A modest proposal to fix the NBA’s schedule dilemma

A modest proposal

Where the NBA needs to start its schedule revisions is with its conferences. There is no need to have teams subject to these barriers anymore; the West has been decidedly better for quite some time and that isn’t likely to change. Quite simply, there are more quality organizations in that half.

It would be difficult to convince Eastern Conference executives to approve, but ultimately it is what’s best for the league. The best 16 (or so) teams should be fighting in the playoffs, not some 45-loss squad from the East.

Naturally, this would require some major schedule adjustments. Playing 52 games within your conference would be eradicated in a world without conferences.

In this proposal, each team would get one home game and one away game against all other 29 squads, leading to a base total of 58. That’s not nearly enough for teams to get on board financially, but it’s a start.

The next element of the schedule would come from the proposed tournament. Overall it’s a solid idea to add this in; a tournament format would add more viewership while also incentivizing players to compete more (and load manage less).

As stated earlier, though, money cannot be the sole reward for winning this late autumn joust. Draft pick compensation has been discussed, per Marc Stein of the New York Times, but how would that motivate players? “Play hard so we can draft the guy who’s going to take your job at a lower price” isn’t exactly inspiring.

The only real answer, other than a large lump sum of cash, is to guarantee a playoff berth to the winner. This wouldn’t change much for the elites, but the bubble teams would definitely be stimulated

Take, for example, the Phoenix Suns. A franchise lost in the NBA’s cellar for nearly a half-decade, it has finally made some noise this season. The scorching hot start that saw it take down some upper-tier teams has since waned, but injuries and suspensions have played a part in that. If they have an impetus to go all-out in this battle royal, there’s no telling what could happen.

This argument can be made for several teams who are too good (or expensive) to tank, but not good enough to coast to a berth. Teams such as Charlotte, Detroit and Sacramento come to mind. Their intensity in these matchups would be thrilling.

The setup of a round robin within traditional divisions makes sense. Each team gets two home and two away in this plan (over 9-10 days), while also counting these games on the overall tally. That brings everyone to 62 games

The knockout round gives the top eight a 63rd game, top four a 64th and top two a 65th. Assuming the highest seed hosts each game, there won’t be much variability with the home/away splits, barring outliers.

The 22 teams not in that knockout stage need to be accounted for as well. This would be easiest by having them play one home and one away game each during the period of the knockout rounds (five or six days), bringing them to 64 games. To get those quarter-finalists to 64, have them each play consolation games following a loss.

The incentive to win these games? Have them count for tiebreakers. Whether teams are tied for a playoff spot or a lottery spot, success in this tournament can be used to finalize spots. If two playoff teams are even in overall and head-to-head record, their records in this cup could act as the next deciding factor.

The same could be done for ties among lottery teams by giving the winner of the tiebreaker better odds. It would not deter young teams from using the overall season for development purposes; only for these six games would they be galvanized to go all-out. In this world, rosters could still be inexperienced, but would still need good players for this part of the calendar.

At this point, 28 of the 30 teams are at 64 games total, with the two cup finalists at 65. To legitimately cut the amount of games down without drastically hurting teams’ revenues, 10 more games for every team seems like a nice number. To achieve the most balance, those would need to be against teams who aren’t built into your cup schedule (i.e., outside your division).

With conferences abolished, every team not in your own division can be used for this, i.e. five other divisions of five. Playing two of those five whole divisions would amount to 10 games and fill the schedule, with the planned quintets assigned on a rotating basis each season (like how the National Football League does it).

The soonest that rotation can be completed is over five seasons, with every division being paired against each other in two of them (so every team gets one extra home game and one extra away game against each other over five seasons).

That’s a lot to take in, so let’s sum it up real quick:

1. At least two games against all other 29 teams: 58 games (29 home, 29 away);
2. Mid season tournament with extra tiebreaker weight: four round robin games plus two or three knockout round games: 6-7 games (at least two at home);
3. A third game against two of the other five divisions on a rotating basis: 10 (5 home, 5 away).

Total: 74-75 games (at least 36 at home) per team, 1,111 games overall.

Assuming that these games take place over the same amount of time as the current 82-game season, almost all back-to-back sets would be extinguished. Back-to-backs are something the league has tried to minimize for a few years now and for good reason; this plan takes them out entirely.

Will teams lose revenue on home games? Yes, but at most only five are eliminated. The value of more health/less load management should make up for that. A dip in quantity should be offset by a boost in quality, especially when including the heightened stakes of the tournament games.

The idea of play-in games for the playoffs is solid and should be implemented. Using the proposed 20-team (originally 10 per conference) system is functional, meaning the top 12 teams avoid this cauldron.

Of the top 12 seeds, it’s assumed that one would be awarded to the in-season tourney champ (seed dependent on overall record and would be no lower than No. 12). Slogging through a knockout bracket only to get into another winner-take-all cauldron is not a true reward.

Like the league’s idea of 7 vs. 8 and 9 vs. 10 in each conference, that can be expanded to 13th vs. 16th and 14th vs. 15th in the top half, with 17th vs. 20th and 18th vs. 19th in the bottom half.

The winners of the former two games are guaranteed the No. 13 and 14 seeds (depending on original seed), while the losers of those host the victors of the latter two games for seeds No. 15 and No. 16. To make travel easier over these short few days, the final two matchups should be set with the superior seeds hosting.

Basketball-wise, the structure of the play-in is negligible; you’re just fighting for the right to get trounced by a top team. But that playoff revenue will be even more valuable in a world with fewer regular season games, meaning a few extra front offices might talk themselves into contending.

So basically the NBA calendar would go like this:

• Mid-October to Thanksgiving: Teams get their feet wet
• Black Friday to mid-December: In-season tournament with serious implications
• Christmas Day to All-Star Break: Business as usual
• Late February to mid April: Rest of regular season
• Late April to early June: NBA Playoffs

There is no doubt the Association needs to modify its existing schedule. Some of the league office’s ideas are progressive, while others aren’t progressive enough. These amendments to the NBA’s bill satisfy as many parties as possible.