Does the NBA need to be fixed? And how to do it

Note: This thread was pieced together from posts in another thread. Please note the reference of the original author of each post at the top of each respective post.

Thank you.

I think this is where it started:

by Sam Yesterday at 11:13 am

Cow,

When were TODAY'S players at the mercy of management? Today's players are generations removed from the players who were "at the mercy of management." They are not the same people; and, unlike players of the distant past, today's players have been motivated all along the way by realistic dreams of great riches to spur them on in their quest to become professional basketball players.

The players who were allegedly "at the mercy of management" years ago experienced the reverse of that situation. They had no inkling of where the economics of basketball might be headed three or four decades later. They knew that ownership often struggled and went into hock just to keep a franchise afloat, giving the players work. Many of the players regarded summer jobs as useful training for the job market they'd face when they got out into the real world after they left pro ball. By and large, most of the players were very happy people to have the privilege of playing professional basketball. Most of their efforts were aimed at becoming better players than in figuring out how to beat the system.

Richard Hamilton currently makes about $12.5 million a year. Some people have spoken of him as a Sam Jones-type player. (I'll withhold any laughter out of respect for today's Detroit fans.) At the end of his last season, Red Auerbach offered Sam Jones a $25,000 raise from his $60,000 salary if Sam would stay with the Celtics one more season. Sam was bowled over by the generosity of the offer and refused only because he had accepted a college coaching job and didn't want to renege on the deal. $12,500,000 is roughly 208 times $60,000. Nobody on earth can convince me that any economic indicator has increased by more than a fraction of 208 times over the same period.

The more the league has tried to equalize teams, the more unequal things have become between the haves and the have nots. Smart people being smart people, ways have been found to skirt the spirit of the league regulations and beat the system. It's the same thing with agents and players because, the more the get, the more they want. The league hierarchy thinks it can solve matters through regulation and expansion. But the regulations are just challenges for smart people to find loopholes, and the expansion just strains the underpinnings of the basketball economy while introducing more repositories of greed. And most of the creativity that exists among all the people associated with professional basketball is directed more toward skirting regulations, gaining the economic upper hand, and transitioning basketball into a branch of entertainment than on improving the game of basketball and the competition therein.

Dbrown's suggestion for compacting the number of teams is similar to several I've seen in articles on how to fix the NBA. Isn't that ironic? Loads of people claiming that having fewer teams would enhance the quality of play. While other alleged humanoids are still claiming the quality of play was lower 40-60 years ago, when the league consisted of fewer teams to divide the talent in a draft that included up to 10 rounds or more. Could it be true that more than a lunatic fringe dream they can recapture the authenticity, natural zeal, and fundamental qualities of the game of yesteryear...but on a financial plane 208 times as high? Good luck to them.

Small wonder that a codger like me finds most behind-the-scenes machinations of pro basketball beyond boring and prefers to focus on whatever beauty, skill and competition he can still ferret out of the game itself.

Sorry to get on a rant. This viewpoint is obviously mine alone and does not reflect on the forum in any way. I highly respect and definitely welcome dissenting opinions.

Sam

by dbrown4 Yesterday at 4:07 pm

Sorry, Sam. I can't take credit for the contraction idea. That was bobhecklers original thought/idea/opinion on these pages the best I can tell, but thanks for the rec!

We don't need to go back to 8 teams, or 2 teams like it was back in the 60's ,thus making it so easy for the Celtics to win all those consecutive titles. (And just in case there is any doubt, I'm being sacastic!)

16 would work just fine with me. The league would probably do 10X the business they are doing now if they let that happen.

by tjmakz Yesterday at 4:58 pm

Sam wrote:Cow,

When were TODAY'S players at the mercy of management? Today's players are generations removed from the players who were "at the mercy of management." They are not the same people; and, unlike players of the distant past, today's players have been motivated all along the way by realistic dreams of great riches to spur them on in their quest to become professional basketball players.

The players who were allegedly "at the mercy of management" years ago experienced the reverse of that situation. They had no inkling of where the economics of basketball might be headed three or four decades later. They knew that ownership often struggled and went into hock just to keep a franchise afloat, giving the players work. Many of the players regarded summer jobs as useful training for the job market they'd face when they got out into the real world after they left pro ball. By and large, most of the players were very happy people to have the privilege of playing professional basketball. Most of their efforts were aimed at becoming better players than in figuring out how to beat the system.

Richard Hamilton currently makes about $12.5 million a year. Some people have spoken of him as a Sam Jones-type player. (I'll withhold any laughter out of respect for today's Detroit fans.) At the end of his last season, Red Auerbach offered Sam Jones a $25,000 raise from his $60,000 salary if Sam would stay with the Celtics one more season. Sam was bowled over by the generosity of the offer and refused only because he had accepted a college coaching job and didn't want to renege on the deal. $12,500,000 is roughly 208 times $60,000. Nobody on earth can convince me that any economic indicator has increased by more than a fraction of 208 times over the same period.

The more the league has tried to equalize teams, the more unequal things have become between the haves and the have nots. Smart people being smart people, ways have been found to skirt the spirit of the league regulations and beat the system. It's the same thing with agents and players because, the more the get, the more they want. The league hierarchy thinks it can solve matters through regulation and expansion. But the regulations are just challenges for smart people to find loopholes, and the expansion just strains the underpinnings of the basketball economy while introducing more repositories of greed. And most of the creativity that exists among all the people associated with professional basketball is directed more toward skirting regulations, gaining the economic upper hand, and transitioning basketball into a branch of entertainment than on improving the game of basketball and the competition therein.

Dbrown's suggestion for compacting the number of teams is similar to several I've seen in articles on how to fix the NBA. Isn't that ironic? Loads of people claiming that having fewer teams would enhance the quality of play. While other alleged humanoids are still claiming the quality of play was lower 40-60 years ago, when the league consisted of fewer teams to divide the talent in a draft that included up to 10 rounds or more. Could it be true that more than a lunatic fringe dream they can recapture the authenticity, natural zeal, and fundamental qualities of the game of yesteryear...but on a financial plane 208 times as high? Good luck to them.

Small wonder that a codger like me finds most behind-the-scenes machinations of pro basketball beyond boring and prefers to focus on whatever beauty, skill and competition he can still ferret out of the game itself.

Sorry to get on a rant. This viewpoint is obviously mine alone and does not reflect on the forum in any way. I highly respect and definitely welcome dissenting opinions.

Sam

Sam,

Why is there a need to fix the NBA? The league is doing just as well as MLB and the NFL, and for the NHL, well, don't make me laugh...
If some think the NFL is not going to struggle more then last year, just wait.
I have seen the season ticket numbers for the Tampa Bay Bucs and the lack of renewals is unbelievable.

The NBA has a great product and market their sport tremendously.
The league will not reduce teams for the sake of having better talent on each team.
I doubt this idea has been seriously written about in mainstream journalism.

by Sam Yesterday at 6:29 pm

TJ,

Don't ask me why there's a need to fix the NBA. I don't write the articles. I personally think it's the perfect game and has never been played more superlatively than is currently the case. If forced to come up with the single most titillating facet of today's game, I believe I'd have to pick iso play (I'm a great cat napper)...especially at the end of quarters. Man, I have to take a cold shower after getting a load of that! Second would be dunking. In our office, we all pick numbers, and then we number the dunks taken in the upcoming game. The dunk that most severely injures the dunker wins the pot. Second place goes to the dunker who swings longest on the rim (we're all latent Tarzan fans).

I've seen a number of articles about fixing the NBA, the most recent being a front page article in Parade Magazine (is that "mainstream journalism?"), which accompanies many major market newspapers. The date was June 6, 2010. It was written by Stephen Fried (I'm not familiar with him.) The title is (strangely enough): How to Fix the NBA." Among the contents:

• The NBA is just finishing what commissioner David Stern concedes to PARADE is its most economically disastrous season ever—$400 million in the red, nearly twice what it has lost in tough years before.

• Fewer fans are going to games, the result of a bad economy but also of what a veteran NBA observer calls "too many meaningless games, too many watered-down rosters." Eighteen of 30 teams saw a drop in attendance this season, and the only reason the number weren't worse was the desperate ploys some teams used to fill seats.

• The competitive balance of the league could be further upset on July 1, when Lebron James and the most gifted group of hoops free agents ever will be to switch teams. The amazing free-agent class up for grabs next month could lead to a greater disparity in talent, since the same handful of terms are likely to stockpile the All-Stars.

• Next year's expiration of the Collective bargaining Agreement raises the possibility of a new relationship among the NBA, its players, and its fans, along with the threat of a strike or lockout.

• David Stern says, "What the attendance shows is that markets are very different. Some are more sensitive to the quality of the product on the floor," seemingly acknowledging that some fans are staying home because of weak games.

• Stern places much of the blame for the league's problems on contractual issues, including guaranteed salaries that have locked teams into paying players exorbitant sums of money. The NBA's economic structure "does not work," he says, "and we need a sustainable business model."

• In the past 26 years, only seven cities have enjoyed victory parades. Compare that to the NFL, where nine different teams have won Super Bowls in a dozen years.

• The NBA is heading into a fascinating period when there are more chances to change, improve, or mess up the game than ever before. "We need to grow this game," says superagent David Falk, who represented Michael Jordan and reps other top players today. The changes are "going to be very, very extreme, because I think the times are extreme."

• Stern think the offensive interference rules should be abolished, letting "anyone do anything with the ball above the rim."

The author of the article suggests six ways to "save the NBA". The bold comments are mine:

1. Change the foulout rules. "Instead of ejecting a player after six fouls," says agent Steve Mountain, who represents Orlando's Jameer Nelson, "assess a technical for fouls six and seven, and eject after eight. This would keep the best players in the game longer."

2. Increase scoring. "Shorten the 24-second shot clock to 20 seconds to make for more possessions," Falk says. "Or create a four-point play. People thought the three-point shot would destroy the game, but it added to it instead."

3. Raise the age limit. "You should have to be out of high school for three years to play in the NBA," Falk says. Playing college hoops would allow athletes to develop a fan base that they would carry with them into the pros.

4. Encourage quirk. "There's a reason why Charles Barkley, who is retired, is still getting endorsements," says Sports Illustrated writer Jon Wertheim, who has covered the NBA for 13 years, "and, say, Tim Duncan and Carmelo Anthony aren't. Today the players with personality often have the color bleached out of them." Blogger Bethlehem Shoals or FanHouse.com advises, "They should twitter all the time. It would be a lifeline to these guys' personalities."

5. Change the trade rules. "Eliminate or significantly reduce rules that require salaried of traded players to match up," Mountain says.

6. Shorten the season. The NBA's season comprises 82 games. Reducing the number of contests could make each one market much more to players and fans alike. As Falk explains, "In pro football, there are only 16 games, so every game is critical."

This article didn't advocate reducing the number of NBA cities, but I've seen that one in several publications.

These are not my ideas, so don't ask me why they were selected.

Just for the heck of it, I googled “fix nba,” and another article instantly showed up—this one by Bill Simmons of ESPN. Is he a “mainstream journalist?” The tease in the Google listing was more than enough for me: “Feb 24, 2010 ... The NBA is losing $400 million, teams continue to dump salaries and tank seasons and fans are getting screwed by incompetent franchises.”

TJ, if you think the NBA "has a great product," I'm happy for you.

Sam

by Outside Today at 4:35 am

(Sam/Gyso -- should this move to its own thread? I'm fine either way. Just thought I'd ask.)

I certainly agree that the NBA could use some fixing, and Fried's list is food for thought. (Fried's article: http://www.parade.com/news/2010/06/06-6-ways-to-fix-the-nba.html.)

A few comments from the peanut gallery...

David Stern says the NBA just lost $400 million. It's his job to say the owners are bleeding money in advance of the CBA negotiations; it's called posturing. There have been numerous TV and movie productions where someone was guaranteed a percentage of the profits, but when the studio accountants got done playing with the numbers, the project "lost" money despite being very successful. (Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting.)

Hollywood isn't the only industry that claims to be broke at convenient times. Maybe the NBA as a whole or some franchises individually are losing money; I don't know. Let's just say I'm skeptical of Stern's public assessment at this time. The Warriors just sold for a record $450 million, and they've been to the playoffs only six times in the past 30 years. Why pay so much for a piece of a financial disaster?

There are too many meaningless games. Shorten the regular season. I hate to be the one to raise practical concerns, but for teams that don't make the playoffs, the regular season is all they have. Reducing the regular season means cutting the main source of revenue for the teams most likely to be in financial peril. How smart is that for the health of the league? Plus cutting the regular season means getting players to agree to across-the-board salary cuts. Good luck with that.

"In the past 36 years, only seven teams have enjoyed victory parades." Although this is a typo -- Fried actually said 26 years -- I agree with the idea that a relative few franchises dominating the recent history of the NBA isn't ideal. Yes, we like our storied franchises, but the league also needs small-market and "have not" franchises to win a championship if they are run properly. The Spurs have shown that it can be done, but they are by far the exception. Until we have teams like Oklahoma City, Portland, and Utah break through and win a title, it will continue to be a few teams dominating the landscape.

The comparison to football regarding number of title winners is a poor one for one simple reason -- it's comparing a single-elimination postseason vs. seven-game playoff series. Seven-game series weed out the underdogs and upsets you see with a single-elimination playoff. I still agree with the main assertion that NBA titles have been shared by too few teams, but I thought I'd point out that the NBA and NFL playoff formats are polar opposites.

David Falk says... If there's anyone I'm more skeptical of than David Stern, it's David Falk. Is there anyone with more self-interest, more hidden agendas, or less genuine interest in the welfare of the NBA and his fellow man than David Falk? The guy makes a parasitic living exploiting the inequities in the NBA operating model.

Increase scoring by shortening the shot clock to 20 seconds or creating a four-point play. Say, let's put shock collars on players that activate when they don't push the ball up the court. Or maybe they could take a truly radical approach, like rescinding the rule changes that encourage slow-down, isolation basketball.

Contraction. As a fan, I think the league would be better at around 24 teams instead of 30, but I think there is another one of those practical issues in the way -- who is going to pay the owners of the contracted teams to compensate them for their loss when you take away their franchise? Historically, contraction occurs in a Darwinian fashion when teams go under financially on their own. No matter what we want as fans, the NBA has a lot of moneyed interests heavily invested in each and every NBA franchise. Realistically, it's treating the symptom more than the disease anyway. If you fix other things about the game, the contraction issue goes away.

Encourage quirk. I'm all for this one. Actual personalities would help the league far more than corporate personas.

Eliminate or significantly reduce rules that require salaried of traded players to match up. The problem isn't requiring trades of equal contract value, it's players not being worth their contract.

My short list of how to fix the game.

Objective: Speed up the game, increase scoring.

Why: A faster, higher-scoring game is more fan-friendly and promotes greater team play. It frees all players to showcase their athletic abilities, not just the chosen few superstars.

How: Bring back the 5-second rule, which would force teams to move the ball rather than allow superstars to isolate themselves and pound the ball into the floor for most of the shot clock.

Allow all zone defenses. The current illegal defense and restricted area rules are designed to open up the key for spectacular drives to the hoop by superstars. If you allow any type of zone (you know, like 99% of basketball leagues on the planet), then you either have to use outside shooting to open them up, which leads to more three-point shots, combined with cutting, passing, and (gasp) team play, or you get out in transition and get opportunities before the defense sets up, which leads to a faster, higher-scoring game.

I'm sure you guys can come up with other suggestions.

Objective: Market the game of basketball rather than superstars.

Why: Because a team playing together as a unit showcases what is great about basketball better than stars making highlight plays, and because emphasizing individuals leads to individual play, me-first attitudes, entourages, entitlement, and a whole host of negatives.

How: Put shock collars on everyone in the NBA marketing department and... okay, so maybe not shock collars, but a change in mindset is definitely needed in the NBA offices. I know, good luck with that. But they do have creative folks there who could come up with great videos, promotions, and other stuff to showcase the game, not just star players. Emphasize what is great about basketball rather than what is great about a particular basketball player. The game itself is the greatest asset, not star players, and that asset is underutilized in its marketing.

Objective: Minimize the entitlement attitude that most star players have.

Why: Because players with an entitlement attitude are ultimately a turn-off to fans. Plus entitled players don't want to play team ball.

How: Quit catering to entourages. Put it in the next CBA that teams cannot allow those idiots on the plane, in the practice gym, in the locker room, in the seats by the bench, or any of that stuff. Each time a player speaks about himself in the third person, make him do 100 hours of community service.

Objective: Make players and owners financial partners, not adversaries.

Why: It benefits the long-term health of the league and makes the players invested in their team and the league, not just their own contract.

How: Allot a specific portion of all basketball-related income to players and base all players' salaries on a portion of that income. That way, both players and owners will benefit from increase income and both will have the incentive to increase that income. In the current situation, players and owners work against each other -- the players' objective is to get the biggest individual contract possible regardless of revenue, and the owners objective is to minimize player salaries in order to maximize their profit.

The contract situation needs to be revised somehow so that players can't just sign a fat contract and then collect even if they don't perform. Protect the owners from themselves, because they sure don't have the restraint to offer sensible contracts (just look at the deals for guys like Gilbert Arenas and Rudy Gay), and protect the players who do perform from the players who don't. Make salaries only partially guaranteed.

Minimize the role of agents somehow.

Objective: Increase the quality and consistency of officiating.

Why: Poor and inconsistent officiating drives people crazy, and it gives too much credence to arguments that games are fixed.

How: We can argue until the end of time about the details of this one. What I can say is I'd like to see the limited, intelligent application of replay, getting rid of officials who think they're part of the show, and clear, consistent application of the rules (traveling, moving screens, carrying the ball, etc.). Do something to penalize flopping and flailing on both offense and defense. Adopt the additional penalty idea for players who get to six fouls (an extra free throw or whatever) rather than force that player to sit out. But whatever you do, apply the rules as written, apply them consistently, and give refs the tools they need to make the correct call. You're never going to make everyone happy about officiating, but you can make the situation better than what it is now.

Objective: Speed up the NBA postseason schedule.

Why: Dragging on the postseason forever reflects poorly on the league. People lose interest. These things happened during the 2010 playoffs:

-- The Celtics and Cavs played game 2 on May 3 and didn't play game 3 until May 7 (four days). Numerous series had four-day gaps like this in the schedule.

-- Orlando played their last game against Charlotte on April 26 and didn't play their first game against Atlanta until May 4 (eight days). You can say that's because Atlanta went seven games against Milwaukee, but that series didn't end until May 2 because games 1-3 were on April 17, 20, and 24. If you start on April 17 and play every other day, game 7 is on April 29.

-- Game 7 of the finals was on June 17. The Celtics' first game was on October 27. That's a looooong season -- almost eight months.

How: Have flexible scheduling. I understand the practical advantages of reserving arenas for specific dates, but the league used to get by with flexible scheduling. Get rid of the long gaps between games.

Go back to best out of five for opening series. You might even have a few more upsets that way.


That's more than enough for now. If you actually read this far, you deserve a prize.

Outside

Outside,

I read it end-to-end. Where and what is my prize?

gyso

Sam,

The thread is all set to continue with the discussion.

Ready, Set, Discuss...

gyso

by tjmakz Today at 9:03 am

Sam wrote:TJ,

Don't ask me why there's a need to fix the NBA. I don't write the articles. I personally think it's the perfect game and has never been played more superlatively than is currently the case. If forced to come up with the single most titillating facet of today's game, I believe I'd have to pick iso play (I'm a great cat napper)...especially at the end of quarters. Man, I have to take a cold shower after getting a load of that! Second would be dunking. In our office, we all pick numbers, and then we number the dunks taken in the upcoming game. The dunk that most severely injures the dunker wins the pot. Second place goes to the dunker who swings longest on the rim (we're all latent Tarzan fans).

I've seen a number of articles about fixing the NBA, the most recent being a front page article in Parade Magazine (is that "mainstream journalism?"), which accompanies many major market newspapers. The date was June 6, 2010. It was written by Stephen Fried (I'm not familiar with him.) The title is (strangely enough): How to Fix the NBA." Among the contents:

• The NBA is just finishing what commissioner David Stern concedes to PARADE is its most economically disastrous season ever—$400 million in the red, nearly twice what it has lost in tough years before.

• Fewer fans are going to games, the result of a bad economy but also of what a veteran NBA observer calls "too many meaningless games, too many watered-down rosters." Eighteen of 30 teams saw a drop in attendance this season, and the only reason the number weren't worse was the desperate ploys some teams used to fill seats.

• The competitive balance of the league could be further upset on July 1, when Lebron James and the most gifted group of hoops free agents ever will be to switch teams. The amazing free-agent class up for grabs next month could lead to a greater disparity in talent, since the same handful of terms are likely to stockpile the All-Stars.

• Next year's expiration of the Collective bargaining Agreement raises the possibility of a new relationship among the NBA, its players, and its fans, along with the threat of a strike or lockout.

• David Stern says, "What the attendance shows is that markets are very different. Some are more sensitive to the quality of the product on the floor," seemingly acknowledging that some fans are staying home because of weak games.

• Stern places much of the blame for the league's problems on contractual issues, including guaranteed salaries that have locked teams into paying players exorbitant sums of money. The NBA's economic structure "does not work," he says, "and we need a sustainable business model."

• In the past 26 years, only seven cities have enjoyed victory parades. Compare that to the NFL, where nine different teams have won Super Bowls in a dozen years.

• The NBA is heading into a fascinating period when there are more chances to change, improve, or mess up the game than ever before. "We need to grow this game," says superagent David Falk, who represented Michael Jordan and reps other top players today. The changes are "going to be very, very extreme, because I think the times are extreme."

• Stern think the offensive interference rules should be abolished, letting "anyone do anything with the ball above the rim."

The author of the article suggests six ways to "save the NBA". The bold comments are mine:

1. Change the foulout rules. "Instead of ejecting a player after six fouls," says agent Steve Mountain, who represents Orlando's Jameer Nelson, "assess a technical for fouls six and seven, and eject after eight. This would keep the best players in the game longer."

2. Increase scoring. "Shorten the 24-second shot clock to 20 seconds to make for more possessions," Falk says. "Or create a four-point play. People thought the three-point shot would destroy the game, but it added to it instead."

3. Raise the age limit. "You should have to be out of high school for three years to play in the NBA," Falk says. Playing college hoops would allow athletes to develop a fan base that they would carry with them into the pros.

4. Encourage quirk. "There's a reason why Charles Barkley, who is retired, is still getting endorsements," says Sports Illustrated writer Jon Wertheim, who has covered the NBA for 13 years, "and, say, Tim Duncan and Carmelo Anthony aren't. Today the players with personality often have the color bleached out of them." Blogger Bethlehem Shoals or FanHouse.com advises, "They should twitter all the time. It would be a lifeline to these guys' personalities."

5. Change the trade rules. "Eliminate or significantly reduce rules that require salaried of traded players to match up," Mountain says.

6. Shorten the season. The NBA's season comprises 82 games. Reducing the number of contests could make each one market much more to players and fans alike. As Falk explains, "In pro football, there are only 16 games, so every game is critical."

This article didn't advocate reducing the number of NBA cities, but I've seen that one in several publications.

These are not my ideas, so don't ask me why they were selected.

Just for the heck of it, I googled “fix nba,” and another article instantly showed up—this one by Bill Simmons of ESPN. Is he a “mainstream journalist?” The tease in the Google listing was more than enough for me: “Feb 24, 2010 ... The NBA is losing $400 million, teams continue to dump salaries and tank seasons and fans are getting screwed by incompetent franchises.”

TJ, if you think the NBA "has a great product," I'm happy for you.

Sam

Sam,

I asked you about fixing the NBA because I did not see a link to an article about this idea.
What David Stern said about the league losing $400m in February has no relevance to the actual numbers.
David Stern is paid by the owners who want to DECREASE salaries, so he is always going to water down how successful the league is.
Stern also warned of a huge decrease in the 2010-11 CAP numbers, but what happened? The CAP number came out higher then last year.

The NBA is struggling in some cities just like every other sport is.
Yes, they play a long season, but how is this different from MLB or the NHL? For this guy in the Parade article to even bring up the NFL's 16 game schedule is ridiculous.

The NBA in general does well when the large market teams are successful.
NY and Chicago will continue to get better which will help the NBA.

I agree with very few of the sugggestions made to change the NBA.
I would be ok with a 20 second shot clock and anything that could help speed up the game.
Is the NBA really going to make wholesale rule changes just because we have been in a brutal recession and many people can't afford to go to the games? The attendance will be back once people are doing better economically.
To see how successful the NBA is, we just have to look at what Golden State sold for.
They are one of the perennial door-mats of the NBA. If they were losing tens of millions of dollars each year, would there have been multiple groups willing to spend almost 1/2 billion dollars to buy the team?

TJ,

My point in posting from that article was not because I necessarily agreed with much of it. My point was that concern is being expressed about the NBA and a need to fix it. If I googled a lot more key words, I'm sure I could find a lot more indications of concern—like the Simmons article. Critiquing the proposed solutions (which are definitely fair game—I personally detest the eight-foul ejection concept or any change that will increase the number of whistles in the league) doesn't change the fact that concern is being registered.

Sam

Outside, what a brilliant piece of both analysis and writing, and thanks for catching my typo (which I've corrected). I originally posted excerpts from that article only to respond to TJ's comments. To illustrate just how mainstream the article was, my wife (who doesn't follow pro basketball except for occasional osmosis from living with me) brought it to my attention.

In my earlier post, I originally commented on each of the six suggestions, and then I deleted all of my comments because I preferred any impetus for discussion come from elsewhere. Thanks for rising to the occasion, Outside.

There's are some realities that I believe have to be considered in addressing this issue. For better or worse, the NBA has succeeded in positioning its product to coincide with the needs of younger consumers—the life blood of tomorrow. It has zeroed in on shorter attention spans, the insatiable hunger to be entertained, a disdain for nuances, the worship of fabricated heroes rather than national icons, and many other artifacts of what I somewhat cynically call the "WWF-ing of America." (I mean no disrespect to devotees of that enterprise. I'm a secret fan of preening.)

In the process, they've created some interesting paradoxes. One involves a collision of (1) complexity (e.g. the CBA and the proliferation of rules that force the league to order whistles by the cubic yard) and (2) dumbing down effects (e.g. the deification of athleticism over the cerebral and fundamental aspects of the game, jumbotrons choreographing crowd noise, etc.). Another paradox pits (1) greed (at all levels of the game) against (2) human values (e.g. loyalty, commitment, egalitarianism, etc.). Yet a third paradox contrasts (1) narcissicm (annointing of individual players as rock stars, pandoring of entourages, etc.) with (2) distancing (remoteness of players, necessity that the non-wealthy gain most of their impressions of the game via electronic manipulation, etc.)

These and other contradictions have acted much like strip mining in depleting so many of the inherent resources of professional basketball in the headlong rush for misplaced gains based on self-serving priorities. Rather than keeping a basketball mentality as its beacon, the league has allowed a marketing mentality to take on a life of its own. (We have a deficit; how shall we spend it?) More growth is regarded as the prescription for almost every ailment; and screw the side effects.

Unfortunately, implementing almost any of the great ideas that have been and will be expressed in this thread could be like facing a runaway herd of buffalo by offending at least one of the rival power factions. The result will most likely be a mire of posturing, delays, threats, stoppages, and who knows what? Perhaps at least one season will be sacrificed. Then they'll come back with their usual set of leverage-seeking checks and balances—perhaps recalibrated a bit as all the players move one seat to the right—but, nonetheless, still in place. And they'll immediately respond to a angry, disillusioned fan base with the only remedy they know—marketing like hell, printing Lebron's face with pursed lips on every brand of toilet paper, and perhaps starting a new downward economic spiral in the bargain.

I only hope that, in the near future, we don't have to change the name of this board to "Sam's Botany Forum"

Sam

Hi,
First off, thanks for creating a separate thread. Now to the topic of the thread.
My understanding of the "fix" from the article and some of the suggestions in the posts here is to make NBA a more profitable entertainment enterprise. It doesn't necessary mean to make basketball a more interesting to watch team sport with more athletic and skilled players. I can't help but bring a Hollywood analogy. There're many great movies with great plot, talented actors, great directing that are enjoyed by many generations of viewers. And there're movies that are lame at best, but they're extremely profitable due to some tricks such as controversy, special effects, etc.
IMO, NBA is doomed unless it evolves. But its evolution may change the product (the only one) they sell to the point it rivals WWF.
But before it happens I hope to see Celtics from Boston. MA will get #18 by beating Lakers, Los Angeles, CA.

AK

gyso wrote:Outside,

I read it end-to-end. Where and what is my prize?

gyso

Gyso,

My agent, David Falk, points out that I said you would deserve a prize, not actually get one.

Outside

P.S. A cold Anchor Steam on a warm summer day at a cafe in San Francisco. I'll let BobH pick the place.

Oh, and one other thing -- all arenas have to stop playing "Day-O" (from The Banana Boat Song) immediately. They've totally ruined a song I used to love.

Outside wrote:

gyso wrote:Outside,

I read it end-to-end. Where and what is my prize?

gyso

Gyso,

My agent, David Falk, points out that I said you would deserve a prize, not actually get one.

Outside

P.S. A cold Anchor Steam on a warm summer day at a cafe in San Francisco. I'll let BobH pick the place.

Outside,

Semantics, schmantics.

I've never been to San Fran. I've visited Sacramento many times when I worked for another company. Sounds like fun, tastes like another.

gyso

Hi,
Interestingly enough, a similar thread was started yesterday on BDC. And much like here, there's no dissension.
I wonder if other boards (LA, Cle, Orl, MIA, etc) have something similar?

AK

Does the NBA need to be fixed? Some say it's already fixed. The word on the street here in Sarasota/Bradenton is that local boy, disgraced NBA ref Tim Donaghy was 15-2 on his 2010 NBA playoff predictions (ultimately 31-2) based on who was reffing the games. The following bettors' website gives a pretty provocative look at the process:

http://www.bettorschat.com/forums/all-sports-news-discussion/184445-tim-donaghy-15-2-run-picking-playoff-games.html

worcester,

You really shouldn't try to tie internet chat room trash to the NBA.
I can predict many games too. LA will win game 1 at home. LA will lose game 3 on the road if they are up 2-0...
If the NBA was fixed, the NY Knicks would be the Spurs and the small market Spurs would be the doormat that the Knicks are. It's not good for the NBA when the Knicks and Bulls are bad teams.
Also, we would have already watched LeBron vs. Kobe in the Finals multiple times.

Damn Worcester- you beat me to my joke- that the NBA's already fixed !

At least according to the conspiracy-mongers who can never explain Finals pairings such as SA vs Det, SA vs NJ, etc, etc.

First of all I was sharing information that came to me from a friend who knows Tim Donaghy locally. The internet site was a good way to summarize the info. If you read it closely, you'll see that via the refs the NBA has a tendency to influence how long series go and how they go, but it is only a tendency; it is not predeterminative. I don't think it to be trash when someone makes a documented prediction that turns out to be true 15 times out of 17. It's interesting and informative. I am NOT claiming that the Celtics lost the series because of the officiating. In fact, Mike from North Providence won't even talk with me anymore because I argued that the Lakers won Game 6 on their merits, not because of how the refs called the game.

BSH. I don't think the NBA is fixed, but I do think the refs have tendencies that influence games and series. And definitely some elite players don't get fouls called that lesser players would.

W-

I didn't think you felt the NBA was fixed, I was just having some fun b/c you were the last person on the thread before I posted, but you were the first one to bring up "fixed" in the context that I was thinking, so you took the wind out of my joke.

I agree with you that refs influence games and series. I don't think the refs or the NBA determines who wins series, but I have no doubt that series get extended via the refs sometimes.

All anyone needs to do is watch Lakers vs Suns game 3 or Celtics vs Magic game 5 this year. Both played out EXACTLY the same way.

After all a number of early round sweeps and 4-1 series, the NBA and the networks wanted more competitive Con Finals. In both games, the team that was trailing had a star player who drew fouls every time he touched the ball in the first half. Amare and Dwight both were literally untouchable that night, and the lakers and celtics were put on their respective heels as Pau, Bynum and Odom, and Perk, KG and Wallace all had 3 fouls by early-middle of 2nd quarter. (Perk was then ejected on a phantom T, to put the cherry on the sundae.)

And most of those guys were sitting for half the 1st quarter b/c they got two quick fouls each. PHX and Orl both got out to big leads and never looked back in those games, as the LAL and Cs were forced to play timidly and sub frequently, and never got back in the games.

I had no doubt after watching those two games that there are certainly occasions where the league decides it wants a certain game called a certain way.

Game 4 in the Finals last year was a similar script in the first half, but fisher's miracle 3 to send the game into OT (and Dwight choking at the line) provided an unexpected, surprise ending.

Paul the octopus was 8 for 8 in the World Cup. The World Cup was fixed, too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_octopus

BSH, I totally saw these playoffs the same way. And I find octopus too chewy for my taste. Calamari is much better.