Relegation Can Save The Day

I attended a secret Midcoast Blogger Summit yesterday in Ellsworth, Maine with two of the FreeDarko crew who are up in the Mount Desert area at the moment. Talk naturally turned to How to Save the NBA. Unfortunately, I forgot to present my actual idea on this before leaving. My thought, though, is that the intrinsic competitive imbalance problem driven by the short supply of tall people (see also here or, more briefly, the reason you pick Greg Oden with the number one pick) would best be addressed by adopted a European-style system of having multiple tiers of play with teams promoted or demoted according to how they fare.

Obviously, the details could go in a few different ways, but in broad outline you might do three different divisions -- Division A, Division B, and Division C -- each with 12 teams. At the end of the season, the two worst teams in Division A would get demoted to Division B for the next year. The two worst teams in Division B would be demoted to Division C. But Division C's two best teams would get promoted to Division B, and Division B's two best teams would get promoted to Division A. The result is that almost every team would have "something to play for" throughout the season.

Comments

Yep, they'd have something to play for until they went bankrupt. If the most value your team has (I'm looking at you Memphis) is that you're one of 30 NBA teams, why would you give that away to become some AAA franchise worth 1/3 (at most) of what you have now.

Posted by Rob | July 4, 2007 10:47 AM

12 teams would be too small. 18-20 would be about right. They could merge the ABA teams and CBA into a hierarchy. I think players would revolt if teams couldn't shed players like they do in Europe when they're relegated.

But I agree. Bring promotion/relegation to the US!

Posted by BF | July 4, 2007 10:53 AM

The real way to save the NBA is by getting rid of David Stern. Stern has had some brilliant moves and some bad ones. But the real issue now is that he has fallen into a trap for any leader: he's more interested in denying that there are problems than addressing them. To me, the nadir of his administration wasn't the Suns suspensions, but the next day when he went on a national radio program and mocked the people who were upset about the decision (in other words, everybody.) That's your hard core fan base, the people who are really involved and committed to your league. They're deeply upset about a very controversial decision-- and you make fun of them? He's been dictator so long he's forgotten how to actually solve problems without issuing a fiat. I mean, the officiating stinks. But he's so invested in denying that there is a problem he's incapable of doing anything to solve it.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 11:01 AM

If the most value your team has (I'm looking at you Memphis) is that you're one of 30 NBA teams,

Not seeing that. I assume the value of the team relates to the income in a fairly straightforward fashion. That, in turn, is (I assume) TV money plus gate and concessions. TV money could still be split 30 ways. Gate and concessions? They might go up. You might have teams play outside their divisions a third of the time, in the same way that teams play outside of their conferences now, so that you could still get Opponent with a Star crowds from time to time.

Plus, NYC having to live with a third division team for the foreseeable future has a value all of its own.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 11:04 AM

Promotion/relegation is one of the best things about European soccer - often the games at the very end of the season are better at the bottom of the league than the top (especially since they don't have playoffs in most Euro soccer leagues). In the EPL, for example, the end of the season, ManU had already wrapped up the title, Chelsea had wrapped up second place and Arsenal & Liverpool had wrapped up 3rd and 4th (the 4 Champions League spots). They all had little to play for. But there were about 4 or 5 teams at the bottom of the league that all were in danger of relegation, and they were all really fighting to stay in the top division. Contrast that to the NBA, where the Celtics and other teams were utterly tanking the end of the year.

I've never seen Euro basketball, but I'd imagine it to be smilar. If you read Paul Shirley on ESPN.com, for example, he played on a Spanish team (Minorca) that was in danger of relegation. The last game of the season was to keep them up in the top division, and he described it as one of the most pressurized situations he'd ever played in. And when they won, and stayed up, the Minorcan fans went crazy. Imagine, say, the Seattle Sonic or Boston Celtic fans going crazy for the last game of the season? Hard to believe. They were all jus waiting for the draft lottery.

That said, I don't think promotion/relegation can work here. The issue is that our system of player development is drastically different. How does the NBA draft work? Euroleague doesn't have a draft - the teams develop players from when they were in their early teens. I don' think we can implemet that here, given our system of college basketball.

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 11:09 AM

I assume the value of the team relates to the income in a fairly straightforward fashion.

I don't know about that. It's certainly not true of any average corporate entity that their value is straightforwardly related to their income.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 11:13 AM

That, in turn, is (I assume) TV money plus gate and concessions. TV money could still be split 30 ways.

I suppose. The contrast to the the EPL, though, is cautionary. The EPL teams get a gigantic amount of TV money. Second division teams, much less so. As I recall, the difference in TV money between staying in the EPL and going down is something like 50 million pounds a season (which is far more than the NBA TV contract per team).

The question is: would TV pay money to be split equally between all teams when only the first division teams are competing for the championship? Would TV even want to show 3rd division teams? I would think not. After all, TNT didn't show a heck of a lot of Hawks-Grizzlies games, did they?

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 11:15 AM

I don' think we can implemet that here, given our system of college basketball.

That's easy to solve: kill college basketball. The NBA ought to do that anyway, out of simple decency.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 11:29 AM

the european system works in soccer because everyone is used to it, but convincing teams that are currently major-league that they should drop down a level is a complete non-starter in america.

still, matthew is on the right track: the way to improve nba basketball is to reduce the number of teams. if we had 24 teams, for instance, every team would be 3 players deeper than it is today, and even more important, every 8-man rotation would be 2 players deeper than it is today.

that would take care of most of the nba's on-court problems.

PS. freddie, just give it up about the suns suspensions already: they weren't the best team in basketball this year, and stern had given notice 10 years, when he did the same thing to the knicks. every organization in the nba knows what happens when a player leaves the bench....

Posted by howard | July 4, 2007 11:53 AM

Al is right. Football would be rubbish without promotion/relegation. It raises the stakes and makes the season much more interesting towards the end, especially when teams at the top and the bottom of the league are battling it out.

In a country so enamoured with the idea of the free market and competition, American sports seem to be a curious anomaly.

Posted by danm | July 4, 2007 11:55 AM

The relegation/promotion idea is great. The English Premire League is exactly equivalent to the NBA except that the NBA has about 12 teams that don't belong at that level. (The unfortunate Celtics being the example local to Maine.) In addition to what's discussed above, England has a tournament in which every club pro and amateur competes. Can you see 10 guys from Yonkers playing this year's Knicks? Money will not be the problem in this age or "Reality TeeVee."
Last year, a non-professional team made it to the round of 8. Tiny Sunderland which produces more great footballers (and comedians) than any other place on earth, supports a team and beautiful stadium, but rarely remains in the Premireship. Small places such as Middlesboro, Carlisle and Blackpooll compete with teams from London, and Manchester. Its a blast.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | July 4, 2007 11:57 AM

Howard is of course right - you can't convince a team that already has a permanent place in the "1st division" (which is all of the NBA) to voluntarily take a chance a relegation. This echoes Rob's thought above - Memphis in't volunteering to go down to AAA-level basketball. Even if the TV money stayed the same (and, as noted above, I don't think it would), Memphis doesn't want to play the majority of their gams against the worst teams.

The question is, what can you give to teams to accept the possibility of relegation? I dunno. A lot of money?

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 12:00 PM

The question is, what can you give to teams to accept the possibility of relegation?

A guarantee of equal TV money?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 12:03 PM

PS. freddie, just give it up about the suns suspensions already: they weren't the best team in basketball this year, and stern had given notice 10 years, when he did the same thing to the knicks. every organization in the nba knows what happens when a player leaves the bench.

Can you please read carefully? Did I say once that the suspensions were the problem? I said that Stern making fun of people for being angry was a problem. That's just a bone head thing to do when you're the chief ambassador of a sport. And, look, the fact that so many people were so pissed about the suspensions is a problem for the league regardless of whether you think it was the right thing to do. Google around. It's easily 90% against the suspensions, 10% for in terms of the sports media. By all accounts it was a wildly unpopular move. That's what matters, the fan reaction.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 12:06 PM

freddie, as the libby commutation reminds us, what matters is the integrity of decision-making in the sport. Sterm made the precise same decision in precisely the same circumstances (except the knicks were ahead 3-2) ten years ago. the rule is a bright line rule and it's been emphasized over and over. every team in the nba is fully aware of the rules.

what you want is for stern to have ignored all that because the drama would have been better.

nor did stern make fun of people being angry: that's simply a projection on your part (the notion that "so many people" were "so pissed off" is equally fallacious, btw: just because commenters on web sites were pissed off doesn't mean that millions of basketball fans gave it more than a minute's passing thought)

but i digress: the discussion here is relegation, not david stern. al/some call me tim, my belief is that even if you could somehow work out the money (which i don't think you can, but let's say you could), it's imply not ingrained in the american sports fan (and even more relevant, team owner) psyche that a team could be "relegated."

it is certainly true that for a bunch of wealthy capitalists, sports team owners are shockingly afraid of a real market system....

Posted by howard | July 4, 2007 12:13 PM

it's imply not ingrained in the american sports fan (and even more relevant, team owner) psyche that a team could be "relegated."

1. As you note above as regards the Stoudemire/Diaw suspension, there is no reason to care about what fans think.

2. The lower-level teams are already consigned, in the minds of most fans, to a mythical second division. The only reason to do this would be to increase local fan enthusiasm (and the gate). I'm hard pressed to believe that owners of relegated teams would take a position in opposition to increased local fan enthusiasm. Their teams would get more wins and have more meaningful games. And they could play their way out of the lower divisions.

3. The Knicks would be in the second division (and possibly the third, if there were three divisions). Surely that's reason enough to explore the idea.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 12:23 PM

howard: That's because, being wealthy capitalists, they long ago realized a monopolistic system without signifigant financial competition is to their benefit, at least in the short run. Why advocate for reform when the current system's still turning you a personal profit?

Also, why the fuck is ESPN showing a *major league eating* competition?

Posted by Tim P. | July 4, 2007 12:25 PM

somecallmetim, don't get me wrong: i'd be all for a relegation system in the nba.

but the point about what the fans think isn't quite on point: you don't take a poll on league behavior rules in the middle of a playoff. that's different from whether fans would actually show up and attend the games of their relegated teams at the same rate they were showing up in the premier league (to stick with the epl analogy).

meanwhile, even if the fans went along conceptually, i don't see the owners going on (hence my parenthetical). in that context, Tim P makes a worthy point, to which i'll add that the primary reasons most team owners have purchased their club have to do with ego, high-level visibility, and fantasy fulfillment. not being in the premier league undercuts all of that....

PS. Tim P, while we're on the subject, why does ESPN classic show so much poker-playing and so few actual classic games these days?

Posted by howard | July 4, 2007 12:32 PM

1. As you note above as regards the Stoudemire/Diaw suspension, there is no reason to care about what fans think.

Incredibly, collassaly, unbelievably wrong. So wrong it hurts. So, so wrong.

Look, there is no such thing as intrinsic value in sports. The only value is the ability to generate money through entertaining fans. That's it. "Integrity" in sports is an utter fallacy. It's all just reification. It's made up.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 12:36 PM

Freddie, I was needling howard.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 12:47 PM

somecallmetim, poor freddie is a bet of an obsessive on this (so he, unlike i, missed your needling tone!), and really, it's so much less interesting than a discussion of relegation, but still, let's make one final comment:

"integrity" in sports is not an utter fallacy; it's part of what entertains the fans. you don't think baseball is paying a price for steroids? you don't think basketball is paying a price for, what shall we call it, unequal reffing (i know a good number of people whose disgust at the famous laker-sacramento game 6 reffing was sufficient to reduce their interest in the game, and i'm one of them)? you don't think italian soccer, with its game-fixing scandal, is paying a price?

Posted by howard | July 4, 2007 12:55 PM

Relegation isn't going to happen. Going from a notional to an actual lower tier makes a big difference to fans, and part of the NBA's marketing is that "on any given night, any team can beat another," yadda yadda, all the teams are great, yadda yadda. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because the way to fix the NBA is...

...to make the game 4-on-4.

Posted by ogged | July 4, 2007 1:24 PM

Going back to Freddie's original point, I think he's right: whether officiating or some pipe dream like a system of relegation, it falls back on Stern being an effective commissioner by doing what's right for the league.

"What's right for the league" breaks down into a tension between what financially benefits the owners and what sustains the interest, passions and loyalty of the fans. I think a lot of NBA fans believe that Stern is more concerned with the former, while the latter is more important for the long-term prosperity of the league. You may disagree, but that's how I read Freddie's comment about Stern.

BTW, the notion of Stern and the league impartially executing black-letter rules is overblown - he's a sports league commissioner, not a prosecutor or a judge. His job is to manage the NBA with an eye towards achieving the best possible outcomes for the league in the long term. Freddie's point is that doing things like ridiculing die-hard fans is inconsistent with his job, and I think it's a fair point.

Posted by un plaza | July 4, 2007 1:33 PM

The reason relegation can work in a country like England is it is real easy to get your travel costs down if you are in a lower division and the team is making less money, drive. That wouldn't work when a team would still need to get from one coast to another in a relatively short period of time in the US.

Posted by nathaniel | July 4, 2007 1:39 PM

There is no reason that an NBA relegation system has to work the same as Euro football. Suppose the NBA divided into four 8-team divisions based on past record, but all four divisions still play for the same championship. However, the better divisions could get more teams in the playoffs. In addition, the playoffs could have a tiered structure where the division N+1 playoff teams play an elimination tournament so that a subset advance to the division N playoff.

For example, Division 1 could have 5 teams qualify for the playoffs, Division 2 would have 4 playoff qualifiers, Division 3 would 3 playoff qualifiers and division 4 would have 2 qualifiers. The division 4 playoff would yield one team advancing to the division 3 playoff. The division 3 playoff with 4 teams could have two winners advancing to the division 2 playoff. The division 2 playoffs with 6 teams could have 3 winners advance to the division 1 playoff with 8 teams (5 from div 1 and 3 advancing from div 2)

Of course, at the end of the season, the bottom two teams in each division would be relegated to the next lower division while the top two would move up one division.

The schedule could be biased so that each team plays the 24 out-of-division teams twice and each in-division 4-5 times. This would not be quite the same as Euro relegation, but it would give each time something to play for and would still give each team a good incentive to avoid relegation.

Posted by Roy | July 4, 2007 1:43 PM

I think baseball is the sport that would really benefit from relegation. You'd just have to rejigger the minor league system to create more independent franchises, but it would be really valuable to motivate the 60% of the teams who, by midway through the season, have no shot at the playoffs.

Posted by right | July 4, 2007 1:58 PM

Going from a notional to an actual lower tier makes a big difference to fans,

I don't know that such is true. I think fans are interested in seeing (a) pro-level basketball, and (b) competitive games. (a) remains true with divisional basketball, and (b) becomes more likely to occur. And you could still play a third of your games against the other division (in conference/out of conference now). Top two (or three or four) teams in the lower division could have the last two (or three or four) playoff spots. Those two (etc.) could be the teams that move into the top division next year. For the lower division fans, it would offer an opportunity to see how they stack up against the better competition.

You'd have to work out the money deal, but, increasingly, I like this idea.

Also...Knicks, 2nd division. Mmmm, tasty.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 2:57 PM

Matt, my eyes lit up at the thought of this.

Nice to see somebody actually make mention of promotion/relegation without guffawing as if it were something wimpy and European.

If it weren't for the league protecting the financial interests of the owners and maintaining the viability of their investments in their franchises, I imagine such a system that doesn't seek to reward horrible teams and punish good ones would be in place.

Posted by Paul | July 4, 2007 3:07 PM

A guarantee of equal TV money?

But they already have that. What we would need to give to the owners of, say, the Grizzlies and the Clippers is something beyond what they've already got.

In thinking of it, maybe we CAN get them a lot of money - the expansion fees. I don't think an expansion by 6 teams, as Matthew suggests, would do it, but perhaps a larger expansion would do it, since it could potentially bring in a big enough chunk of change that would convince Donald Sterling that the possibility (likelihood) of being a 2nd divsion team is worth it.

Would people be interested in a three division NBA, with 20 teams per division? The third divsion is going to be populated with teams from the likes of Boise and Little Rock. Maybe Howard is right that it would be too great a leap for the fans, I dunno. But, look, if you tell the current 30 owners that they are going to be able to split the expansion fees of thirty new teams, and in return, 10 (at least) of the current 30 will be relegated, do they go for it? I have no idea. I think there is a lot to Howard's comment that a lot of NBA owners are in it for the ego, and are not going to wnt to potentially own a 2nd divsion team, no matter how much money they get out of expansion.

I still think the biggest problem is player development and allocation of talent. How does the draft work? Does Greg Oden go to a 3rd division team? I mean, let's say the Butte, Montana Farmhands are the worst team in the third division - do they get the first pick and thus Greg Oden? Yikes.

But do I think we could potentially get from here to a three division league, moneywise? Sure. Give the current teams a lot of money up front, as well as several years before relegation kicks in. Say, create a 10-team second division right away, expanding by 2 teams for each of the subsequent years. Split the expansion fees among the current 30 owners. At some point you start relegating the current NBA teams from the current NBA (first division) to the newly created second dvision. And same for the third division.

I mentioned Pul Shirley above, and interestingly, I was just listening yesterday on my subway rides to the Bill Simmons podcast with Shirley. And they were discussing that there is a lot of enthusiasm for basketball in smaller cities. I think it is possible that there could be an increase in fan enthusiasm, as the Boise team moves up to the second division from the third, or the Providence team looks to move from the second division to the first. The NBA is losing fan interest in the US, and for some reason they are focused on improving their image overseas, rather than right here. Its possible that bringing NBA basketball to smaller cities, even from a lower division, could increase popularity ofthe sport.

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 3:10 PM

OK, Al is totally of the Comintern Committee to Reform the NBA. We're not expanding by thirty teams. Just expand by two cities, and have two divisions of sixteen teams each.

Money we can sort out once we decide that's the only problem. Plus, on this account, you're willing to grant that Memphis would be protected from TV revenue loss. The only stumbling block is stigma, which I don't think is a big stumbling block. Maybe the second division teams each get two draft picks before a first division team gets one.

We're not going to sixty teams, though. Drink the radicalism in slowly, Al.

Its possible that bringing NBA basketball to smaller cities, even from a lower division, could increase popularity ofthe sport.

Why can't we just properly fund the NBDL, and agree that the NBDL can take eighteen year-olds?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 3:24 PM

It unfortunately seems to be difficult to combine the best aspects of American sports leagues (revenue sharing and postseason tournaments) with the best aspects of Euro sports leagues (relegation/promotion and season-long international cup tournaments). They just don't mesh well.

Also, in a reversal of stereotypes, European sports tend to have wacky libertarian-style player contracts and freewheeling arrangements in which top teams loan their developmental players to clubs in lower divisions. American sports, of course, have powerful unions that would frown upon such creative management practices.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 4, 2007 4:57 PM

Why can't we just properly fund the NBDL, and agree that the NBDL can take eighteen year-olds?

You want to keep the NBDL? Fine. Why can't we rename the NBDL as "NBA Third Division"? Expand a few more teams into a new league called "NBA Second Division" and drop the Milwaukees and Memphises and Atlantas into that league. Then add promotion/relegation. And voila.

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 7:46 PM

Just to drag it back off topic, if making fun of the fans is too strong a description of Stern's attitude toward people who disagreed with the Sun's suspensions, perhaps arrogant and contemptuous would fit better. This comes from someone who has no particular affection for either the Suns in particular or the NBA in general but who does consume a lot of sports media.

The sharp change in Stern's approach to his job over the last few years - from one of the sharpest minds in sports to a tinpot dictator - makes me wonder at least half seriously if he's had a small stroke or is suffering from some sort of creeping dementia.

And yes, relegation would be a great improvement. But the crony capitalists of the sports ownership class will never go for it.

Posted by son of libery | July 4, 2007 10:29 PM

It's a fascinating idea, and fun to think of scenarios, but realistically I don't see the team owners going for it. And in baseball it would be even more difficult to implement, because it would take a lot more than a "rejiggering" of the minor leagues. Every player in organized (i.e., non-independent) baseball is attached to a major league club. The whole system is based on players moving up through the system, not on teams performing independently.

Also note that things are pretty top-heavy in the Premiership. In its fifteen seasons of existence, only four different clubs have won its championship. Compare that with, say, baseball, which has seen a different champion in each of the last seven years.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 5, 2007 4:44 AM

Everyone here is WRONG!!! The first step to get the player contracts corrected! This is the bestest problem with the nba. 100% garantee money. Copy the NFL's contract's and you'll be fine. Second, change the draft lottery system. No matter what your record is, every team should have the same chance.

Finally, a coach cant get players to tank a season. Future contracts are at stake, jersey sales, shoe contracts. Star players will play hard or tank the season, base ONLY on their own devices.

Posted by jplogon | July 5, 2007 5:26 PM