Things you would change about the NBA

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#91
The easy solution? Play it out, like the NFL. A defensive foul doesn't stop play until an offensive foul, violation, out of bounds, change of possession, held ball, offensive timeout, or made basket (does that cover it?) At that point, the offense is given the option to take the result of the play, or accept the foul (clock will go back to the time of the foul if the foul is taken). Foul will be charged to the fouling player regardless. If multiple defensive fouls take place, the offensive team may accept one of the fouls, or take the result of the play and charge the foul to the fouling player of their choice. Obviously this won't work for the last two minutes of the game unless we want to get rid of the take-a-foul strategy, so the last two minutes would be the same as current rules.

This would mean that a take foul on a breakaway would result in typically, a layup plus a foul accrued. No reason to do it if they're just going to score anyway AND you get the foul.

Of course, this would result in the proverbial "free play", which, if there isn't an obvious lane to the basket would clearly be a three. So, if that's too generous to the offense, maybe the offense gets five seconds of continuation to take a shot within the context of the play being run. But that's kind of subjective.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#94
Absolutely enforce the traveling (carrying) call. It's ridiculous. These guys look like they are strolling with a loaf of bread in their hand.
 
#95
I shared this video in another thread but Morey talks about changes he would make to the NBA season including less games and an overhaul of the playoffs. I have it time stamped I think but if not it starts around the 24 hour mark. Oi, the 24 minute mark, that newborn sleep schedule is getting to me.

 
#96
I shared this video in another thread but Morey talks about changes he would make to the NBA season including less games and an overhaul of the playoffs. I have it time stamped I think but if not it starts around the 24 hour mark. Oi, the 24 minute mark, that newborn sleep schedule is getting to me.

I like every team plays every other team twice. It is still a lot of games but each game means a little more. And less games doesn't seem like an issue for the most popular leagues like the EPL/ NFL.
 
#97
I like every team plays every other team twice. It is still a lot of games but each game means a little more. And less games doesn't seem like an issue for the most popular leagues like the EPL/ NFL.
I am a hundred percent behind the shortened season and if they do some sort of mid season tourney that could keep fans engaged. I don't think I love the idea of single elimination in the playoffs but he is makes a compelling case.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#98
I like every team plays every other team twice. It is still a lot of games but each game means a little more. And less games doesn't seem like an issue for the most popular leagues like the EPL/ NFL.
I don't think using the EPL as an example is a good choice due to the fact that they play almost the entire year with all the other tournaments they compete in outside of the league itself.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#99
I am a hundred percent behind the shortened season and if they do some sort of mid season tourney that could keep fans engaged. I don't think I love the idea of single elimination in the playoffs but he is makes a compelling case.
The thing I didn't get about reducing the length of the season is that they dismissed the loss of "seat" revenue because TV revenue is so important...while assuming that TV revenue isn't going to drop by 1/3 if you take out 1/3 of the regular season games. Same thing goes for single-elimination playoffs. So many fewer games...I do get that individual games would have a larger audience but would that overcome the loss of so many games?

That said, I do love me some NCAA Tournament.
 
The thing I didn't get about reducing the length of the season is that they dismissed the loss of "seat" revenue because TV revenue is so important...while assuming that TV revenue isn't going to drop by 1/3 if you take out 1/3 of the regular season games. Same thing goes for single-elimination playoffs. So many fewer games...I do get that individual games would have a larger audience but would that overcome the loss of so many games?

That said, I do love me some NCAA Tournament.
Yeh I don't think you could make up for it with tickets. It would really have to happen with TV revenue.

The average capacity for an NBA stadium is 18966 x15x82 is 23,328,180 available seats per season currently... I think.
Looks like the NBA averages around 21 million in attendance with a record just over 22 mil a couple years back. Essentially you would have to sell out every game to get even remotely close to current yearly attendance. Still, I do think no back to backs, and no Pacers/Pistons 4 times a year would probably be a good thing overall.
 
I don't think using the EPL as an example is a good choice due to the fact that they play almost the entire year with all the other tournaments they compete in outside of the league itself.
I was thinking more from a financial point of view - i.e., Prem has 19 teams that play 38 90 minute games that don't have time outs. It has a lot of competition with La Liga, Bundesliga, championship football, etc. Plus distraction with tournaments and international breaks. And yet the TV rights are still high value. Sure, it's not apples to apples. But I don't think you need to have 30 teams play 82 48 minute games that somehow go for 2.5 hours to make lots of money. At some point the value of each individual game drops.

As an aside, I don't care how much money the league makes. I don't get any of it. I just like the idea of less is more. Especially when I support a team that can't ever seem to string five good games together.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
I was thinking more from a financial point of view - i.e., Prem has 19 teams that play 38 90 minute games that don't have time outs. It has a lot of competition with La Liga, Bundesliga, championship football, etc. Plus distraction with tournaments and international breaks. And yet the TV rights are still high value. Sure, it's not apples to apples. But I don't think you need to have 30 teams play 82 48 minute games that somehow go for 2.5 hours to make lots of money. At some point the value of each individual game drops.

As an aside, I don't care how much money the league makes. I don't get any of it. I just like the idea of less is more. Especially when I support a team that can't ever seem to string five good games together.
I wouldn't mind a reduction in games, say 10 games less in the regular season and eliminating 7 game series until the conference finals to make things interesting and keep players fresh
 
Seems like the "physical basketball" they were letting go at the beginning of the season has all but disappeared with the acumulation of terrible refereeing and calls picking up
Yep. Think Embiid had 27 free throws against the Knicks. Both teams shot a total of 79 free throws.

No idea why the NBA continues to allow this garbage.
 
Enforcing the rules would change everything.
It is okay to have some non-calls. Flopping for instance when it is not called penalizes the flopping player.
Less ticky tack fouls should be called.
But carrying the ball, double dribble and traveling happen all the time and are not called. Entering the lane on a foul shot. Simple stuff.
 
I tire of watching those "non-exciting" foul shots.

Solution:
1. Foul out after 5 fouls.
2. A player that initiates contact gets a foul...offense or defense. That is game "originalism".

Outcome:
a. Less game stoppage.
b. Larger bench rotations for several reasons. Fewer DNP.
c, More interior paint play rather than teams playing "launch ball".
d. Less intentional fouls and hard fouls.
e. Fewer injuries.
 
I would love to see more diversity in the players. People of all ages, sizes, colors, and genders love basketball, so why do we see the same old collection of thin men of above average height? Women have taken a larger role in the NBA in every dimension, which is just amazing, but their careers are hampered by not actually getting NBA court time. Would be great to see amazing women athletes in NBA games, and not just relegate them to the WNBA.
 
I would love to see more diversity in the players. People of all ages, sizes, colors, and genders love basketball, so why do we see the same old collection of thin men of above average height? Women have taken a larger role in the NBA in every dimension, which is just amazing, but their careers are hampered by not actually getting NBA court time. Would be great to see amazing women athletes in NBA games, and not just relegate them to the WNBA.
They could also train dogs/cats to play as well why just keep it to humans.

When it comes to watching games I would eliminate the commentary the standards have dropped so badly I have to watch games on mute there should be a option where you can hear the sound on the floor and cancel out the utter trash they have nowday's commenting on games.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
They could also train dogs/cats to play as well why just keep it to humans.

When it comes to watching games I would eliminate the commentary the standards have dropped so badly I have to watch games on mute there should be a option where you can hear the sound on the floor and cancel out the utter trash they have nowday's commenting on games.
the commentary on the games has been poor since Marv Albert left
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
I would love to see more diversity in the players. People of all ages, sizes, colors, and genders love basketball, so why do we see the same old collection of thin men of above average height? Women have taken a larger role in the NBA in every dimension, which is just amazing, but their careers are hampered by not actually getting NBA court time. Would be great to see amazing women athletes in NBA games, and not just relegate them to the WNBA.
Relegate?
 
I would love to see more diversity in the players. People of all ages, sizes, colors, and genders love basketball, so why do we see the same old collection of thin men of above average height? Women have taken a larger role in the NBA in every dimension, which is just amazing, but their careers are hampered by not actually getting NBA court time. Would be great to see amazing women athletes in NBA games, and not just relegate them to the WNBA.
Yeah, what @Mr. S£im Citrus asked.

I feel insulted that you felt the urge to insult the WNBA and its atheletes. The NBA has never been a women's basketball league, and it never will. The WNBA has always been a women's basketball league, and it always will. If one were to follow your logic, then it would be great to see subpar men athletes in the WNBA, right, and not have them be promoted up to the NBA, right????

smgdf
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
At this point in time, with respect to the NBA and the WNBA, there is no active issue involving transgender athletes. As such, any discussion here is purely "political", and against board policy. I recognize that there are people on both sides of the issue who feel strongly about it, but as with other political topics there are other places it can be discussed.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
Well, now that that's out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand.

With the way these playoffs have gone, one thing's become abundantly clear (to me): one review per team per game is not enough. Personally, I think the NFL's coaches challenge rules are solid and would work pretty well in the NBA.

Of course, the easiest way to alleviate the need for a coach's challenge would be better reffing but that's not going to happen until robot refs become a thing so in the mean time, I think two challenges plus a third if you were successful the first two times is sufficient.
 
Well, now that that's out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand.

With the way these playoffs have gone, one thing's become abundantly clear (to me): one review per team per game is not enough. Personally, I think the NFL's coaches challenge rules are solid and would work pretty well in the NBA.

Of course, the easiest way to alleviate the need for a coach's challenge would be better reffing but that's not going to happen until robot refs become a thing so in the mean time, I think two challenges plus a third if you were successful the first two times is sufficient.
id like to see them make quicker decisions on reviews.

Also let’s have an on screen graphic explaining the rule in question so we don’t have to hear the commentators fumble their way through it.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
id like to see them make quicker decisions on reviews.

Also let’s have an on screen graphic explaining the rule in question so we don’t have to hear the commentators fumble their way through it.
In fairness to the broadcasters, sometimes it's not entirely clear what the coaches are trying to challenge. If it's an easy block or charge call, sure but sometimes a coach is trying to challenge that a player was traveling while getting fouled or some dumb crap and it's impossible to get that into a single graphic cleanly.