Minnesota Sports Forum

sjm34 wrote:The two sports that seem to be the most competitive are NFL and NHL, and they both have hard caps.

They should have a rule regarding max contracts, and players taking less money. Once you take less, you can't go back up. That would help stop guys like Durant from cheating the spirit of the rules. I don't see how the NBPA can argue for more money when players continue to take less than they are worth. Maybe they should have a bidding war amongst teams for FA's.

A hard cap would be wise I think, however. I believe every player who coming off their rookie contract has accepted the home teams max extension. After the big payday then they figure off court earnings can be just as important (KD, LeBron, etc) and getting into a big market can be just as lucrative as staying for more money. Being in the playoffs always and winning championships can payoff much bigger in the long run for off court earnings.

sjm34 wrote:The two sports that seem to be the most competitive are NFL and NHL, and they both have hard caps.

They should have a rule regarding max contracts, and players taking less money. Once you take less, you can't go back up. That would help stop guys like Durant from cheating the spirit of the rules. I don't see how the NBPA can argue for more money when players continue to take less than they are worth. Maybe they should have a bidding war amongst teams for FA's.

Good post, agree with this. Love the balance the NFL and NHL have. And it's not good for the league for guys like Cousins to go get a ring and then move on.

Want to add some excitement, make hip checks and clotheslines legal!

First, I think the NBA is pretty damn good right now, so I'd be hesitant to change much.

But I'd be open to trying out the Elam Ending. I know they would prefer that it get tested in college, and I understand that. But it would make the end of games much more watchable.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19078511/zach-lowe-basketball-tournament-innovative-end-game-rule

I like the idea of widening the court if for no other reason more big guys are taking those corner 3's and they tend to have even bigger feet. Having more room in the corners could lead to even more creativity offensively.

One advantage of the G-league is they can try some various things out there. I know they have tried a few different things here and there before.

I was just telling someone at Sunday morning ball the other day about the old CBA point system where you won points by winning quarters. It added some intrigue to the whole game. I'm not suggesting it be implemented in the NBA it was just interesting.

monsterpile wrote:I like the idea of widening the court if for no other reason more big guys are taking those corner 3's and they tend to have even bigger feet. Having more room in the corners could lead to even more creativity offensively.

One advantage of the G-league is they can try some various things out there. I know they have tried a few different things here and there before.

I was just telling someone at Sunday morning ball the other day about the old CBA point system where you won points by winning quarters. It added some intrigue to the whole game. I'm not suggesting it be implemented in the NBA it was just interesting.

That was why I was thinking 2.5 feet overall more width while the line goes back 1 foot. Another 3 inches to give the big feet just a bit more room.

monsterpile wrote:
I was just telling someone at Sunday morning ball the other day about the old CBA point system where you won points by winning quarters. It added some intrigue to the whole game. I'm not suggesting it be implemented in the NBA it was just interesting.

I remember that. It did make a difference.

An overhaul on officiating where there is accountability and the league will review officials performances and come out and admit mistakes. Instead of just fining players and sweeping it unders the rug.

Realign conferences. Minny joins East where they should be. Maybe add a couple more teams out west. Seattle, Vancouver or Las Vegas? There's certainly enough talent to fill out a couple more rosters and it would help dilute these power house teams which are ruining the league.

Increased incentives for players to resign with teams that drafted them. And long term benefits. For example if a player has played for the same team for 8 consecutive years they receive a 20% bonus to their salary which doesn't count against the cap. I understand bird rights, but it needs to be more rewarding for the player.

Get rid of max contract percentage caps. You get two max slots and can spend whatever you want over 33% of the cap on either. Then hard cap the team salary. No more letting the right timing give you the chance to add KD and then sign everyone else over the cap and pay a tax. Spread the stars out across the league in 2's and you'll have more parity. We need to find solutions not tied to money because these guy's make so much now what's the real difference between 200 million and 250 million to them?

Also giving the home teams the opportunity to spend more has literally done the opposite of giving them an advantage to keep guys. They are avoiding that deal like a plague because of the guys it is looking to entice. Outside of Wall which is already blowing up in their face what team has been able to use that to keep a great player in his prime? I think there need to be more exceptions to let go of guys and pay them without crushing your cap. Maybe give lottery teams an amnesty exception each year to give them a chance to clean up their books to get them back to contending quicker.

khans2k5 wrote:Get rid of max contract percentage caps. You get two max slots and can spend whatever you want over 33% of the cap on either. Then hard cap the team salary. No more letting the right timing give you the chance to add KD and then sign everyone else over the cap and pay a tax. Spread the stars out across the league in 2's and you'll have more parity. We need to find solutions not tied to money because these guy's make so much now what's the real difference between 200 million and 250 million to them?

Also giving the home teams the opportunity to spend more has literally done the opposite of giving them an advantage to keep guys. They are avoiding that deal like a plague because of the guys it is looking to entice. Outside of Wall which is already blowing up in their face what team has been able to use that to keep a great player in his prime? I think there need to be more exceptions to let go of guys and pay them without crushing your cap. Maybe give lottery teams an amnesty exception each year to give them a chance to clean up their books to get them back to contending quicker.

Yeah, something has to happen with the whole max contract thing and allowing teams to retain their guys. How it's set up right now is not working and one could argue successfully that it's done just the opposite.

I think getting rid of the salary cap entirely -- while risky -- could benefit the league. You don't see a whole lot of stars changing teams in the MLB. Instead teams lock up their guys to long-term deals with big money rather easily. It also doesn't hamper them in chasing other talent to build around them. You can be as aggressive or selective as you want. And the teams that are overly aggressive can set themselves up to be burned by bad contracts, which is a check and balance system in itself.

I also like how the MLB has arbitration, but I can't imagine that trickling into the NBA.