Rick Barry- ways to make the NBA better!

[cyman3]

i caught this RICK BARRY interview on hoopshype

http://www.hoopshype.com/interviews/barry_hayes.htm

basically the question was:

- If you had magical powers, what two things would you do to make the NBA better?

his ANSWER

A) A player makes money based on wins.

B) Two 20-minute halves and the first half counts a point and the second half counts a point like tennis. Therefore, there will be closer games (more overtimes) and less BLOWOUTS.

for indepth explanation, check out the interview with the link provided up top.

wat u think? good idea or bad idea?

[Eeeee]

Interesting idea. I like it from a basketball perspective, but its a radical change. It will never happen though.

The salary capping is a great idea. Basing it on wins and losses after a certain base salary is paid would make players hungrier, and allow fans to feel less out of touch with the astro-salaried athletes of today.

[cyman3]

yea it'll never happen, this is just one of those "wat if" thoughts.

but as far as the $$$, i dont know how that'd work out. cuz then guys like A WALKER (or TMAC last year) wont make any money, while they are puttin up great stats. and as for FREE AGENCY, free agents prob go to a team that has the best chance of winning just for money sake- but then again, thats what they do ANYWAY right (selectin the team that offers the most and has best chance of winning)?

[Wretch]

I think having two "point" halves completely changes the game. What's the point of all that scoring? Teams would just try to build leads then wait out the 1st half. The winning team at the half would simply try to wait out the other team. The whole idea just takes away from the scoring concpet of the game...just makes it a different game altogether.

The money idea looks good at first, but then you got a situation where players are playing ONLY for money. That may be the case now, but make it all boil down to money like that and I think it seriously changes the movtives and attitudes of the players on the court.

What I think would make the game better:

A) Put an EXPERIENCE LIMIT on the NBA. It's a pro league, require PRO players. The Union harps on not taking away a man's right to work and whatnot...but what company is going to hire ANYBODY who doesn't have the skills to do a certain job? Say 3 years of collegiate, or semi-pro play and for overseas prosepects an age limit (18) and 3 years of pro or semi-pro play.

B) Make players earn money BASED ON GAMES PLAYED to include the playoffs - which would give an incentive for teams to actually make the playoffs.

C) Create a true farm system.

D) Decrease the number of regular season games and playoff games.

E) Limit the amount of times a team can win either of the top 3 picks in the lottery within a certain timespan.

[cyman3]

I really like ur "D" and "E" points

- i like the duration of the season, but i think the guys need more rest. keep the same length of the season but change the number of games to like 40-50. it prevents injuries as well and gives more time for players to heal. It also makes each game more valuable- so players will try harder for each and individual game.

- ur "E" plan should be called the CHICAGO BULLS/LA CLIPPERS RULE. there are some teams out there that arent all that dedicated to winning. it takes the meaning of SPORT/COMPETITION and adds more business-like atmosphere to the game. i dont like that. there should be more incentive to winning. i just wish we had a system like the NFL.

in the NFL, it seems like 3/4 of the league is the playoff hunt. its very competitive.

- i also think that the REFS should be harder on the players in terms of fundamentals (this idea is from LARRY BROWN). u have to force these guys to learn fundamentals and the only way u can do so is by ENFORCING THE RULES.

[Diesel]

I think the point a half theory would make the games less exciting and less competitive. A team that's down by one and winning the second half isn't going to play harder. All they are going to do is do enough to win the half so that they can play overtime... The same goes for the team that's up 1 and losing the second half. They are going to relax until overtime. However, if the score is 89-89 with 2 minutes to play, you will see high competition.

Now one thing you won't see is late game fouls... I guess.

As for the incentivee based play.... I think it can be interesting... But it gives the owners too much power. What I mean is that it's easy to say, a player is paid by what he does on the court... BUT what if he has a D. A. Coach? A coach that won't let him get on the floor... Or a coach that doesn't call plays for him.... How does he control that? Moreover, that kind of thing would KILL the whole team concept. What would happen if Tracy McGrady realized that he would make more money by scoring? To hell with Yao... I got to get mine...