I like the idea of thinking outside the box although not sure I like the idea of a midseason tournament per se'. It would need to count in the standings first and foremost. Maybe if there was less regular season games, but then some type of midseason tournament which technically gains back those games then I don't know.... I like the idea of reducing the regular season schedule to make each game more important. But the midseason games wouldn't help with that unless there's some meaning to the outcome.
But then you have to be careful or you just risk making the regular season even less meaningful.
Maybe something more along the lines of a marquee matchup week where dates are held but the matchups aren't filled in until a certain date and then the teams are seeded and matched some way that makes for compelling matchups of top teams, or interesting bracket possibilities. Maybe Eastern vs Western Teams. Or the different Divisions square off based on seeding in a single elimination tournament with a consolation bracket (so everyone plays the same number of games). It would be a made for TV type schedule based on actual team strength mid season and SHOULD be a way to share some Natl TV exposure. Assuming all teams make the tourney... and at least most games get national exposure.
Still feels a little too gimmicky though...
Last edited by Bball; 01-13-2014 at 05:32 AM.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."
I think a good idea is to put two cups/tournaments in a span of one season.
September - Draft
October - November- no more preason games, start of the 1st tournament, single round robin, top 8 teams of each conferences advance.
December - January - playoffs
Best of 3 - 1st round
Best of 5 - second round
Best of 5 - conference finals
Best of 7 - finals
February - all-star break plus regrouping of each team for the second tourney
March - April - eliminations, single round robin, this time the top 16 will advance regardless of conference. Top 8 teams will receive twice to beat advantage which means they only need to win once in the first round to move on while their opponent needs to beat them twice.. This will enhance the likelihood of lower teams upsetting the higher ones.
May- June - playoffs
Twice to beat - 1st round
Best of 5 - second round
Best of 7 - third round
Best of 7 - 2nd tournament finals
This means every season, two teams will win a trophy and if one team wins both they will be awarded another trophy (grandslam award).
Also, 58 regular season games, 29 each tournament. Shorter play-off games. Also the 16-team play-offs will be efficient when it comes to travelling since the higher seeded need only win once.
I hope you get what I meant. I like NBA to be like this rather than a long season.
Last edited by BlueCollar; 01-13-2014 at 06:01 AM.
Pacers + Colts + Seahawks = Game mode on!
Not sure how you'd be able to create a meaningful midseason tournament but I would be all for doing a 30 team single elimination tourney in the preseason. Preseason is pretty well meaningless anyway so this could be that added element that gives it more interest. Split the bracket by conference and have the two teams that made it to the finals the previous season get 1st round byes. I think it would garner quite a bit of fan attention as well since the NBA will have been in a 4.5 month hiatus up to that point. It would be a great way to kick off every NBA season.
One possibly way of making a mid-season tournament interesting is to make the prize a really big charity donation that will go to a worthy place in the city of the winning team. Of course, not all players may care a lot about it and may still not go as hard as we'd want. If you want to maximize that, just make it a big cash prize for the players.
So basically they want the NBA to institute an FA Cup? I'm not sure that works with an 82-game season, it's hard enough for soccer teams to handle that when they're only playing 38 league games. I kind of like the idea of adding competitions, but I don't think the way to do it is just to tack on more stuff to what's already there. You'd have to cut regular season games.
I definitely like the idea of making the playoffs more meritocratic, though. Always thought it was stupid to prioritize geographic location over actual quality. And I like the idea of fostering outside-the-box thinking. Every idea won't be great, but things like this are more likely to lead to improvements in the league than just sticking to the status quo.
"And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"
"And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."
What they could do is have neutral site double or triple headers between the top teams in the league. For example Christmas, have all those teams at one location.
Turning the preseason into a tournament and calling it something other than the preseason and giving some additional incentive or meaning is a good idea that I've wanted for years. Anything midseason though will never fly.
Outside of a potential preseason tourney, any other additional tourney/cup-style arrangements require a reduction of regular season games, something I'd be fine with. I think a traditional regular season of roughly 50 games would be way better than what we have now.
I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
I like the idea of a tournament. But how about instead we invite foreign teams from the 4 biggest leagues outside the US. It would make all star weekend huge worldwide and help gms see foreign talent.
I wouldn't have mind shortening the season to 78 games, and having a midseason single elimination tournament with the following stakes for the winner:
1. If you finish outside of the playoffs, you get the 8th seed in your conference.
2. If you finish in the 5th through 8th spot, you get the 4th seed and homecourt for a round.
3. If you finish 3rd or 4th, you get the 2nd seed.
4. If you finish 2nd, you get the top seed.
5. If you finish 1st, but don't have homecourt for the finals, you get homecourt for the finals.
6. If you have the best record in the league, you get to keep your spot.
Those are massive stakes, which would guarantee a competitive tournament. I think I read an idea about this once, with some foreign players commenting that they have tournaments like this in the European leagues.
"See how stupid those fans sound complaining about the officials. That is one reason why I hate when Pacers fans complain about the refs - does not come across well at all, no matter the merit. "
What if everyone played their conference's teams three times, and the other conference's teams twice? Wouldn't that be 72 games per season? That sounds like a reasonable cut down from 82 to me.
Alternatively, it would screw up statistical comparisons to an extent, but you could also cut 2 minutes off of each quarter, keep 82 games, but each game is only 40 minutes long.
No way on the shorter quarters both for me (if I want 40 minute games I'll watch college) and the players never agree to it, less players having to play in games means less players in league basically. They'd probably love to lower the number of games, but the owners will never go for that.
I think the status quo is pretty good atm, the NBA All-Star game isn't quite the joke the Pro Bowl is and is just more fun, isn't meant to be taken seriously. The NBA owns April-June playoff time, all they would be trying to do mid-season is compete w/ NFL and College Basketball.
"It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."
----------------- Reggie Miller