WolvesFan21 wrote:I want to widen the court by 3 feet and extend the 3P line back 1 foot. More space, lower 3P percentages slightly.
I would also take the cap off of the max contracts. The reason we do NOT have parody is because superstars can because they are underpaid join together and dominate the non super teams.
To be fair... I disagree with the bolded. We already have parody around these parts.
The Wolves have been copying the Washington Generals strategy for decades now...
;-)
Very true! I wish I could say I was parodying a dummy who couldn't spell. But not the case.
Anyways, I think some NBA parity would be nice, super teams is lame.
Apologies for being THAT guy... but to your point about parity...
I think the biggest disparity is in the prime hot-to-trot markets vs. gawd-forsaken markets.
I agree with whomever wrote that the Super Team aspect is horrendous. As a guy in his mid-40's, my love of basketball came in the days when you loved a specific TEAM (typically, your home state team), rather than a player regardless of team. That said, the marketing machine loves players over teams.....so everyone will continue to follow the money.
I think the interesting thing that has occurred over time is WHERE these teams have popped up. I think in the beginning, we were all worried that NY and LA would capitalize on every opportunity where a player wants the glitz and glamour. That hasn't necessarily happened. Now, the Super Teams pop up based on circumstance. Like which team has the most money when specific guys become available. It's a bit of luck and a lot on timing. It's a strange dynamic.
I also believe you lift the salary restrictions on players, and go with the NFL hard cap model. Lose guaranteed money, as this is what kills small market teams over time. They are forced into bad contracts (ala Wiggins) because they can't compete on "destination", thus locking them into deadly contracts that hinder any chance of future success. And regarding guaranteed money....if NFL can do it (with player shelf life of like 4 years), then this should work for NBA where players can play a heck of a lot longer.
Regarding rules changes, I have 3:
1) I really think that "re-sizing" the court is in order. The athleticism and overall shooting abilities of NBA players these days have outgrown the current court dynamics. This additional space will again allow teams to explore more interior play with bigs, which is difficult in today's cramped environment. Adds a layer of gamesmanship.
2) Simply put, call ACTUAL fouls the same on perimeter vs interior players. This should be simple, as the rules aren't really different between players today.....but how they are EXECUTED clearly gives perimeter players a HUGE advantage over interior players. A hack is a hack is a hack. But that is NOT the way the game is called today.
3) Address flopping even further. If play is deemed a "flop", award other team automatic point and ball. It has become very soccer-like in that players fall down when not even touched. Kills the game IMO.
Hicks123 wrote:I agree with whomever wrote that the Super Team aspect is horrendous. As a guy in his mid-40's, my love of basketball came in the days when you loved a specific TEAM (typically, your home state team), rather than a player regardless of team. That said, the marketing machine loves players over teams.....so everyone will continue to follow the money.
I think the interesting thing that has occurred over time is WHERE these teams have popped up. I think in the beginning, we were all worried that NY and LA would capitalize on every opportunity where a player wants the glitz and glamour. That hasn't necessarily happened. Now, the Super Teams pop up based on circumstance. Like which team has the most money when specific guys become available. It's a bit of luck and a lot on timing. It's a strange dynamic.
I also believe you lift the salary restrictions on players, and go with the NFL hard cap model. Lose guaranteed money, as this is what kills small market teams over time. They are forced into bad contracts (ala Wiggins) because they can't compete on "destination", thus locking them into deadly contracts that hinder any chance of future success. And regarding guaranteed money....if NFL can do it (with player shelf life of like 4 years), then this should work for NBA where players can play a heck of a lot longer.
Regarding rules changes, I have 3:
1) I really think that "re-sizing" the court is in order. The athleticism and overall shooting abilities of NBA players these days have outgrown the current court dynamics. This additional space will again allow teams to explore more interior play with bigs, which is difficult in today's cramped environment. Adds a layer of gamesmanship.
2) Simply put, call ACTUAL fouls the same on perimeter vs interior players. This should be simple, as the rules aren't really different between players today.....but how they are EXECUTED clearly gives perimeter players a HUGE advantage over interior players. A hack is a hack is a hack. But that is NOT the way the game is called today.
3) Address flopping even further. If play is deemed a "flop", award other team automatic point and ball. It has become very soccer-like in that players fall down when not even touched. Kills the game IMO.
I'm not against anything you said but in general baseball is simply more physical the closer you get to the basket. I'm curious if you have officiated basketball? The higher the level the more guys are doing all kinds of stuff down there. It's not quite as bad as trying to watch offense and defensive line go at it (I only did did some umpire a few games in Flag football...) but it's really something. I'm all for doing something like you suggest but I also think it's going to be really difficult to do.
