What NBA rules would you change?

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,726
Players would have to learn to score in a greater variety of ways rather than the boring cookie-cutter play of today. One thing I really hate about the corner 3 is the exciting plays we used to see in transition where the greatest athletes in the world attacked the rim. Now we see the player ahead of the pack sprint to the corner. The wide open corner three is the ultimate goal of NBA offenses and it is boring as hell.
You know it's funny you mention this because the entire reason the NBA implemented the 3P line (and other rule changes) was because the NBA was devolving into a super boring slugfest among super physical athletes. I know today's basketball is so uniform that it gets boring to watch a lot of it but there was nothing worse than the mid-90s basketball when teams figured out that there aren't enough human beings in the world to score consistently on a packed-in defense that loads up to stop scorers.

But as you rightfully point out (and many others), many NBA games seem like they turn into a jump shooting contest.

I'm not sure what the answer is as 3P shots - and particularly the corner 3P - are way too valable. Moving the above-the-break 3P back will work for a little bit but it won't take long for shooters to catch up.

It would be great if the NBA tried to experiment with these rule changes in GLeague preseason or mid-summer tournament or what not. For example, I would be super interested in seeing what BBall looked like without a corner 3P. But that's not going to happen anytime soon.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,253
Widen the court just enough to make the 3 pointer the same in the corners.

I doubt they'd ever remove the option-to-move-the-ball-to-midcourt-when-taking-a-timeout, it's so ingrained in the NBA and it's endless quest for highlight clips....but I would make it so there are less time outs in the final two minutes; one each is plenty (i.e., use earlier or lose). One or two timeouts doesn't destroy the flow of the game, more than that does.

Also as with the out of bounds reviews, a team shouldn't have to burn their review if the call in question involves the little circle under the basket; should be fast enough to determine if the defender was in or out of there.
 

GoJeff!

Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2007
2,088
Los Angeles
What about making the three point line a continuum?

Have a camera above the court, and assign fractional points to each basket based on distance. Just inside the 3 point line? That's a 2.9 point shot. It gets rid of bunching shots at the line, makes the corner worth more than 2 but less than 3, and makes defense at least a bit more complicated.

You would need to change "winning" to mean a full point ahead or something like that, but it seems doable. The worst part is that the technology needed to make it happen wouldn't easily filter down to lower level basketball.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
23,204
I think schematically the league is still kind of catching up to the Warriors three-point shooting revolution, as well as a generation of players growing up with the three pointer being extremely popular, thus churning out a better style of play. Eventually teams will get better at defending and there will have to be another adjustment that takes the game in another direction. Perhaps a rule change will happen to nurse that change along, but I think the defense is still catching up to the offense.

It's certainly true in transition more teams focus on getting a three than in the past, but I don't think that is preventing us from getting crazy dunks in transition. If you can get a dunk, you take a dunk. We are probably seeing less awkward lay-up attempts, which to me is no great loss. There are still plenty of nasty jams; Jalen Green had two last night in the fourth quarter.

People seem to opine the loss of the great big man; but we are coming off a season where the MVP of the league was a center, and the Finals MVP was a big man who dunks the basketball all the time and can't shoot. Sure, Jokic and Giannis play differently than the big men of the past, but that is true across basketball existence as the game continues to evolve.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,190
Saskatoon Canada
You know it's funny you mention this because the entire reason the NBA implemented the 3P line (and other rule changes) was because the NBA was devolving into a super boring slugfest among super physical athletes. I know today's basketball is so uniform that it gets boring to watch a lot of it but there was nothing worse than the mid-90s basketball when teams figured out that there aren't enough human beings in the world to score consistently on a packed-in defense that loads up to stop scorers.
EDIT your history is, like much history taking an event and applying a cause from 15 years later. The NBA added the 3pt line among many desperate moves because it was almost irrelevant. It was so unpopular finals games were not even on TV in the late 70s. The big problems cited in the media were cocaine, "too black" (not kidding), no defence (contrary to your contention) perceived lack of effort by players (see cocaine and racism). The big changes made to save the nba were:
Focus on stars not teams
Larry and Magic (in other words luck)
Protect the stars (reffing)
Drug testing
Collapsable rims and encouraging not discouraging dunking.

The too physical came ten years later. The 3pt line was added, but was not a big part of what happened.


The game almost always goes too far with a good thing. The clash of styles of the Lakers Celtics in the 80s lead to more physical play which people think hit bottom with the bad boys, but the Reilly Knicks were even worse. The league stepped in and called hand checks, instituted hard foul, flagrant fouls, etc. Rodman went from HOG defender to rebounder almost instantly. Rarely will you hear in GOAT discussions, how Jordan wasn't really DPOY after handcheck rules changed.

The game can be saved by the refs, maybe. The Olympics was much better style than NBA, because of the FIBA reffing. I coached in a fiba pro league and I was shocked to see G-league guys, or high-level NCAA rookies auditioning for overseas jobs whining incessantly about the physical play. To me American hoops guys complaining about the physical play from Canadian guys would be like the Canadian Junior Hockey team whining about the Swedes hitting too much. But it happened at the Olympics too. Our guy Tatum was one of the whiniest.

The changes they are making with foul calls may improve the game. If they would call more fouls on the defender in the post, allow the elbow (not handcheck though) like FIBA when guarding on the 3 pt line, then passing the ball into the key would be more viable. They really need to reward offensive boarding more. The worst runs in nba game are three or more missed threes without and connected rebounds.
 
Last edited:

Eagle3

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
600
If you can get a dunk, you take a dunk.
I saw lots of guys last season who could have had layups or dunks but kicked it out for a 3 instead. Ben Simmons in game 7 against the Hawks being the most blatant example.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,528
Is the max contract a rule? I'd get rid of that, while keeping the cap.
It’s not a rule, as it cannot be changed by the league unilaterally. And there is zero chance of it happening as it benefits players and owners in different ways.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It’s not a rule, as it cannot be changed by the league unilaterally. And there is zero chance of it happening as it benefits players and owners in different ways.
Yeah, unfortunately. Only players it doesn't benefit are the LeBron's of the world.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,947
Santa Monica
EDIT your history is, like much history taking an event and applying a cause from 15 years later. The NBA added the 3pt line among many desperate moves because it was almost irrelevant. It was so unpopular finals games were not even on TV in the late 70s. The big problems cited in the media were cocaine, "too black" (not kidding), no defence (contrary to your contention) perceived lack of effort by players (see cocaine and racism). The big changes made to save the nba were:
Focus on stars not teams
Larry and Magic (in other words luck)
Protect the stars (reffing)
Drug testing
Collapsable rims and encouraging not discouraging dunking.

The too physical came ten years later. The 3pt line was added, but was not a big part of what happened.


The game almost always goes too far with a good thing. The clash of styles of the Lakers Celtics in the 80s lead to more physical play which people think hit bottom with the bad boys, but the Reilly Knicks were even worse. The league stepped in and called hand checks, instituted hard foul, flagrant fouls, etc. Rodman went from HOG defender to rebounder almost instantly. Rarely will you hear in GOAT discussions, how Jordan wasn't really DPOY after handcheck rules changed.

The game can be saved by the refs, maybe. The Olympics was much better style than NBA, because of the FIBA reffing. I coached in a fiba pro league and I was shocked to see G-league guys, or high-level NCAA rookies auditioning for overseas jobs whining incessantly about the physical play. To me American hoops guys complaining about the physical play from Canadian guys would be like the Canadian Junior Hockey team whining about the Swedes hitting too much. But it happened at the Olympics too. Our guy Tatum was one of the whiniest.

The changes they are making with foul calls may improve the game. If they would call more fouls on the defender in the post, allow the elbow (not handcheck though) like FIBA when guarding on the 3 pt line, then passing the ball into the key would be more viable. They really need to reward offensive boarding more. The worst runs in nba game are three or more missed threes without and connected rebounds.
this is a really good summation from 1979. thanks
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,093
I don’t think this has been mentioned but this one is a no-brainer for me. Eliminate the take foul that kills fast breaks when a team isn’t yet in the penalty. This (smart) play has become more prevalent in the bubble and early on this year. As I’m writing this I watch a take foul on the Blazers lol.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
35,024
Haiku
I don’t think this has been mentioned but this one is a no-brainer for me. Eliminate the take foul that kills fast breaks when a team isn’t yet in the penalty. This (smart) play has become more prevalent in the bubble and early on this year. As I’m writing this I watch a take foul on the Blazers lol.
Yes, increase penalties for the Eurofoul. It really slows the game down, eliminates several spectacular plays each night, and overall it degrades the product for everybody.

To that, I'll add: eliminate multiple foul shots. If a shooter is fouled inside the arc, he gets one free throw worth two points. If a player is fouled attempting a three-pointer, he gets one free throw worth three points. It will speed up the game noticeably. One of the minor leagues was going to test out the scheme last year, but I haven't heard how it worked out.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,095
around the way
I don’t think this has been mentioned but this one is a no-brainer for me. Eliminate the take foul that kills fast breaks when a team isn’t yet in the penalty. This (smart) play has become more prevalent in the bubble and early on this year. As I’m writing this I watch a take foul on the Blazers lol.
Yeah this has been mentioned. There were two in like a minute in the Cs Hornets tonight. It's infuriating. Why eliminate highlight dunks and slow down the game?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yes, increase penalties for the Eurofoul. It really slows the game down, eliminates several spectacular plays each night, and overall it degrades the product for everybody.

To that, I'll add: eliminate multiple foul shots. If a shooter is fouled inside the arc, he gets one free throw worth two points. If a player is fouled attempting a three-pointer, he gets one free throw worth three points. It will speed up the game noticeably. One of the minor leagues was going to test out the scheme last year, but I haven't heard how it worked out.
That FT rule would be awful and would end up being a hack a shaq league.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
I still don't know what a foul is in the NBA. Having been lucky enough to watch some games near courtside, it seems that there's a foul on every play. I contend the average TV viewer (me) is mostly confused on what's called and what's not called and it impacts enjoyment of the game. Either simplify the rules or add more officials...and be consistent. An example would be ball/strike calls (which drive everyone nuts), but at least there's a defined zone that establishes what it's supposed to be.

How can the "what's a foul" situation be clarified?
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
35,024
Haiku
That FT rule would be awful and would end up being a hack a shaq league.
Why? It wouldn't change the relative weight or point potential of a foul on a 2- or 3-point shot. It would, however, shorten the tedium associated with every free throw that interrupts the game. What is more annoying than waiting for a shooter to shoot three separate set shots from the foul line?

Why would it change the incentive to hack? If Shaq gets one two-point shot, how is that different from two one-point shots? Does his FT% magically rise or fall because he gets fewer shots but with the same point potential?

What is duller than a free throw? Reduce the number of FTs, speed up the game, and reduce the waiting and standing around.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,947
Santa Monica
I don’t think this has been mentioned but this one is a no-brainer for me. Eliminate the take foul that kills fast breaks when a team isn’t yet in the penalty. This (smart) play has become more prevalent in the bubble and early on this year. As I’m writing this I watch a take foul on the Blazers lol.
Yep, it was noted up thread. Can't believe the NBA hasn't fixed this obvious intentional foul

Also, like Sprowl's idea of taking (1) 2pt or 3pt Free Throw. Whenever I watch a recorded game I immediately fast forward through FTs. Especially if the goal is to make the game more enjoyable from the viewers perspective
 

Eagle3

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
600
Yep, it was noted up thread. Can't believe the NBA hasn't fixed this obvious intentional foul

Also, like Sprowl's idea of taking (1) 2pt or 3pt Free Throw. Whenever I watch a recorded game I immediately fast forward through FTs. Especially if the goal is to make the game more enjoyable from the viewers perspective
Obviously there has to be a balance between what makes sense for the game vs what makes for more enjoyable viewing. The free throw proposals are certainly in that category, and personally I'm not sure what's best on that one. But there are some others that are more clear cut for me.

The most blatant one is advancing the ball over half court on a timeout, which the sole purpose was to artificially create more buzzer beaters for the fans. There is certainly no logic to it from a basketball perspective, and its grossly unfair to a team that just scored to tie or take the lead with less than 5 seconds left. As far as I'm concerned if there is 1 second left the other team doesnt deserve anything other than a hail mary. And if there is 4 seconds left, I think having to go the full length of the court is more exciting anyway.

Edit: Can you imagine if the NFL implemented this rule? A team scores to go up 2 with 1 second left. The other team calls a timeout and gets the ball on the opposing 35 yard line so they can try a 52 yard field goal to win the game. That would also be very exciting, and also ridiculously unfair. The NBA gives teams the opportunity to win much easier than a 52 yard field goal.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Why? It wouldn't change the relative weight or point potential of a foul on a 2- or 3-point shot. It would, however, shorten the tedium associated with every free throw that interrupts the game. What is more annoying than waiting for a shooter to shoot three separate set shots from the foul line?

Why would it change the incentive to hack? If Shaq gets one two-point shot, how is that different from two one-point shots? Does his FT% magically rise or fall because he gets fewer shots but with the same point potential?

What is duller than a free throw? Reduce the number of FTs, speed up the game, and reduce the waiting and standing around.
Because there's now more pressure on Shaq to hit his FT and it's 0 points or 2 points, no in between. You take your chance with him getting 0. End of games would be a crawl. I mean, they already are but I think it would get worse.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,947
Santa Monica
Because there's now more pressure on Shaq to hit his FT and it's 0 points or 2 points, no in between. You take your chance with him getting 0. End of games would be a crawl. I mean, they already are but I think it would get worse.
Definitely more binary but have to think there would be less crawling with half the absolute # of FTs.

Teams that need to foul due to clock/score are going to foul either way. Teams that don't need to foul will play D straight up
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,505
I remember Morey proposing the “single free throw worth multiple points to save time” idea a few years back, here was an article from ESPN in 2014 about it:
https://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/70581/hoopidea-is-one-trip-to-the-free-throw-line-enough

A few points to consider is how much time it would save (five minutes was the very rough estimate from the article, at around 15 seconds per each subsequent free throw shot being eliminated and ~21 eliminated subsequent free throw shots per game) and the idea that players overall tend to shoot 4-5% better on the second attempt than the first.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,528
Regarding free throws:

For a 75% free throw shooter, the expected points from a single 2-point free throw vs. two 1-pointers would indeed be identical, so I don't think it would change much during the first 46 minutes of the game.

At the end of the game, I could see where it could lead to more fouls. Under the current system, the chances that a 75% shooter gets 0 points is 6.25%. Under the new system, that number changes to 25%. For a 50% free throw shooter, the chances of such a shooter getting 0 points goes from 25% to 50%. Teams may start fouling earlier.

Ideally, you want to discourage fouling while also making the end-game foul fest go more quickly. Seems like part of the problem is that teams substitute after the first foul shot, and that seems to take an inordinate amount of time. Eliminate that substitution, and put a pitch clock on the foul shooter to get to the line and be ready to receive the ball from the official. No need for the free throw shooter to wander around the court for a few seconds after missing or making his first shot.

Eliminating the half court entry and give each team 2 timeouts per half would also help; unused first half timeouts get donated to charity.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
25,128
where I was last at
I'm not a big fan of the FT fest/strategy to hack a poor FT shooter to chip away at end of game leads. Watching a poor FT shooter brick FT isn't good basketball, even if its good end of game strategy.

I'm about to wander into unintended consequences, but maybe fouls in the last 2 minutes, are treated as optional FT opportunities to the fouled team. On the first foul in the last 2 minutes, they can either take the FTs or retain possession, with time reset to 24 seconds. If there is another foul on the same possession, same option, but time is allotted as it is now, with a minimum of 14 seconds. It would put a greater onus on the D to play real D and not hack, but it also gives a poor FT shooter a safe haven at game's end. Still thinking about it.

And agree on the break away grab fouls. I might award 3 FTs on those if the offensive player is grabbed from behind or at mid-court. The defender still has a chance to make a legit stop, but the foul/side out option seems a reward too great, not to take. Giving up a possible 3 points and getting a foul might give the D-player reason to play it straight.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I'm not a big fan of the FT fest/strategy to hack a poor FT shooter to chip away at end of game leads. Watching a poor FT shooter brick FT isn't good basketball, even if its good end of game strategy.

I'm about to wander into unintended consequences, but maybe fouls in the last 2 minutes, are treated as optional FT opportunities to the fouled team. On the first foul in the last 2 minutes, they can either take the FTs or retain possession, with time reset to 24 seconds. If there is another foul on the same possession, same option, but time is allotted as it is now, with a minimum of 14 seconds. It would put a greater onus on the D to play real D and not hack, but it also gives a poor FT shooter a safe haven at game's end. Still thinking about it.

And agree on the break away grab fouls. I might award 3 FTs on those if the offensive player is grabbed from behind or at mid-court. The defender still has a chance to make a legit stop, but the foul/side out option seems a reward too great, not to take. Giving up a possible 3 points and getting a foul might give the D-player reason to play it straight.
Does it matter if it gives poor FT shooters a safe haven? Fouls were meant to punish the team fouling. Hack a Shaq largely sucks because it's rewarding the fouling team. I like your rule of giving the team the choice of ball or 2 shots. I'm not sure I like it within the last 24 seconds of the game though. At the same time, I do want a team down 1 with 15 seconds left to be able to foul and have a chance to win or tie the game. Having the winning team just dribble out the clock for the last 24 seconds to 2 minutes wouldn't be great basketball either.

We would all be whining about it when the C's are down 6 and the other team has the ball with 48 seconds left. They just run out the 24 clock. Let the other team do whatever they want and run out the rest of the clock. AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL. I think we can all agree that the FT mess is better than having a team dribble out the clock their last 3-4 possessions. I remember when players would only get 2 FT attempts for an attempted 3 and that also sucked. Teams up 3 could just foul to win.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,394
Too many insanely talented young players end up wasting years of their career on terrible teams.

So abolish the draft.

The draft was created as a way to ensure competitive balance. Now free agency and the salary cap take care of that, and the draft is no longer necessary.

All rookies would enter the league as free agents and can sign with any team that has salary cap space to sign them. There would be a max rookie contract. When someone like Zion or LeBron comes along, multiple teams will look to have a rookie max slot available, and they will go where they line best.

Instead of trading draft picks, teams would be able to trade future salary cap space.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,898
A lot of problems would be resolved if the officials called the game like it's supposed to be called. There needs to be more oversight.

I hate the unnecessarily complex salary cap rules with the heat of 1,000 suns. Tear it all down and make it simpler.

Final 30 seconds of play: If a team commits a foul on consecutive defensive possessions, the team on offense gets an automatic 2 points and a technical shot.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,190
Saskatoon Canada
I don’t think this has been mentioned but this one is a no-brainer for me. Eliminate the take foul that kills fast breaks when a team isn’t yet in the penalty. This (smart) play has become more prevalent in the bubble and early on this year. As I’m writing this I watch a take foul on the Blazers lol.
One of the many things FIBA does better than NBA in terms of officiating. It's called unsportsmanlike and it's two and the ball. If a player does not make a clear play on the ball in transition, it is unsportsmanlike. They are tweaking the penalty each yar to the individual player. But, now if a player gets 2 and he is out of the game.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8wUMArTNow
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
A lot of problems would be resolved if the officials called the game like it's supposed to be called. There needs to be more oversight.
I always love when people state this as if it's such an easy fix. The reason the game isn't called the way it's supposed to be is because the game is incredibly difficult to officiate.

If Boston was playing LA, the SOSH game thread will be acting as if the Lakers paid the officials and the Sons of Billy Ashley will act be acting as if the C's paid them off.

One of the worst parts about the NBA is listening to people blame referees for their teams performance.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
52,163
Regarding free throws:

For a 75% free throw shooter, the expected points from a single 2-point free throw vs. two 1-pointers would indeed be identical, so I don't think it would change much during the first 46 minutes of the game.

At the end of the game, I could see where it could lead to more fouls. Under the current system, the chances that a 75% shooter gets 0 points is 6.25%. Under the new system, that number changes to 25%. For a 50% free throw shooter, the chances of such a shooter getting 0 points goes from 25% to 50%. Teams may start fouling earlier.

Ideally, you want to discourage fouling while also making the end-game foul fest go more quickly. Seems like part of the problem is that teams substitute after the first foul shot, and that seems to take an inordinate amount of time. Eliminate that substitution, and put a pitch clock on the foul shooter to get to the line and be ready to receive the ball from the official. No need for the free throw shooter to wander around the court for a few seconds after missing or making his first shot.

Eliminating the half court entry and give each team 2 timeouts per half would also help; unused first half timeouts get donated to charity.
New rule change idea: hockey-style subs on the fly.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,190
Saskatoon Canada
A lot of problems would be resolved if the officials called the game like it's supposed to be called. There needs to be more oversight.

I hate the unnecessarily complex salary cap rules with the heat of 1,000 suns. Tear it all down and make it simpler.

Final 30 seconds of play: If a team commits a foul on consecutive defensive possessions, the team on offense gets an automatic 2 points and a technical shot.
The officials do call it the way the coaches and the league want them. Obviously not individual calls, but the general way the game is called is influenced by the league and coaches. I used to coach in a league under NCAA rules. Each year we would get a VHS tape, or later DVD with new expectations. Often it was a new move (crow hop, step back) explaining why it wasn't actually traveling, or when it will be traveling when it won't. At times it was pretty draconian to eliminate a type of physical play. Obviously, I was never asked, but Coach K, etc were part of the process of how it is reffed.

IMHO opinion we are still suffering from the fact nobody knew what to do with Shaq. They have stripped away the offensive post's ability to use power for position, and that combined with the passers all being further away, all outside the 3 has stopped the power post-up game. Just going back a bit on how this is called would make Kanter and other power guys way more valuable, and create different options, strategies.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,435
Too many insanely talented young players end up wasting years of their career on terrible teams.

So abolish the draft.

The draft was created as a way to ensure competitive balance. Now free agency and the salary cap take care of that, and the draft is no longer necessary.

All rookies would enter the league as free agents and can sign with any team that has salary cap space to sign them. There would be a max rookie contract. When someone like Zion or LeBron comes along, multiple teams will look to have a rookie max slot available, and they will go where they line best.

Instead of trading draft picks, teams would be able to trade future salary cap space.
How exactly does free agency ensure competitive balance? When top players actually get to free agency the only teams that ever have a chance to sign them are the big market teams in prime cities unless they're staying with their drafted team.

A Zion or a Lebron would never end up in new orleans or cleveland under your system, they'd go to LA or New York or Miami every time.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
How exactly does free agency ensure competitive balance? When top players actually get to free agency the only teams that ever have a chance to sign them are the big market teams in prime cities unless they're staying with their drafted team.

A Zion or a Lebron would never end up in new orleans or cleveland under your system, they'd go to LA or New York or Miami every time.
There's a chance LeBron goes to Cleveland because it was his hometown, but yeah. For the most part, the top 3 amateurs will pick the same 5-6 teams every year.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,528
Eliminating the draft is a classic example of fixing a problem (LA teams not always getting the top rookie talent) that does not need to be fixed. Bucks v Suns last year was a smashing success of a Finals, and wouldn't have been possible if the draft were eliminated.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Eliminating the draft is a classic example of fixing a problem (LA teams not always getting the top rookie talent) that does not need to be fixed. Bucks v Suns last year was a smashing success of a Finals, and wouldn't have been possible if the draft were eliminated.
They fixed the lottery because the Magic won the 1st pick despite only having a 1.52% chance to win the lottery. They changed the odds to make it less favorable for teams at the end of the lottery to win and more favorable for the worse teams to win. Then tanking became a bigger problem... so they changed the odds yet again to make it more favorable to the teams at the end of the lottery and less favorable to the worst teams.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,528
They fixed the lottery because the Magic won the 1st pick despite only having a 1.52% chance to win the lottery. They changed the odds to make it less favorable for teams at the end of the lottery to win and more favorable for the worse teams to win. Then tanking became a bigger problem... so they changed the odds yet again to make it more favorable to the teams at the end of the lottery and less favorable to the worst teams.
The lottery change after the Magic won 2x in a row was another classic example of fixing something that was never broken.
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
5,012
Somerville, MA
Is the max contract a rule? I'd get rid of that, while keeping the cap.
Bumping this, because I've been thinking about the max contract lately. I wouldn't get rid of it, but I would make the "max" a fixed cap charge each season. This sliding scale based on years in the league is really a strange.

And the super-max was pitched as a boon to small market teams in terms of keeping their stars, but has worked out to be a boat anchor (see Wall, John) sometimes before the contract even kicks in. Let the original franchise pay more cash for the goodwill of keeping their player, but don't charge them beyond the fixed "max" slot. Now it's a real benefit.

The upside I could see to this is really simplifying cap management and trades. The downside to franchises would be paying the balance "off book" for the various veteran/super max salaries, and skewing the revenue percentage. Really no different than the tax though.

The biggest downside I could see would be making "superteams" easier to assemble.

Idk why they don't at least fix the supermax though.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,785
The “super max” isn’t really any different from a normal max deal. Max deals are capped at 35% of the cap for people with ten years in the NBA. All “super max” means is that you get an early bump to the next level. A player coming off his rookie deal is eligible for a 25% max deal by service time. However, if they make All NBA, MVP, All Defense, or Defensive Player of the Year they’re eligible for an early bump to the 30% level.

Similarly a player can get an early bump to 35% if they’re still with their original team after their first rookie extension. John Wall just got the contract that the Wizards were able to give him due to his being one of the best players in the NBA. There’s nothing wrong with the designated player/veteran rule. It’s only bad where injuries intervene, as happened with Wall. But the contract would have been an albatross whether it was 30% of the max or 35% of the max.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
I'd increase the max contract raises for incumbents by 1%, and same for the supermax.... but in return you cannot be traded for 2 full seasons.

Edit- I'd pair it with no fines for sitting out games, if you fail to honor your contract you just don't toll the days on your contract (and don't get paid), conversely if the team refuses to play you (Wall for example) you can request a buyout at a set rate (10%) of discount which they must grant.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,399
Cultural hub of the universe
If I could change anything it'd be to institute a delayed foul charge, so that teams wouldn't foul to stop fast breaks. Raise your hand, indicate the foul but don't blow the whistle and let the break continue. The foul doesn't get called until the defending team gets possession or the team fouled scores.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,095
around the way
If I could change anything it'd be to institute a delayed foul charge, so that teams wouldn't foul to stop fast breaks. Raise your hand, indicate the foul but don't blow the whistle and let the break continue. The foul doesn't get called until the defending team gets possession or the team fouled scores.
I've never heard this suggestion in hoop. Brilliant. They should do something similar for shot clock violations where the defending team gets possession too.

I'd go a step further. If it's in the backcourt, it's a 2-shot foul (if not washed by the basket). And if you're in the penalty, 3 to make 2.
 

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
6,307
if I could change anything it'd be to institute a delayed foul charge, so that teams wouldn't foul to stop fast breaks. Raise your hand, indicate the foul but don't blow the whistle and let the break continue. The foul doesn't get called until the defending team gets possession or the team fouled scores.
Yup like the foul in futbol. Let the play run, come back and book the foul later.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
Yup like the foul in futbol. Let the play run, come back and book the foul later.
problem is neither the league nor the players would want that, because it would encourage you to wrap guys up on the break which increases injury risk. If you want to stop fast break fouls (the take foul) you make it either 1 shot and the ball (how the G-League does it already) or 2 shots and the ball (how some Euro leagues do it).

This is supposedly already in discussion, so I'd expect it to come in for next season a 1 shot and the ball, the G-League is testing it.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,399
Cultural hub of the universe
problem is neither the league nor the players would want that, because it would encourage you to wrap guys up on the break which increases injury risk. If you want to stop fast break fouls (the take foul) you make it either 1 shot and the ball (how the G-League does it already) or 2 shots and the ball (how some Euro leagues do it).

This is supposedly already in discussion, so I'd expect it to come in for next season a 1 shot and the ball, the G-League is testing it.
Couldn't you make wrapping up the guy a flagrant 1, non basketball move? That'd be 2 and the ball.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
Couldn't you make wrapping up the guy a flagrant 1, non basketball move? That'd be 2 and the ball.
you could, but it seems pointless, also there are a lot of wrap-up fouls throughout games, sometimes it's the safer play because otherwise a guy would fall.

I don't really see the benefit of using the soccer style "advantage" rule really, if you just want to disincentivize take fouls, use the FT plus ball rule
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
23,204
problem is neither the league nor the players would want that, because it would encourage you to wrap guys up on the break which increases injury risk. If you want to stop fast break fouls (the take foul) you make it either 1 shot and the ball (how the G-League does it already) or 2 shots and the ball (how some Euro leagues do it).

This is supposedly already in discussion, so I'd expect it to come in for next season a 1 shot and the ball, the G-League is testing it.
Yeah, not sure the specifics of it but it would really just be an expansion of the clear path foul rule would work.

You could perhaps make it so that any foul given on the opponents defensive side of the court when more than 3 players on your team are not back on defense is now considered a clear path foul.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
Yeah, not sure the specifics of it but it would really just be an expansion of the clear path foul rule would work.

You could perhaps make it so that any foul given on the opponents defensive side of the court when more than 3 players on your team are not back on defense is now considered a clear path foul.
This is the G-League definition: “A foul in which the defender does not make a play on the ball against a player with the ball or who just released a pass… [and] a foul that takes away a transition opportunity”

from this article about how the NBA is likely to change the rule next year:
https://nba.nbcsports.com/2021/11/03/report-nba-expected-to-change-rules-to-stop-take-fouls-but-probably-next-season/
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
5,012
Somerville, MA
The intentional fouls in the last minute of the game could go with the 1+the ball rule as well. Yes it would result in less last-minute comebacks, but it would do away with a lot of tedium.
 

kfoss99

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2009
1,530
Very trivial, but I'd bring back the 10-second back court violation, instead of the current 8 second.

Front court clock still resets to 14 seconds, instead of 16. And players seem to have to rush, sometimes, to get over half court.