to go home after 1 bad shooting night, but we believe in the future the 82 game season will be shorter, and this could be a complementary idea.

Don't change a thing.

I hate reasoning like this, there are supposed to be teams that don't make it in and vica versa.

The only thing I would change about the structure of the league right now is to not reward/guarantee high picks to the teams with the least wins.

IndyRealist
08-15-2016, 03:29 PM
I said that if there was going to be a hard cap it would be a LOT higher than the current soft cap because the soft cap isn't a real cap now and any new hard cap brought in would have to reflect the current state of spending including all the money spent over the soft cap now.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't really care what the cap number is, just that it's soft.


The owners want longer contracts and they want the ability to not-guarantee money. The shorter contracts are a compromise because the players want all contracts guaranteed. The owners definitely prefer longer contracts.

It's not really about guaranteed contracts because that's impossible to roll back. The shorter contracts were about not getting locked into big mistakes long term. The fact is owners SHOULD HAVE wanted long contracts, but they didn't and now it's biting them in the arse.



The players are for the max because it spreads the money around. There are ~450 players in the NBA and they know that the vast majority of them will not get a 50% max contract and the 5 year vet bench contributor's vote has equal weight to LeBron's vote and the non-superstars know they make more money when the max contracts are in place and the lower the max the more money the rest of the players make. The low money owners like the max and the big money owners don't like it as much because it reduced their leverage in free agency.

I don't believe players think far enough ahead to consider that Lebron is taking money from them. Otherwise max deals would be even lower, since the max guys in the league are only about 5% or so (just a guess), and would eaily be outvoted.

As far as owners go, small market owners don't like the mas AS IS because it lets superteams form. Big market owners love it, because they can say "Indy will pay you exactly the same, so why not come to LA and play with two other max guys instead? And you get to live in LA."


The tax sharing is a boon to the lower spending teams and that is the majority of the teams so they would not vote for a hard cap. Revenue is up, but doing away with the tax would mean that revenue would go down for the majority of the teams (those not paying the tax) so it's not likely to get passed among the owners. The players like the soft cap too because it gives them more choices.

Revenue sharing was essential when many teams were "losing" money. Now they are not. The amount they get from revenue sharing isn't a lot because, as you said, it is divided up among the majority of teams.

Consider that small amount versus revenue generated by having a Lebron on your team, because they can't gang up anymore.


A hard cap and no max contracts would be fine by me as a fan, but there is just no way it happens, and in the long run it has essentially no effect in creating parity because in my experience winning teams win regardless of the rules they operate under.

I wish we could find a way as fans to vote out an owner. The Warriors suffered for 20 years under a crap owner, I knew several Raiders fans just praying for Al Davis to die, the 49ers fans want a new owner, Clippers fans suffered for decades. Meanwhile the best owners in sports win over and over and while they have ups and downs their downs are shorter and ups are longer.

Scoots
08-15-2016, 05:48 PM
If the contracts were not guaranteed then the owners would not have caved on the shorter contracts.

Players want the max contracts to be large because a lot of them believe they will get a chance at a max deal. It's a matter of the long time vets who want the larger vet minimum deals and the fringe players who will probably not be stars and want the mid-size deals vs the high draft picks and the superstars. The Superstars want no max contract because they think they would get more on the open market ... look at the players who have signed max deals this year ... they are not all superstars and they are making more money because of the current size of the max contracts. The union player reps when this deal went through (who were not superstars) did a good job educating the union on the realities of life as an athlete, and the superstars saw that they would not be losing money right away ... this was all before the new TV deals were signed of course.

How many small market team owners have come out against the Warriors signing KD? I know of none, but if they did say something I would wonder how much of it was about appearances rather than actually caring.

Revenue sharing is MORE money. It's not hundreds of millions more per team, but it's more. Even rich people when asked if they want more money or less money usually choose more.

With a hard cap and a bigger max the best players may spread out, but they will still want to win. You used LeBron so let's look at him ... he makes enough money from Nike that the size of his contract is only about power and control ... let's say a hard cap of $120M was put in place this off-season ... LeBron would then be forced to sign elsewhere or take less to stay in Cleveland where he just won a title. I bet he stays put and for a LOT less money than the max.

Teams need to appeal to players in many ways. Unfortunately some teams don't have much appeal to most players. OKC is not a great place to live if you are a twenty-something millionaire. Cap rules are not going to change that, nor will they change the weather in Minneapolis.

If parity in money is your target then the teams should have variable caps based on living expenses in the various places ... some states don't have income tax the cost of living is considerably higher in CA than everywhere except NY so CA/NY teams should have higher caps than other places to be able to spend "comparable" money. :)

There is no optimal system ... what we have right now is still fairly new and blowing it up (which might happen because we are at that point in the cycle) for an aberrant event means we will never really know what this system looks like long term.

Jeffy25
08-15-2016, 06:12 PM
My point was there is no way to keep a "super team" from happening. If the players WANT it it will happen. I did say it would be less likely with a 50% max.

I said that if there was going to be a hard cap it would be a LOT higher than the current soft cap because the soft cap isn't a real cap now and any new hard cap brought in would have to reflect the current state of spending including all the money spent over the soft cap now.

The owners want longer contracts and they want the ability to not-guarantee money. The shorter contracts are a compromise because the players want all contracts guaranteed. The owners definitely prefer longer contracts.

The players are for the max because it spreads the money around. There are ~450 players in the NBA and they know that the vast majority of them will not get a 50% max contract and the 5 year vet bench contributor's vote has equal weight to LeBron's vote and the non-superstars know they make more money when the max contracts are in place and the lower the max the more money the rest of the players make. The low money owners like the max and the big money owners don't like it as much because it reduced their leverage in free agency.

The tax sharing is a boon to the lower spending teams and that is the majority of the teams so they would not vote for a hard cap. Revenue is up, but doing away with the tax would mean that revenue would go down for the majority of the teams (those not paying the tax) so it's not likely to get passed among the owners. The players like the soft cap too because it gives them more choices.

A hard cap and no max contracts would be fine by me as a fan, but there is just no way it happens, and in the long run it has essentially no effect in creating parity because in my experience winning teams win regardless of the rules they operate under.

I wish we could find a way as fans to vote out an owner. The Warriors suffered for 20 years under a crap owner, I knew several Raiders fans just praying for Al Davis to die, the 49ers fans want a new owner, Clippers fans suffered for decades. Meanwhile the best owners in sports win over and over and while they have ups and downs their downs are shorter and ups are longer.

The only way to restrict a super team is to completely disregard all player rights lol...and get rid of free agency.

warfelg
08-15-2016, 06:47 PM
The only way to restrict a super team is to completely disregard all player rights lol...and get rid of free agency.

My opinion is you just make the financial ramifications of joining a team like that too large for these players to overcome.

Like if the difference between GSW and OKC was $10mil per season, it would be hard for KD to give up that much.

IndyRealist
08-15-2016, 08:07 PM
If the contracts were not guaranteed then the owners would not have caved on the shorter contracts.

Players want the max contracts to be large because a lot of them believe they will get a chance at a max deal. It's a matter of the long time vets who want the larger vet minimum deals and the fringe players who will probably not be stars and want the mid-size deals vs the high draft picks and the superstars. The Superstars want no max contract because they think they would get more on the open market ... look at the players who have signed max deals this year ... they are not all superstars and they are making more money because of the current size of the max contracts. The union player reps when this deal went through (who were not superstars) did a good job educating the union on the realities of life as an athlete, and the superstars saw that they would not be losing money right away ... this was all before the new TV deals were signed of course.

How many small market team owners have come out against the Warriors signing KD? I know of none, but if they did say something I would wonder how much of it was about appearances rather than actually caring.

Revenue sharing is MORE money. It's not hundreds of millions more per team, but it's more. Even rich people when asked if they want more money or less money usually choose more.

With a hard cap and a bigger max the best players may spread out, but they will still want to win. You used LeBron so let's look at him ... he makes enough money from Nike that the size of his contract is only about power and control ... let's say a hard cap of $120M was put in place this off-season ... LeBron would then be forced to sign elsewhere or take less to stay in Cleveland where he just won a title. I bet he stays put and for a LOT less money than the max.

Teams need to appeal to players in many ways. Unfortunately some teams don't have much appeal to most players. OKC is not a great place to live if you are a twenty-something millionaire. Cap rules are not going to change that, nor will they change the weather in Minneapolis.

If parity in money is your target then the teams should have variable caps based on living expenses in the various places ... some states don't have income tax the cost of living is considerably higher in CA than everywhere except NY so CA/NY teams should have higher caps than other places to be able to spend "comparable" money. :)

There is no optimal system ... what we have right now is still fairly new and blowing it up (which might happen because we are at that point in the cycle) for an aberrant event means we will never really know what this system looks like long term.

Using this year as an example for anything is suspect. The cap jumped so much that teams that shouldn't have been able to sign a big contract were able to. After the big fish were gone, a lot of people got paydays they wouldn't normally have gotten, just because there was money lying around.

We have vastly different views on what actually happened in the lockout. The owners didn't "cave" on shorter contracts, they asked for them. Players wanted long term security. From ESPN "Sources said that owners also pushed for contract limits of four years for free agents re-signing with their current teams and three years for free agents joining new teams, with the union proposing five years and four years, respectively. "

The owners WANTED a hard cap in 2011. From Wikipedia "The union and owners met again on September 13 but the negotiation soon collapsed. The salary cap structure remained the main source of disagreement. Owners wanted to create a hard cap for team payroll. The union wanted to keep the current structure intact, referring to it as a "blood issue"."

From the NYT "Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, whose team is in the fifth-largest market and has one of the highest payrolls, and Portland Trail Blazers owner Paul Allen, the 23rd-wealthiest person in America, are as interested as small-market owners in changing the economy of the NBA in an effort to increase competition. While owners of profitable teams like Buss and Dolan are willing to accept modest changes to the CBA, they remain united with the small-market teams based on concerns for the league's long-term health"

Scoots
08-15-2016, 08:44 PM
Using this year as an example for anything is suspect. The cap jumped so much that teams that shouldn't have been able to sign a big contract were able to. After the big fish were gone, a lot of people got paydays they wouldn't normally have gotten, just because there was money lying around.

This is a point akin to what I was saying ... the "super-team" complaint IS about this year ... and if the Warriors didn't have the crazy circustances of THIS YEAR it never would have happened.

So this is the only year that really matters in saying this year is not evidence we need to make sweeping changes.

da ThRONe
08-16-2016, 02:00 PM
Best of 5 all the way through seems like a fair and balanced answer. I think the idea that more games means more revenue when it comes to television viewership is short minded.

JWO35
08-16-2016, 02:07 PM
More games = More Commercial Ads

No way the NBA throws $$$ away...

IndyRealist
08-16-2016, 02:17 PM
Best of 5 all the way through seems like a fair and balanced answer. I think the idea that more games means more revenue when it comes to television viewership is short minded.

TV revenue is king. Gate revenue is marginal by comparison, and networks want lots of games to show, especially in the playoffs.

da ThRONe
08-16-2016, 02:20 PM
More games = More Commercial Ads

No way the NBA throws $$$ away...

People completely ignore ratings when talking about tv revenue. If the NBA can increase it's rating significantly by reducing games(not only in the playoffs, but the regular season) it'll be better financial move.

Scoots
08-16-2016, 03:16 PM
People completely ignore ratings when talking about tv revenue. If the NBA can increase it's rating significantly by reducing games(not only in the playoffs, but the regular season) it'll be better financial move.

The problem is that reducing games requires an NBA exec to stick their neck out and say "this will be better" without KNOWING it will be better. That's not the way most of the entertainment business works. For the most part a lower predictable income is preferred to a higher potential income.

da ThRONe
08-16-2016, 07:00 PM
The problem is that reducing games requires an NBA exec to stick their neck out and say "this will be better" without KNOWING it will be better. That's not the way most of the entertainment business works. For the most part a lower predictable income is preferred to a higher potential income.

True to a certain extent however almost every improvement starts with somebody sticking their neck out. Plus they would do a ton of homework to pool the fans and focus groups to make projections about how "less could mean more".