Master Plan >>> The NBA Re-Envisioned (subtitle: How elements of NASCAR, the Olympics and the old ABA combine to make an incredibly more funner, and more profitable league)

[sturt]

Disclaimer: You'll need a few minutes to absorb all of this. And you won't be able to ask for a refund on those minutes if you decide it wasn't worth it. Just sayin.

 

[sturt]

Why? Here's some of why...

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Current Hawks roster

 

PG - Trae / Lemon Pepper / Goodwin / Dunn

G - Bogi / Huerter / Cam / Mays

F - Hunter / Snell / Solo

PF - Collins / Gallo / Knight

C - Capela / Okongwu / Bruno

 

That's 17 players.  

Atlanta will have 2 franchises and can put a max of 12 + 1 on the team.   They already have the 2-way players, so they would have to add 5 more players to reach the minimum for both teams.   Hell, let's get the band back together.

• Marvin Williams
• Demarre Carroll
• Kyle Korver
• Thabo Sefolosha
• Jeff Teague

Oh . . and let's cut Solo, and bring in Demarcus Cousins

 

PG - Trae / Lemon Pepper / Goodwin / Dunn / Teague

G - Bogi / Huerter / Cam / Mays

F - Hunter / Snell / Carroll / Korver / Thabo

PF - Collins / Gallo / Williams / Knight

C - Capela / Okongwu / Bruno / Cousins

 

I think what would happen in this scenario, is that we would have a "A-team" and a "B-team".   One team the city would rally around.  The other team the city might shun.   I think the benefit in a setup like this, is that if you had a young player that you thought needed development with major minutes, and as a top 2 option in the offense, you might not put him on the "main roster" team.  The person that comes to mind in this scenario, would be Cam.

 

Hawks "A-Team"

 

PG - Trae / Lou

G - Bogi / Huerter

F - Hunter / Carroll / Korver

PF - Collins / Gallo

C - Capela / Cousins

 

Hawks "B-Team"

 

PG - Dunn / Teague / Goodwin

G  - Cam / Mays

F - Snell / Thabo

PF - Knight / Williams

C - Okongwu / Bruno

 

I don't think the Hawks could afford to balance out both teams, which would mean Collins and Trae would be on separate teams

 

Hawks "A-Team"

 

PG - Trae / Teague

G - Bogi / Mays

F - Hunter / Carroll / Korver

PF - Gallo / Knight

C - Capela / Bruno

 

Hawks "B-Team"

 

PG - Lou / Dunn / Goodwin

G  - Cam / Huerter

F - Snell / Thabo

PF - Collins / Williams

C - Okongwu / Cousins

 

The A-Team in this scenario still has a strong starting 5, but a very weak bench.  The B-Team is more balanced, but probably not better than the A-Team.

I think the most interesting thing in a setup like this, would be if franchises would purposely strengthen a franchise in the opposite conference where a superstar type team resides.  Say if Brooklyn opted not to split up Harden - Durant - Kyrie, would the Hawks put Trae - Capela - Collins in the opposite conference?   

Maybe another wrinkle to this, is part of the "trade deadline" means that franchises could trade players within their respective team, as long as they do not violate the NBA trade rules.

 

As for the Bronze Tournament, I still say that winner should get the #1 pick.  That's a wrinkle that I've been talking about for years.  The NBA needs to quit rewarding bad teams with increased chances to get more ping pong balls.   

Overall, I don't hate this, but I'm not sure if this is better than what we currently have.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

As for the Bronze Tournament, I still say that winner should get the #1 pick.  That's a wrinkle that I've been talking about for years.  The NBA needs to quit rewarding bad teams with increased chances to get more ping pong balls.   

Overall, I don't hate this, but I'm not sure if this is better than what we currently have.

 

NVM . . . now I'm confused.

Is the Bronze Tournament made up of the bottom 10 teams in the league at the 44 game point?   How are each teams determined to go to which pool?

[sturt]

Thanks for taking interest.

Let me start with the question in the previous post...

• Yes, the Bronze Tournament is a contest of the bottom 10 teams who did not qualify for the Silver Pool (ie, were the bottom 2 in their division for the 44-game Silver Qualifier round-robin that begins the season)... so yeah, those make up the Bronze Pool.

 

• Then, once the Silver Qualifier is done, the 20 other teams compete in the Gold Qualifier, attempting to be one of 10 teams making the Gold Pool (top 2 in their division) instead of the Silver Pool.

 

• Question I now see that I didn't address in the graphic: Are the 44-game Silver Qualifier, 22-game Gold Qualifier, and then the final 18-games of Pool Play each standalones for the purposes of W/L record, or is it all cumulative? Answer: They are meant to be standalones, with the caveat that the first tiebreaker is the teams' cumulative/total W/L record.

 

• To the comment about draft slotting... winner of the Bronze Tournament actually gains the #8 seed in the Gold Tournament... and after some extensive thought, it occurred to me that this dual-team concept actually provides a new and different lever for discouraging tanking while also serving the best interests of the league, which is to rank each of the cities' best finishing teams (not the worst), and to assign draft slots according to that ranking. The novel idea embedded in that is both of your teams have incentive to perform as well as they can in the post-season, which effectively makes it wildly complicated to somehow pre-program losing that would result in a better draft slot--that is, because your more successful team is the one whose fortunes actually will count. It's not a pure "race to the bottom." And, that actually is as it should be, since the futility of your best team is more representative of how bad off your overall franchise is.

3 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Maybe another wrinkle to this, is part of the "trade deadline" means that franchises could trade players within their respective team, as long as they do not violate the NBA trade rules.

• As I've conceptualized it, those top 4 salary slots are critical to roster construction, and because of that, only trades having no impact on the teams' top 4 salary slots could be completed during those first 44 games. Any that would have impact, then, would have the short window between the end of the Silver (1st Sunday in Jan) and the beginning of the Gold Qualifier (following Thursday)... so that probably should mean an actual trade deadline set as 3:00 pm the day before the Gold Qualifier starts.

 

• GMs would set their rosters for both teams a total of three separate times during a given season:

(1) immediately before the season starts (aka, Silver Qualifier period), with the caveat that the #1 and #4 highest paid players must be placed on one team, and the #2 and #3 on the other;

(2) in early January (ie, at the start of the Gold Qualifier period), with the caveat that the #1 and #2 highest paid players must be placed on separate teams; and,

(3) in late February (ie, at the start of the final 18 games when all 3 pools have been filled with 10 teams each, in the homestretch to decide postseason seeding), and with no barriers on what players can be assigned to which teams

Once the roster is set for a given team for a given period, rosters are frozen and may only be modified by bringing up a player from the G-League team that both the National Conference and American Conference teams share--conceivably necessary in the event of injury.

3 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

I think the most interesting thing in a setup like this, would be if franchises would purposely strengthen a franchise in the opposite conference where a superstar type team resides.  Say if Brooklyn opted not to split up Harden - Durant - Kyrie, would the Hawks put Trae - Capela - Collins in the opposite conference?   

• Indeed. This factor appealed to me, too. There is some gamesmanship among GMs as a result.

 

• Your comment makes me think to add a facet that compels an order to setting rosters so that the team with the best record must commit first, 2nd best record second, and so on.

 

• Of course, an alternative to that would be to say "GMs, you must submit your rosters by 5 pm, and then actual assignment to a conference for the period will be made by coin flip.

 

• Arguing with myself that it probably makes some sense to say that at least 60% of the roster for a given National or American Conference team must remain intact from Silver Q to Gold Q, and then again, from Gold Q to the "homestretch" period.

 

• Mind you, Durant and Kyrie would necessarily play on one BRK team at the start of the season, and Harden and Joe Harris would be on the other. In the Gold Qualifier, then, Harden and Durant would be on separate teams, before finally being able to play together for the final 20 games and into the post-season.

3 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

The A-Team in this scenario still has a strong starting 5, but a very weak bench.  The B-Team is more balanced, but probably not better than the A-Team.

• Sounds like a reasonable approach, but remember...

 

 

• And finally, yes, this set-up likely means something to all those players looking on the outside in right now--virtually all of these guys... https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-free-agent-rankings-top-players-available-right-now/ ...plus some fringe G-League talent... that is, since teams would be filling as many as 26 ((12+1)x2) instead of as many as 17 (15+2) roster slots.

 

• How to pay for all of that? Well, remember where this started... the core of the concept is that there is significant money to be made by having those arenas open and selling tickets and merchandise 4 days a week for the entire season, plus with significantly more post-season games.

[macdaddy]

12 hours ago, sturt said:

How to pay for all of that? Well, remember where this started... the core of the concept is that there is significant money to be made by having those arenas open and selling tickets and merchandise 4 days a week for the entire season, plus with significantly more post-season games.

Well let me first say that i'm not smart enough to understand this.  So that's a big disclaimer.  But i have questions about this statement^.

Are ticket sales really the main source of revenue or is it TV?   What percentage of the building has to be sold to 'break even'?  Most arenas probably make more money on concerts and other events so would they be willing to commit the arena to this many dates?  

At what point is there over staturation of games.   I thought about this when the Hawks played the Kings in what was a terrible basketball game.   Surely no one outside the core fans cared or watched that game.  Most avid sports fans i know barely pay attention to the nba until playoff time (which i understand is part of your plan).   

 

[sturt]

36 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Are ticket sales really the main source of revenue or is it TV?   What percentage of the building has to be sold to 'break even'?

Good to see you thinking out there... those are appropriate, relevant, good questions. Appreciate the interest to dive in.

My thoughts, fwiw...

TV is main source, yes. But, at the risk of stating the obvious...

- Opening the arena is a prerequisite to TV cameras coming in to broadcast a game.

- A lesson of covid this past year is that pro sports took a serious hit in revenue, even though TV still broadcast games... as a matter of deduction, that would seem to be largely attributable to not selling tickets, and not selling concessions, and not selling as much merch.

And.

Of course I wouldn't be in a position to know the break-even number, but you've got to pay those players regardless of how many times the doors open, right? The additional players on the roster are going to represent a nominal cost.

And, on the other side of that ledger... conventionally speaking, we can be pretty sure that the majority of fans are not as intense as most of those of us who would actually take a part of our day to post to a Hawks forum. Most are casual fans. When they go to a game, it's to root, root, root for the home team, and if they don't win it's a shame... they only know a very few names on the roster anyhow. But if the price is right, it makes for good entertainment, and if you know that virtually every Tue, Thu, Sat and Sun there's a professional basketball game being played in your home arena, you might even go more often than you have in the past.

36 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

At what point is there over staturation of games. 

Another viable question. It's plausible.

Again, tho, I would point to the other side of the ledger, and offer that that concern plausibly is counterbalanced by...

- What I just said about casual fans' limited interest beyond just seeing the home team maybe win a game

- For the rest of us, this new design of a season that puts even the bottom-most teams to always be in a position to play for something. If your team was one of those dispatched after the first 44 games to the Bronze Pool, well, you still have the opportunity to be the best of the Bronze Pool, and even plausibly to improve enough to win the Bronze Tournament, which in turn, delivers your team to the Gold Tournament (Conference Championship).

- Now, double what I just said... you now have not one but two local teams to cheer for, and to watch their fortunes over the course of a season. Double the chance to win something.

- And finally, for the rest of us, we get to see the best of our roster compete, as well as the rest of our roster compete (... and then some, since we go from having about 13-17 players wear the uniform to having 20-26).

  

36 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Most arenas probably make more money on concerts and other events so would they be willing to commit the arena to this many dates?  

I think so. The NBA is the big dog. The main customer.

The bigger question than concerts, imo, is the NHL--no shortage of arenas that double as hockey venues.

Though I am a Chicago Blackhawks fan, my attitude is "let them eat cake"... tell them this is what we're doing as of 2024 (or whatever year), and you'll just have to either be satisfied with the other days of the week or find a different venue, or both.

Mind you, in the real world, I understand that there are lease agreements, and it could be incredibly more complicated than that.

But here on an internet forum... yeah... let them eat cake. Not our problem.

 

36 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Most avid sports fans i know barely pay attention to the nba until playoff time (which i understand is part of your plan).   

Indeed. That's at the core.

Exploit the casual fans' interest to the max by making it almost as easy for them to plan to go to a game as it is for them to plan to go out for a movie.

Exploit the serious fans' interest to the max by making it so they always have reason to care--again, always having something they're playing in order to accomplish (... ie, something that isn't losing, ie, isn't all about improving off-season draft slot).

[sturt]

16 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

PG - Trae / Lemon Pepper / Goodwin / Dunn

G - Bogi / Huerter / Cam / Mays

F - Hunter / Snell / Solo

PF - Collins / Gallo / Knight

C - Capela / Okongwu / Bruno

 

 

Going to take my turn on this one... this, being the opening night set of rosters.

Snell might go the National roster after the Silver Qualifier (early Jan), and Gallinari almost certainly would follow after the Gold (late Feb).

 

 

Other teams likely will be more motivated for more balance--we just happen to still be fairly young overall, and we're one of those teams, as a consequence, that has two high-salaried rotation players at the top of our payroll. So, it doesn't make as much sense to spread out the roster more evenly.

 

 

[sturt]

This revision also gives some latitude to re-think the All-Star Game format so that more star players can participate, while at the same time, rooting the competition in divisions (smaller groups) such that there is a higher likelihood that some palpable pride is taken in winning the competition--but not at the expense of over-exertion. That is because, as you'll see below among other things, a given division all-star team only ends up playing two quarters of basketball on Saturday, and two on Sunday, and moreover, with an extended break in-between.

 

[HawkItus]

I think it would simpler to have a Home and Travel team.  Pretty much keep the outline you have created.  For instance on this long road trip we could have had the starters go out for a few game and then brought them back for some home games this weekend.   Or just if the home schedule was week let the 2nd five play at home and try to steal a few roadies.

[sturt]

8 hours ago, HawkItus said:

I think it would simpler to have a Home and Travel team.  Pretty much keep the outline you have created.  For instance on this long road trip we could have had the starters go out for a few game and then brought them back for some home games this weekend.   Or just if the home schedule was week let the 2nd five play at home and try to steal a few roadies.

Not sure I'm following--maybe I am but maybe I'm not.

If I am, then the counter I would offer is that there is some necessity to keep continuity so that a team is a real team for the most part for most of the season.

And simultaneously, there is some necessity for the sake of marketing and competitive balance that neither team is just a glorified G-League team, but rather, on each squad, there are mid-to-high-tier NBA players divided between them for most of the year.

Does that make sense?

[sturt]

On 3/30/2021 at 9:41 PM, sturt said:

• GMs would set their rosters for both teams a total of three separate times during a given season:

(1) immediately before the season starts (aka, Silver Qualifier period), with the caveat that the #1 and #4 highest paid players must be placed on one team, and the #2 and #3 on the other;

(2) in early January (ie, at the start of the Gold Qualifier period), with the caveat that the #1 and #2 highest paid players must be placed on separate teams; and,

(3) in late February (ie, at the start of the final 18 games when all 3 pools have been filled with 10 teams each, in the homestretch to decide postseason seeding), and with no barriers on what players can be assigned to which teams

Once the roster is set for a given team for a given period, rosters are frozen and may only be modified by bringing up a player from the G-League team that both the National Conference and American Conference teams share--conceivably necessary in the event of injury.

 

On 3/30/2021 at 9:41 PM, sturt said:

Arguing with myself that it probably makes some sense to say that at least 60% of the roster for a given National or American Conference team must remain intact from Silver Q to Gold Q, and then again, from Gold Q to the "homestretch" period.

 

Going with this, given the premise that options to adjust rosters should depend on how the best of the two teams have fared to-date.