Some changes to the NBA game new Commissioner should make

[CruzDude]

Taken from an article in Sheridan Hoops by Chris Nernucca on 3 Feb 2014

Here is a link to the original article: http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/02/03/bernucca-heres-some-changes-adam-silver-should-make/

I’ve extracted comments by Bernucca word for word shown in italics and added my own comments in straight font.

New commissioner Adam Silver should make some changes:

1. Make a technical foul count as a personal foul. This would help to get players to shut up a bit and complain less. If a player knew that a 12-letter magic word or a sprint downcourt in mock disbelief ... could mean a seat on the bench with a third foul midway through the second quarter, he might bite his tongue more often.

2. Adjust the draft lottery odds to discourage tanking. Give worst team a greater % of getting #1. Right now they get only 25%. Make that 50% or even 75%. Marginalize the middle. Over the long term, it will minimize the massive deconstruction projects that we see all over the league this season.

3. Change the playoff format. First, get rid of the conferences for formatting purposes. If there is a need to retain weighted schedules and geographical rivalries, that is fine. But the teams with the top 14 records receive playoff berths, regardless of conference affiliation...


4. Make the court bigger. ..The court needs to be 100 feet by 54 feet – six feet longer and four feet wider. One foot of length should be added behind the basket, increasing the distance between the baseline and backboard to five feet and cutting down on all the out-of-bounds activity that takes place there.

...The drawback is money. Increasing the size of the court changes the hardwood footprint on the arena floor and would reduce the number of expensive seats that provide a fan experience unique to the NBA, to say nothing of the lost revenue owners will be moaning about...

...Do owners truly care about the long-term appeal of their game? Or do they only care about money?

Unfortunately, we all probably know the answer to that last question.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

2. Adjust the draft lottery odds to discourage tanking. Give worst team a greater % of getting #1. Right now they get only 25%. Make that 50% or even 75%. Marginalize the middle. Over the long term, it will minimize the massive deconstruction projects that we see all over the league this season. And if you think tanking is evident now, wait until March and April.

This won't discourage tanking, though. The whole point of the lottery was to discourage tanking by making it less likely that the team with the worst record got the best pick. This actually would make it more likely to get the best pick, which increases the payoff (and urgency) of tanking.

My current favorite idea to address tanking is to get rid of the objective measures used to determine draft position. Make draft position subjective - on the basis of a team-by-team "vote". The whole point of the draft is to make sure that the worst teams get the best pick - competitive balance, that is - and if other teams have to decide who gets the top picks, they'll be certain to select the teams that most need it. Nobody is going to vote for the #1 pick going to a team that's actually decent (e.g. the Spurs getting Duncan) no matter how much they tank.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Still not convinced tanking is that big of a problem. Wasn't Milwaukee supposed to have a win-now mandate from ownership? The problem is incompetence more than tanking!

 

[mac]

All decent ideas but I don't like making the court even bigger. That'll just mean more offense, less defense with teams simply going with some form of inside presence, be it a post player or penetrating guard and surround him with 3 point shooters. It won't take good screens or anything to get you an open 3 anymore - players would just spot up further behind the corner 3 point line.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

No disrespect intended, CruzDude, but I added an option to your poll.

 

[Ryan]

Make the 3 pointer only available in the last two minutes of each quarter. I'm tired of four players camping out around the three point line with one center in the middle. The mid-range jump shot has all but disappeared. Why not try it?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Now there a rule change I can get behind, with a modification:

There are always people who want to talk about doing away with the conferences, because the east has been weaker than the west, lately (they usually seem to conveniently forget about the nineties, when it was the other way around, particularly the mid-nineties, when we specifically benefited from the west being the weaker conference). I have always felt that that would be a poor solution. What would be a better solution, IMO, would be to realign the conferences to be more like MLB. Name them whatever you like (NBL/BAA, to honor the roots of the league, or maybe NBL/ABL, to recognize the merger), and have an east, west and central for each conference. And have slightly different rules for each conference, like with the NL and AL.

 

[Ryan]

Now there a rule change I can get behind, with a modification:

Are you referring to me?

They could at least try it during the pre season or maybe the all star game. I think it would be fun to entirely get rid of the 3 point line for an all star game.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Now there a rule change I can get behind, with a modification:

There are always people who want to talk about doing away with the conferences, because the east has been weaker than the west, lately (they usually seem to conveniently forget about the nineties, when it was the other way around, particularly the mid-nineties, when we specifically benefited from the west being the weaker conference). I have always felt that that would be a poor solution. What would be a better solution, IMO, would be to realign the conferences to be more like MLB. Name them whatever you like (NBL/BAA, to honor the roots of the league, or maybe NBL/ABL, to recognize the merger), and have an east, west and central for each conference. And have slightly different rules for each conference, like with the NL and AL.

I was daydreaming of a similar concept the other day. No rule differences, though, the DH is an abomination!

The ABA was before my time. The remaining teams are, what, the Nuggets, Spurs, Pacers, and Nets? You'd want to include them in the new ABL, as well as any other cities that once had ABA ties...

Definitely an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it helps the playoff seeding problem. There's no reason not to think that in a few years either the NBL or ABL may end up stronger, and you're in the same position as before. The problem has more to do with not allowing the top teams into the playoffs regardless of conference/division/etc, but I agree that just "blind" seeding is much less compelling.

 

[ESP47]

Just call less fouls and I'd be a happy camper.

 

[VF21]

I'd like to see an easing of the fouling out rule. In other words, I liked what happened the other night when Sacre "fouled out" but was allowed to continue playing (even if it was because there was no one else left to take his place). I'd like to see something similar on a regular basis. If you took away the "strategy" of getting the other team's best player(s) out of the game via fouls, you'd make it more about play and less about fouling.

I've often thought about utilizing a system where a player commits a foul but doesn't rack up personal fouls in all situations. Some fouls - just short of flagrant - could still be tallied as "personal" but the rest, like over the back or reaching in or other routine in-the-course-of-play fouls, would just be assessed against the team total.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Are you referring to me?

They could at least try it during the pre season or maybe the all star game. I think it would be fun to entirely get rid of the 3 point line for an all star game.

That would be very interesting. We would see a more interesting style of basketball for sure

 

[VF21]

To further my own thought above, imagine how it might be if we actually got to see how a player could do for extended minutes without him having to go to the bench because of ticky-tack fouls.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

I'd like to see an easing of the fouling out rule. In other words, I liked what happened the other night when Sacre "fouled out" but was allowed to continue playing (even if it was because there was no one else left to take his place). I'd like to see something similar on a regular basis. If you took away the "strategy" of getting the other team's best player(s) out of the game via fouls, you'd make it more about play and less about fouling.

I've often thought about utilizing a system where a player commits a foul but doesn't rack up personal fouls in all situations. Some fouls - just short of flagrant - could still be tallied as "personal" but the rest, like over the back or reaching in or other routine in-the-course-of-play fouls, would just be assessed against the team total.

Interesting idea. They already penalize teams a lot for many team fouls, with the automatic 2 free throws, instead of 1 and 1.

I would also like to see the NBA use the 1 and 1. Would make games more interesting, put more value on free throw percentage and ability to make them in the clutch. Games would also move a bit faster, with missing the front end of a 1 and 1

 

[Warhawk]

I would also like to see the NBA use the 1 and 1. Would make games more interesting, put more value on free throw percentage and ability to make them in the clutch.

Agreed.

 

[VF21]

Interesting idea. They already penalize teams a lot for many team fouls, with the automatic 2 free throws, instead of 1 and 1.

I would also like to see the NBA use the 1 and 1. Would make games more interesting, put more value on free throw percentage and ability to make them in the clutch. Games would also move a bit faster, with missing the front end of a 1 and 1

Way back in the olden days, there were situations where the player at the line was given three chances to make two points.

EDIT: I just looked it up. The last time it was used was 1981, which means it's been gone since before a lot of you were born... I am so old.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Way back in the olden days, there were situations where the player at the line was given three chances to make two points.

EDIT: I just looked it up. The last time it was used was 1981, which means it's been gone since before a lot of you were born... I am so old.

The NBA in 1981, gave players 3 attempts to make 2 shots? Really?

 

[VF21]

The NBA in 1981, gave players 3 attempts to make 2 shots? Really?

Prior to 1981, and then only in certain circumstances:

...There was a time when a player was fouled in a non-shooting situation he would shoot a single free throw instead of the now take it out of bounds rule. When the opposing team was in the penalty, the player would shoot 1 plus the penalty or in other words 2 freebies like it is now. When a player was fouled by a team in a penalty situation he would have 3 chances to make 2, a true penalty situation.

I say while the non-shooting shot foul should continue being a take it out of bounds foul, when a team is in the penalty situation and fouls a player while shooting he should get 3 chances to make 2, or in the case of a 3-point attempt, 4 to make 3, if the shot is made then he should have 2 chances to make a free throw. This would discourage extra fouling in the closing moments or Hack-a-Shack tactics. As it stands now there is NO PENALTY for fouling a player while shooting and the team is in the so-called penalty situation...

- from an old post on the InsideHoops forum

And, from NBA rules history:

1981-82
• If a foul committed by a player calls for a single free throw after a successful field goal in the penalty stage, no additional free throw will be allowed if the first foul attempt is missed.
• Three free throws to make two; two to make one eliminated.

 

[chief bromden]

Prior to 1981, and then only in certain circumstances:

- from an old post on the InsideHoops forum

And, from NBA rules history:

Fascinating. I never heard that before ... thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[CruzDude]

Going back to the 1 plus 1 in reality I like too. If player misses front end, ball is in play.

But my all time favorite is getting rid of the FT shooting contest in the last 2 minutes of a game (and first half too) and going to a format that any foul in last 2 minutes results in 1 FT and the ball back to the team that shot the FT. Then they would have to play basketball instead of hacking players in hopes the miss a FT or two and get back to playing the game of basketball.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Adam Silver said something this weekend about wanting the league to have NFL-style parity. But he acknowledges that is difficult given that in basketball, you only have five guys on the court at a time, and the team with the best, superstar-level players always have an advantage given this constraint.

My suggestion? Keep the salary cap on team salaries but eliminate the cap on individual salaries. That creates an incentive to superstars to spread out, rather than band together as superteams, because they'd have to give up much more in salary than they do in the current system. For example, does Love leave LA if the T-Wolves offer him $30-40 million, and LA can't because they're already paying Kobe close to that amount?

 

[LPKingsFan]

They should also shorten some playoff series; at least make the first round five games again. They'll never do this, of course, given that less games = less $$$, but adding more randomness to the playoffs would result in a greater chance of different teams winning.

 

[VF21]

Adam Silver said something this weekend about wanting the league to have NFL-style parity. But he acknowledges that is difficult given that in basketball, you only have five guys on the court at a time, and the team with the best, superstar-level players always have an advantage given this constraint.

My suggestion? Keep the salary cap on team salaries but eliminate the cap on individual salaries. That creates an incentive to superstars to spread out, rather than band together as superteams, because they'd have to give up much more in salary than they do in the current system. For example, does Love leave LA if the T-Wolves offer him $30-40 million, and LA can't because they're already paying Kobe close to that amount?

IIRC the Holy Trinity in Boston made significantly less salary than they could have just to play together.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

IIRC the Holy Trinity in Boston made significantly less salary than they could have just to play together.

Rk Player Salary
1 Kevin Garnett $23,750,000
2 Paul Pierce $16,360,094
3 Ray Allen $16,000,000

Their respective salaries during the championship season.

 

[VF21]

Well, I did say "IIRC"... so there.