or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread - Page 1278

post #19156 of 27239
George Karl is being targeted by the Kings to replace Mike Malone. Definitely an interesting fit. Sacramento's roster as currently constructed is much better than a lot of the shitty-ass Nuggets teams that Melo single-handedly dragged kicking and screaming to the playoffs every season when Karl was coaching there, so there's some potential for sure.
post #19157 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Ok, so all the teams can that can promoted are independently owned. There aren't any independent lower league teams in basketball. You'd have to scratch the whole system and start over, and there are a lot of interests in there that have no interest in changing the system.

(lol parody)
Probably the "easiest" way would be cut the size of the league. Create a lower league by eliminating the bottom 10 teams (or just half the East hah) and then relegate/promote some number every year.

This is obviously never going to happen, but if you wanted to do it and had unlimited power....kind of an interesting thought experiment.

Maybe not, but a drastic change in the system would have widespread benefit.

I disagree with shrinkage, more games the better. There are hundreds of professional soccer clubs, and thousands of competitive games.
post #19158 of 27239
Lakers were down 57 - 20 a few minutes ago, ha ha.
post #19159 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Maybe not, but a drastic change in the system would have widespread benefit.

I disagree with shrinkage, more games the better. There are hundreds of professional soccer clubs, and thousands of competitive games.

I'm saying it would be a somewhat practical approach to creating a multi-tier league that would make relegation possible. Right now the NBA has monopoly power over basketball, which is something that I don't believe exists in Europe. The leagues exist around the clubs, not the other way around like in the US. You'd either have to have the NBA create a separate-but-inferior secondary league or end the monopoly. I don't see them doing either.

As far as more competitive, it really depends on how you're going to structure this. Tanking and all that exists because of the push for parity in the league, with the draft rewarding bad teams. The bad teams would play harder if they might get relegated, but they're still going to be bad teams and you'd be removing the biggest way they can get better. It'd get even worse if you implemented more Euro style markets, with no salary caps, etc. You'd have a couple superteams every year, a midtier of vaguely competitive teams, then a whole bunch of shit.

It's questionable whether there's enough talent for a 30 team league right now, there's certainly not enough to add 10+ teams in a secondary league and actually give people a product they'll care enough to watch.

Seems like a lot more work than just changing how the league assigns draft picks.
post #19160 of 27239
We would be better off relegating dumb posters to AskAndy so we wouldn't have to humor discussion like this.
post #19161 of 27239
I'm betting idnfl's version of basketball is similar to the that of the late Kim Jong-Il: three points for a dunk, four points for a three pointer that touches nothing but the net, negative one point for missing a free throw, and eight points for a shot in the last three seconds.
post #19162 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnFacconable View Post

We would be better off relegating dumb posters to AskAndy so we wouldn't have to humor discussion like this.

Prove why it's dumb.
post #19163 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Prove why it's dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

post #19164 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Prove why it's dumb.


^you've made this "argument" in past year's nba threads. just watch soccer if you want relegation.


soccer matches ending in 2-1 or 3-1 scores is not proof of parity. its fucking soccer... a team can dominate a match and still only win 2-1, fuck, you can dominate and still just end in a 1-1 tie.

parity in euro club football? jesus just do a quick search of EPL or La Liga champions and you'll see a pattern:

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

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

^hint, really rich teams usually win the championship. and its usually the same tiny number of uber wealthy clubs who do so.


all regulation does is make the bottom dwellers more interesting. what makes the NBA or any other major big 4 north american sports league more interesting? they have a playoffs which determines their winner. EPL just has the regular season and best regular season record takes it all.

do you think that EPL system is better? UEFA doesn't. they made their version of it called the UEFA Champions league which pit regional leagues champions against each other in a massive playoff. Kind of sounds like how the winners of the various regional divisions of the NFC and AFC meet in a somewhat popular tournament called the Super Bowl.
post #19165 of 27239
Quote:
all regulation does is make the bottom dwellers more interesting.

It makes games between the various bottom dwellers more interesting, but the teams are still going to suck and is that really interesting? How many people are tuning in for a game between Minnesota and Detroit (etc) even if it's close? Neither team is going to be relevant and the product they have on display isn't that great. Relegation sure wouldn't fix that, especially since it by default dilutes talent even more at the low end and potentially (depending on what else you change) concentrates it at the higher end.

Do we really want to watch 70 terrible basketball teams and seven or eight really good ones?

I assume the motivation for people who want relegation is just to punish bad teams, but it's pretty evident that the structure in the US (for any sport) isn't there and would require more effort than will ever occur.
Quote:
Kind of sounds like how the winners of the various regional divisions of the NFC and AFC meet in a somewhat popular tournament called the Super Bowl.

I don't know how people look at it in Europe, but Americans are pretty obsessed with championships. Just look at the angst people have when their team makes the playoffs year in and year out but never wins it all. That's considered failure. Not many people are going to be excited because their team got to stay in League A instead of being demoted to League B. "Hurray we're almost the worst team in the best league" doesn't work with the America mentality, I don't think.
post #19166 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceMD View Post

^you've made this "argument" in past year's nba threads. just watch soccer if you want relegation.


soccer matches ending in 2-1 or 3-1 scores is not proof of parity. its fucking soccer... a team can dominate a match and still only win 2-1, fuck, you can dominate and still just end in a 1-1 tie.

parity in euro club football? jesus just do a quick search of EPL or La Liga champions and you'll see a pattern:

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

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

^hint, really rich teams usually win the championship. and its usually the same tiny number of uber wealthy clubs who do so.


all regulation does is make the bottom dwellers more interesting. what makes the NBA or any other major big 4 north american sports league more interesting? they have a playoffs which determines their winner. EPL just has the regular season and best regular season record takes it all.

do you think that EPL system is better? UEFA doesn't. they made their version of it called the UEFA Champions league which pit regional leagues champions against each other in a massive playoff. Kind of sounds like how the winners of the various regional divisions of the NFC and AFC meet in a somewhat popular tournament called the Super Bowl.

I ask for proof and I get opinion. satisfied.gif

I have indeed said this before, and in the mean time we've seen tanking become more prominent, obvious, and acceptable. And anyone believes that's good for the game is a douche.

To your other point, there are 30+ football clubs in Europe capable of winning the Champions League. As a sample size, Europe is a better comparison (land size vs US) as opposed to a small European country's domestic league. In this respect, there are probably only 4 or 6 NBA teams that have a realistic chance to win a title. So by this measure, there is a ton more parody and competition in European football.
post #19167 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It makes games between the various bottom dwellers more interesting, but the teams are still going to suck and is that really interesting? How many people are tuning in for a game between Minnesota and Detroit (etc) even if it's close? Neither team is going to be relevant and the product they have on display isn't that great. Relegation sure wouldn't fix that, especially since it by default dilutes talent even more at the low end and potentially (depending on what else you change) concentrates it at the higher end.

Do we really want to watch 70 terrible basketball teams and seven or eight really good ones?

I assume the motivation for people who want relegation is just to punish bad teams, but it's pretty evident that the structure in the US (for any sport) isn't there and would require more effort than will ever occur.
I don't know how people look at it in Europe, but Americans are pretty obsessed with championships. Just look at the angst people have when their team makes the playoffs year in and year out but never wins it all. That's considered failure. Not many people are going to be excited because their team got to stay in League A instead of being demoted to League B. "Hurray we're almost the worst team in the best league" doesn't work with the America mentality, I don't think.

"Suck" is relative. A team at the bottom of the league under pressure can play some pretty hard nosed ball to stay alive. I'm not sure their record matters as much as the quality and intensity of the play.

Your comparison is silly... 70 terrible vs 7 or 8. I'd rather watch 70 teams that compete hard. Today you get 1/2 the league trying to achieve and the rest vying for a #1 draft pick. That = terrible moreso that anything you've said.

I think the motivation for relegation is to refresh the top flight with the best teams. Honestly, as a comparitor, I'd rather have that Kentucky squad in the NBA than the Sixers. That Kentucky squad is aligned with having a successful season, the Sixers are aligned with a draft pick. Now, I'm not trying to make any college in the NBA argument, just trying to explain what makes for a quality league with all the teams trying to succeed.

They are just as obsessed with championships in Europe. You get as many managers fired as you do here. And supporters of the teams get really fucking upset, I mean like marches, signs and protests outside the club HQ. There is much more passion for these clubs than "lakers baby lakers" will be. The idea a douche like Jet could flip from Arsenal to Tottenham like he does the clippers is never going to happen.

And I disagree. With this passion and lifelong support, many smaller clubs like Bolton, Swansea, QPR, Wolverhamption have achieved something by just surviving a season in the top flight and their fans certainly know it.
post #19168 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

"Suck" is relative. A team at the bottom of the league under pressure can play some pretty hard nosed ball to stay alive. I'm not sure their record matters as much as the quality and intensity of the play.

Your comparison is silly... 70 terrible vs 7 or 8. I'd rather watch 70 teams that compete hard. Today you get 1/2 the league trying to achieve and the rest vying for a #1 draft pick. That = terrible moreso that anything you've said.
I'm going to venture that this isn't a very common opinion. Most people like watching a high quality product, and more than that, they like watching a winning team. You hear lots of casual basketball fans say they love NCAA ball because the kids "play hard", but they only tune in for the tournament. Those people aren't going to pay to see the West Bumfuck Pro Ballers play hard and lose by 50 to the Lakers. How many Wildcat fans would really pay to watch Kentucky lose 70+ games in the NBA?

I'd bet big money that it's not a common enough opinion to make 70 professional teams financially viable.



Quote:
And I disagree. With this passion and lifelong support, many smaller clubs like Bolton, Swansea, QPR, Wolverhamption have achieved something by just surviving a season in the top flight and their fans certainly know it.

Like I said, I don't think that mentality exists in the US. Europe has the history behind all those lower tier teams, and the regional identities to keep fans involved.

The US would be starting entirely from scratch for the lower tier teams and hoping that people are going to identify enough with their local team to make it financially viable. I can't see that happening. You see it in college, but that's a distinct system and I'm not convinced you could replicate it from scratch with pro teams.
post #19169 of 27239
Quote:
I have indeed said this before, and in the mean time we've seen tanking become more prominent, obvious, and acceptable. And anyone believes that's good for the game is a douche.

The point here is that relegation is not the only solution to tanking, and is way WAY more complex than the other possibilities.

Quote:
To your other point, there are 30+ football clubs in Europe capable of winning the Champions League. As a sample size, Europe is a better comparison (land size vs US) as opposed to a small European country's domestic league. In this respect, there are probably only 4 or 6 NBA teams that have a realistic chance to win a title. So by this measure, there is a ton more parody and competition in European football.

Only 22 teams have ever won out of 77, so that's not much different than the NBA. Kind of silly to say that 30 could win in any given year. It takes a huge infusion of outside money to turn a mediocre team into a contender, and that's something that's impossible with the NBA system. "Relegation" doesn't fix that, removing the salary cap and all kinds of other stuff would have to happen.

Also, parity. Parity. Not parody.

lol

I still can't tell if these things are meta or not.
post #19170 of 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The point here is that relegation is not the only solution to tanking, and is way WAY more complex than the other possibilities.

I never said it was the only solution. To me, it represents the most interesting solution because I think holds the most positive disruption.

I know lawyerdad, prove it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread