How much better would the NBA be if it only had 20 teams?

[jstern]

Where would this era rank if you kicked out 120 of the worst players in the league?

[moe94]

No. Stop.

[LosBulls]

Well this would never happen due to you know, losing money and all but just imagining this I think LeBron would have 0 rings.

[Milbuck]

Might as well kick out the bottom 25 teams, considering there's really only 5 teams with a respectable shot of winning it all. Intense competition all game, every game, all season, throughout the playoffs :confusedshrug:

[ArbitraryWater]

Might as well kick out the bottom 25 teams, considering there's really only 5 teams with a respectable shot of winning it all. Intense competition all game, every game, all season, throughout the playoffs :confusedshrug:

Then every Team would have a Star/All Star and probably multiple HOF's :lol

Imagine that. LeBron, Wade, Durant, Melo, Dirk, Griffin, Aldridge, Howard, Paul, Harden, Dragic, Love, Duncan, etc. filled into a 5 man league :wtf: :bowdown:

Unrealistic. Make it 10-20, already a lot higher competition. Can't really say that for the 1960's though. NBA wasn't as big back then. People actually decided to do different things when giving the opportunity of playing professional ball. Scouting was way less advanced. The amount of un-used talent running on the streets was huge.

[moe94]

Then every Team would have a Star/All Star and probably multiple HOF's :lol

A player might gobble up all the rings and be considered the GOAT.

[fpliii]

This current mini-era (07-08) on its own is pretty good. I think if you remove 10 teams (meaning guys who are 9-12 on the remaining teams become part-time/fringe players, 13+ are out of the league, and now the good players on the bad teams fill spots 1-8), it becomes easily the GOAT (center depth would still be weak, but it's not as big an issue if a lot of the scrubs are removed).

[Akrazotile]

The league should contract but instead it will expand bc fans dont really want good basketball, they just wanna cheer for something. Anything.

Fans dont demand a quality product. They dont demand anything. Thats why theyre going into debt buying jerseys and owners are laughing and smoking cigars.

[imdaman99]

So... which cities lose its team? As a Knicks fan, contract them and start a new one :oldlol:

NY is the biggest city in the world, it deserves a team that is capable of contending.

[KyrieTheFuture]

33 percent better

[Marchesk]

33 percent better

10 less teams and 30 less games would make the regular season product far better. But it wouldn't make the owners as much money.

Also, the top 2 teams should have a first round bye. There's really no point in watching Miami coast to a four game sweep over the Bucks (last season).

[DMAVS41]

A lot better, but you don't need to cut that many teams.

24 or 26 total teams would be better than cutting it all the way to 20. I'd probably go with 26 to be honest.

Sadly we can only dream;

A 72 game schedule with no back to backs
13 teams per conference
Best of 5 first round playoffs

A complete overhaul of the draft system...

The league would be like 50% better with the above.

[jzek]

It'd be so much better. Stacked teams everywhere instead of this crap we have. It's like watching an all star game every day.

[DMAVS41]

10 less teams and 30 less games would make the regular season product far better. But it wouldn't make the owners as much money.

Also, the top 2 teams should have a first round bye. There's really no point in watching Miami coast to a four game sweep over the Bucks (last season).

10 less teams and 30 less games is going way too far.

The changes don't need to be that drastic at all. Hell, just removing 1 team per conference and playing 72 games and going to a best of 5 first round would be huge improvements.

The NBA is already great...we don't need to overhaul the league.

What they do need to do is fix the tanking/lottery problem...that is killing the competitive balance hugely.

[Thunderfan86]

I don't know, but there would be a lot of people out of a job. :(

[rknine15]

teams would be STACKED

[kells333]

Might as well kick out the bottom 25 teams, considering there's really only 5 teams with a respectable shot of winning it all. Intense competition all game, every game, all season, throughout the playoffs :confusedshrug:

There would be alot of upset jlin, parsons, giannis, dragic, nick young fans. When there favorite player is no longer in the league.

[Ai2death]

10 less teams and 30 less games would make the regular season product far better. But it wouldn't make the owners as much money.

Also, the top 2 teams should have a first round bye. There's really no point in watching Miami coast to a four game sweep over the Bucks (last season).

If that was the case, we wouldn't see thrilling series like the GS Warriors vs Mavs upset

[noob cake]

Contracting 5 teams frees up 5 teams * 7 quality player =35 players => ~ 1 rotation player for each team.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

If that was the case, we wouldn't see thrilling series like the GS Warriors vs Mavs upset

But every series would be the Spurs vs Heat. :confusedshrug:

I think there are too many teams in the NBA. Not ten too many, but too many. For God sake, a roster should never look like what the 76ers and Lakers have right now. Or the Bobcats a few seasons ago. Bad teams should be bad because of chemistry, coaching, etc. Not because the players are dleaguers in a grown man's league.

[Akrazotile]

I think four is the ideal contraction number and 26 teams would be a good balance.

Of course youd still have bad teams each year relatively speaking but the number of non-competitive teams right now is embarrassing for the leagues integrity.

[chocolatethunder]

A lot better, but you don't need to cut that many teams.

24 or 26 total teams would be better than cutting it all the way to 20. I'd probably go with 26 to be honest.

Sadly we can only dream;

A 72 game schedule with no back to backs
13 teams per conference
Best of 5 first round playoffs

A complete overhaul of the draft system...

The league would be like 50% better with the above.

Excellent post. I agree completely.

[jstern]

LeBron James discusses contraction

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/news/story?id=5952952


Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the '80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars, three or four Hall of Famers on the same team. The league was great. It wasn't as watered down as it is [now].

[mrpibb]

So... which cities lose its team? As a Knicks fan, contract them and start a new one :oldlol:

NY is the biggest city in the world, it deserves a team that is capable of contending.

Uh, no it's not. It's not even the biggest city in North America.

[Yankstar]

Don't tell Russell this. he wants his 8 rings in a 8 team era to be GOAT number of rings for ever. F**k the modern NBA :rant

[Legends66NBA7]

Uh, no it's not. It's not even the biggest city in North America.

Yup.

I've actually vouched in the past for Mexico City to have an NBA team, but I don't think many feel that it's a good idea.

I think the teams that get contracted are the ones with the least value and fan support.

[Bigsmoke]

I don't know, but there would be a lot of people out of a job. :(

And 10 cities without an NBA team to cheer for

[senelcoolidge]

A lot better, but you don't need to cut that many teams.

24 or 26 total teams would be better than cutting it all the way to 20. I'd probably go with 26 to be honest.

Sadly we can only dream;

A 72 game schedule with no back to backs
13 teams per conference
Best of 5 first round playoffs

A complete overhaul of the draft system...

The league would be like 50% better with the above.

Wow, a good post on ISH. That's a rarity. I agree with your idea except I would keep it at 82 or 80 games.

[Soundwave]

Eliminate 4 of the following 6 franchises -- Utah, Milwuakee, Orlando, New Orleans, Sacramento, Minnesota.

Relocate the Clippers to Seattle maybe.

26 teams, a bigger market in Seattle versus Utah ... I think the NBA would be more competitive and put out a better product on the floor.

Reduce the regular season slightly to 75 games, fewer back to backs.

[jstern]

Ooops, wrong thread.

The comment that I posted was meant for this thread http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9626502&posted=1#post9626502

[Mass Debator]

10 teams. 90 minute games. 30 players per team. :eek: :rockon:

[redhonda76]

Cutting down the teams would make the league better but NBA would not do that. A better solution would be having a minimum of 3 years of college so learn the fundamentals before entering the draft.

[DMAVS41]

Wow, a good post on ISH. That's a rarity. I agree with your idea except I would keep it at 82 or 80 games.

Obviously the owners will never shorten the schedule for money, but why do you want 82 games still?

The quality of play would go up dramatically if these guys had 10 less games over the course of a season and no back to backs or 4 games in 5 nights...etc.

Also, I truly wonder how much money the league would actually lose.

The Grizzlies and Bobcats lose money each year. I'm sure there are two other teams that aren't profitable.

So you cut 4 teams...disperse the players which improves the on court product...and it would be in a big way in my opinion. Then play 10 less games...then play best of 5 in first round.

I wonder how much money the league would actually lose...you have to imagine the ratings per game on ESPN and TNT and ABC would go up as you have fewer truly scrub teams that nobody cares about. Then you add a "flex option" for the scheduling as well.

The first round of the playoffs just isn't interesting to casual NBA fans. I have a ton of friends that don't start watching the NBA until at earliest the 2nd round. If the NBA went back to 5 game series...it adds a ton of intrigue and makes each game more important.

I just think over time the league would actually be more popular. More people would care about each game. The games would be played better as players would be fresher throughout the season. Teams would be better by cutting the fat of 4 needless teams.

If you did the above and made the lottery more random...the league really could greatly improve it's product for the fans.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

what the fck i never get is why they made the first round a best of 7... seriously the fck is that??:biggums: :coleman:

[HiphopRelated]

Cutting down the teams would make the league better but NBA would not do that. A better solution would be having a minimum of 3 years of college so learn the fundamentals before entering the draft.
and sending the thread off the rails goes to....

[KyrieTheFuture]

what the fck i never get is why they made the first round a best of 7... seriously the fck is that??:biggums: :coleman:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$

[Tking714]

Less jobs for people and less revenue for the league? nah no thanks.

I say expand expand expand. Add 20 more teams overseas. A few in europe and China, Japan, Australia. One more playoff round. Put more meaning into conference play.

[WallIn]

Less jobs for people and less revenue for the league? nah no thanks.

I say expand expand expand. Add 20 more teams overseas. A few in europe and China, Japan, Australia.One more playoff round. Put more meaning into conference play.

And how would that work exactly, unless you want to have different NBAs on different continents?

[jlip]

So... which cities lose its team? As a Knicks fan, contract them and start a new one :oldlol:

NY is the biggest city in the world, it deserves a team that is capable of contending.

:confusedshrug:

[Tking714]

And how would that work exactly, unless you want to have different NBAs on different continents?

I don't have the plan just the idea. They'll figure it out eventually, that's the way it's moving. It's better for the sport.