Saturday, November 30, 2019

A Confusing (and Stupid) Schedule Suggestion

As you know, I don't discuss the NBA much in this space.  But I saw something the other day that I simply couldn't ignore.  It's something so stupid that I hope it's simply an idea that's just being floated around.  I'm hoping that they're trying to see people's reaction, then not pull the trigger when they realize how much people hate it.  But knowing the NBA, no matter how dumb the idea, they're most likely going to do it.

In case you haven't seen it, it's about halfway down this article from ESPN.com.  It touches on four different elements regarding the schedule, every one of which is incredibly stupid.  Nothing is imminent, but if adopted, these changes would be implemented in time for the NBA's 75th anniversary season in 2021-22.  Hopefully these talks don't progress beyond initial discussions between the league and the NBPA.

Let's take these one at a time.  First is a "midseason tournament similar to those used in European leagues."

What is this obsession with European leagues?  This is North America!  Things are done differently here!  You know what else they have in Europe?  Relegation!  And I don't see any NBA owners signing up for a league with promotion and relegation anytime soon!

I don't even understand what this midseason tournament is or the purpose of it.  Is there any sort of incentive for winning it?  Do you give the winner an automatic playoff spot?  If you do that, why would that team bother playing its stars the rest of the season?  Sure, you could make it financial, but are the owners of actual contenders going to want their players going all out to win some meaningless "tournament" in mid-January?  And, sorry, but fans aren't going to buy that they should suddenly care more about a random Tuesday night game in December between the Nets and 76ers because it's part of this tournament.

And when do you want to have this stupid tournament?  You can't do it in November (too early).  You can't do it in November (can't touch the Christmas games).  You can't do it in January (NFL playoffs).  You can't do it in March (NCAA Tournament).  So, I guess that leaves February, which is the All*Star Break, and I highly doubt they want to go anywhere near that.  (And don't get me started on that ridiculous "choose your own team" nonsense with the All*Star Game!)

They also want to reduce the schedule from 82 to games to 78, presumably to make room for this dumb "NBA Cup."  The idea of every team losing two regular-season home games should make that a non-starter, but it's evidently getting some traction because of the "load management" (aka, rest) issue that the league has been dealing with for a few years.

That's less of a problem with me than one of the proposals I saw that has actually been submitted from one Eastern Conference executive.  He wants teams to play 62 games, then be divided into "tiers" and play their final 18 games within their "tier."  These "tiers" would presumably be the teams ranked 1-10, 11-20 and 21-30 in the league (again taken from UEFA and its "Nations League").  Isn't that what the playoffs are for?  And what's the purpose of divisions then?

Where do I start with this proposal?  Well, how about the fact that it has teams not knowing their entire schedule before the season starts?!  You want fans to buy season tickets without knowing when nine games are going to be and who those games will be against?!  And you've got uncertainty with the teams, too, who'll have to make last-minute travel plans.  Then there's the arenas, which may have hockey games, concerts, college basketball, etc.  In other words, they can't just leave dates open for potential NBA games!  They already do that for possible playoff games, now you want them to do it in the regular season too?!  For what?

Logistically, it doesn't make any sense, either.  Not only are you making some poor guy in the NBA office create the final six weeks of the schedule on the fly at the last minute, you've got TV partners to consider (although, seeing as ESPN worships at the altar of the NBA, I'm sure they'd jump on board with anything immediately).

Not to mention the travel.  In addition to the arena considerations, I can envision a scenario where a team's gotta fly all over the country over the final six weeks of the season.  And again, for what?  The whole point of divisions is so that teams located near each other can play more frequently.  And cross-country trips are usually set up so that you only have to go out West once or twice a season (you play the Lakers, Clippers and Suns on one trip, the Warriors, Kings and Blazers on the other).  Same things when the West Coast teams travel east (play Celtics, Knicks, Nets, then play 76ers, Wizards, Hornets).

Speaking of divisions, there are two proposed changes to the playoffs.  The first one involves expanding the playoffs to 10 teams in each conference, but having a "play-in" round for the 7-10 seeds.  This was first brought up by Adam Silver himself more than a year ago, so you know the league office is serious about it.  It would basically be patterned after the WNBA's playoff format, where there's a series of single-elimination games before advancing to the playoffs proper.

Honestly, I'm indifferent to this.  Of the four proposals, it's the one that bothers me the least.  Is there a need for it, though?  Not really.  Especially when you've already got mediocre teams fighting it out for the right to get slaughtered in the first round by the top seeds (the top four seeds in the East went a combined 12-2 in the first round last season).  And the NBA playoffs already take forever.  How much longer do you want to make them?  (Unless, in another burst of inspiration from European soccer, they want them playing year-round.)

Lastly, there's talk about reseeding the playoffs once they're down to four teams, essentially turning the Conference Finals into NBA semifinals.  This, of course, is in response to the fact that the Western Conference is significantly stronger than the East.  Again, it's something the WNBA has been doing for years.  But the WNBA only has 12 teams and ignores the conferences come playoff time. 

If you want to do the same thing in the NBA, you'd have to ignore the conferences there, too, which is much harder to do in a 30-team league.  And you can't have it both ways!  You can't do it by conference for two rounds, then forget about them when you get down to the semifinals!  Either do it by conference the whole way or not at all!  And, how often are the two best teams in the league in the same conference anyway?  You want to radically change the entire playoff system for something that might happen once every few years?  (Also, how do you decide who's a "conference" champion under this format?)

Hopefully these ideas don't get much past the discussion stage.  Because the only word I can think of to describe them is "dumb."  But, the NBA has adopted plenty of dumb ideas in recent years, so I wouldn't be surprised if they implement these, too.  Or...maybe common sense can prevail!

No comments:

Post a Comment