Resolving NBA Tanking

The play-in game format of the NBA playoffs has substantially decreased tanking, for the time being. As more teams stay tethered to the possibility of playoff glory for a greater duration, fewer teams tank their seasons. However, when the thrill of making the play-in game inevitably fades, the NBA will return to business as usual, with several teams "competing" for draft picks instead of wins. Rather than rely on the play-in game to resolve tanking in the long-term, it's time to fully restructure the NBA. This restructure should resolve the following issues:

1. Tanking

2. Playoff format

3. Length of schedule

4. Conference disparity

What kind of restructuring could resolve all these issues, you ask? Well, it really isn't all that complicated! Actually...that's not true, it'd be incredibly complicated on the front end. However, the payoff would be enormous. The NBA simply needs to take the following steps:

1. Expand to 40 teams

2. Divide teams into two divisions (referred to as DI and DII in this post), 20 teams each, removing conferences and regional divisions. 

3. Each team plays the other division teams once (20 games total) and their own division teams twice (38 games, total of 58 games per team). Instead of 82 games per team, 58 games per team. Instead of 1230 games across the entire season, there are 1160 games total.

4. Games against the other division’s teams count toward a team’s record.

5. Standings, however, are only compared within a division.

6. Eight teams in each division make the playoffs (8/20).

7. The playoffs will follow the traditional, best-of-seven, 1v8, 2v7, etc. format.

8. The DI champion is declared the NBA champion.

9. The bottom four teams in DI are relegated to DII the following season.

10. DII playoffs will determine which teams are promoted to DI, taking the place of the relegated teams. The teams who win their first round series receive automatic promotion. The DII playoffs continue until a champion is crowned.

11. Draft positions are in order of record in DII, reverse order of record in DI.

12. A “cup” will be played to assist in lost revenue, allow all teams to compete for the same prize.

Makes sense, right? Oh, you wanted more detailed explanations of how, exactly, these steps would work, and how they'd possibly create the impact I claimed they would? Fine. I'll review those steps in-detail, but please, refer back to the list above when you're trying to explain this idea to your friends over dinner.

1. Expand to 40 teams. This, admittedly, would be the biggest logistical hurdle/flaw in my plan, and it's the very first step. I glossed over it pretty aggressively during my podcast episode with Tyler Reuter (@coachreuter on Instagram, for all you aspiring hoopers). If the ten team expansion occurred in one summer, using an expansion draft where each team can protect eight players (the format used in previous expansion drafts), it'd strip every team in the league of, roughly, three rotation players, potentially more. On the other hand, a stratified approach would provide a huge advantage to expansion teams allowed to enter the league earlier, as they'd have time to build their team that newer teams wouldn't. For example, adding two new teams every year for five years means two teams have a five year head start over two other teams for no discernable reason other than the commissioner liked their city better for basketball. For that reason, I'd personally give a five year notice to the existing teams of the upcoming expansion and restructuring, expand to 40 teams in one off-season, and host a standard draft (with the expansion teams) one last tiiiiiime. Every team has some time to position themselves for the upcoming expansion and restructuring, plus the expansion teams all get equal treatment and grab a lottery pick to build around. As an aside, I've been asked which cities I'd expand to. I think the answer's quite obvious - Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Federal Way, Spokane, Shelton, Yakima, Leavenworth, Bremerton and Kelso, of course. Washington bias aside, I actually don't think the expansion cities themselves are that important, but I'd probably do something like...Seattle, Las Vegas, Louisville, Kansas City, Missoula, Santa Fe, Vancouver, Montreal, Mexico City, and Oaxaca. Let's make it a fully North American league.

2. Divide teams into two divisions (referred to as DI and DII in this post), 20 teams each. The NBA would begin with bottom ten teams + ten expansion teams in DII, top 20 teams in DI, removing conferences and divisions. We don't like these, anyway (see the short section at the bottom about conferences), and the NBA's rivalries are hardly regional. Cavs/Warriors? Celtics/Heat? Lakers/everyone? These are about good teams engaging in great playoff battles. We'll still have those.

3. Each team plays the other division teams once (20 games total) and their own division teams twice (38 games, total of 58 games per team). Instead of 82 games per team, 58 per team. Instead of 1230 games total, there are 1160 games total. If you include the team (see the last step), the NBA actually only loses seven games from the schedule, meaning that while revenue will be divided among more teams, it won't suffer from a lack of games. In fact, each game will mean significantly more. Hear me out here - with only 58 games to determine a team's playoff spot or finish in the relegation zone, each game will matter significantly more than games do currently. The doldrums of March would become an exceptionally exciting time for all but the most average of teams. They'd also be easier to follow for the casual fan.

4. Games against the other division’s teams count toward a team’s record. Self-explanatory. All 58 games count toward a team's record.

5. Standings, however, are only compared within a division. A DII team that finishes 40-18 will probably make the DII playoffs, but can't make the DI playoffs.

6. In each division, eight teams make the playoffs (8/20). Self-explanatory, again.

7. The playoffs will follow the traditional, best-of-seven, 1v8, 2v7, etc. format. Business as usual, but with eight teams instead of 16 teams. I like the idea of having the DII playoffs as the early game on any given night of playoff basketball, followed by the DI playoff game.

8. The DI champion is declared the NBA champion. Best team in the best league! This means the last round of the DI playoffs would be the NBA Finals.

9. The bottom four teams are relegated to DII the following season. Here's where things start to get interesting again. What better way to remove tanking than losing your opportunity to win a title during the following year? The four worst teams in DI have to spend the next season in DII, playing against weaker competition with no guarantee that they'd rise back up to the top level. In total, 12/20 teams experience an “aftermath” of their season, while the remaining eight teams (who finish 9-16 in the standings) will have no aftermath.

10. DII playoffs will determine which teams are promoted to DI, taking the place of the relegated teams. The teams who win their first round series receive automatic promotion. The DII playoffs continue until a champion is crowned. This is a little odd, as a huge reward occurs after the first round, but hey, that makes DI feel all the more attainable to the DII teams, right? Further...

11. Draft positions are in order of record in DII, reverse order of record in DI. Thus, the DII champion drafts first, runner-up drafts second, etc. So, your team not only receives the honor of the DII championship for winning the title, but also, the opportunity to pick first in the next draft and provide additional reinforcements for staying in DI the following season. This prevents any tanking in DII, as there's truly no incentive at all to perform poorly in DII. It increases the likelihood that a newly-promoted team stays in DI the following season. It improves fan excitement around the team and their new player. DII teams continue drafting in order (Potential flaw; worst team in DII drafts 20? This could be a problem…for all the opportunities for building positive spirals in DII, an opportunity exists for negative spirals, as well). After the last DII team drafts at 20, the draft reverts to classic form, with DI teams drafting in reserve order, as NBA teams currently draft. Why reverse the DI teams? Well, assuming that tanking has been entirely eliminated by relegation, we do want to give the worse DI teams a chance to get better through the draft. Giving the DI champion the 21st pick (and the just-relegated worst DI team the 40th pick) seems to allow the rich to get richer. I acknowledge there are some potential flaws in this system. First, what happens to the worst team in DII? They're unlikely to draft a true franchise-changing player with pick 20; they could easy get stuck in a negative spiral of losing and being unable to improve themselves. Well, to that, I say that this system forces organizations to improve their team-building. Want a better draft pick? Instead of bottoming out and losing games, sign free agents, make trades, or mine for undrafted players who will create gradual improvement in the wins column, which puts the team back on the positive spiral of increasingly good draft picks. If you botch that pick, instead of receiving another top pick the following year, you might end up with a worse pick. Does that encourage winning at all costs over player development? Maybe. Then again, perhaps teams will invest more heavily in the G League to create more development. Additionally, regarding the negative spiral, teams will run into a bottom in this system. Instead of, say, an English soccer system with 16 tiers, there are only two levels in the restructured NBA. You can't fall lower than 40th best, and you'll have organizational tools to rise back up.

12. A “cup” will be played to assist in lost revenue, allow all teams to compete for the same prize. The NBA has wanted to do this for some time, but when you're just playing against the same teams as usual, there's little luster to gain. However, when you're competing directly with teams from both divisions, suddenly, something new is at stake. This could be especially important to DII teams with an axe to grind. One complaint I've heard about this restructuring idea is that a great team, stuck in DII, might miss their title window. Well, while I think that's unlikely, they can always prove it through winning the cup. I envision this as a single elimination bout with all 40 teams. To round out the field, the NBA could invite 24 teams from other leagues. I'd love to see, say, eight minor league American teams and 16 teams from around the world. This adds 63 games to the schedule, bringing the total up to 1223.

There's the plan. While I hope it's tangible how it resolves the issues stated at the top, I've added my podcast notes to the bottom. Please allow for some grammatical and diction errors, they were intended to be notes rather than a post.

How does it solve tanking?

 

The new system offers no incentive to tank. DI teams do not have access to high picks, and will be deterred from tanking due to threat of relegation. Additionally, a shorter season means more is at stake throughout the course of the season. Tanking can only occur when teams are both eliminated from the playoffs and safe from relegation. Additionally, teams will not be tempted to drop to DII due to reputation hit, lack of guarantee of return to DI soon. 

DII teams will not be tempted to tank due to drafting in order of record. More wins = better draft spot. While there is some record that players worry about high draft picks taking their jobs, a player performing well is insurance against losing their jobs.

How does it solve length of season?

Currently, the NBA season lasts too long. Simply put, 82 games means too many uncompetitive games, and too many to follow closely. The NFL and Premier League models of playing weekly generate far more viewership, anticipation and meaning in each game, and while basketball lends itself to quicker recovery than those sports, the NBA loses something by playing four games per week. However, this restructuring reduces the number of games, increasing the value of each game. Total games per team are reduced to 58, creating a more consistently competitive environment (teams will have fewer games after being eliminated from playoffs). This is a longstanding point of debate, but 

•  It only takes 12 games to determine a team’s future projected win/loss record (Neil Paine, 2012), so the NBA’s sample size does not need to be 82 games.

•  Teams are less efficient (2.21 PP100P) during back-to-backs, and this would reduce the number o f such games (Loman, 2015). Less back-to-backs=happier everyone.

• Would leave room for a cup.

• More teams means same number of games overall.

• Anecdotally, fans have seemed to enjoy smaller samples of games (the 2011 season, the Bubble, etc).

    In addition to fewer uncompetitive games, this structure would allow teams to play fewer games per week. Ideally, teams would play two games a week for 29 weeks with games on Thursdays and Saturdays (or Wednesdays and Saturdays). This would mean the regular season would last about four weeks longer than it typically does, which, I admit, might not be in the interest of the league. An alternative could be playing Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday for 19 weeks. Either way, the league would be past the days of four games in a week, back-to-backs, and an overwhelming schedule to digest. It'd have room to play a cup. It'd have

How does it solve playoff format?

Each playoff conference is not equal. Teams in the east have long had easier routes through the playoffs. Abolishing conferences and having the top eight teams play, regardless of location, means the playoffs are more fair, more interesting and more competitive. In fact, by splitting the playoffs into DI and DII, there will be competitive games, with stakes, in every matchup.

How does it resolve conference disparity?

No longer have advantages for teams in weaker conferences, as this proposal does away with conferences entirely.