Watercooler Talk: Relegation?

[oldtype]

please keep your hands off European soccer. The farce that is American pro sports is best left in America.

The current free-market model of European soccer is unsustainable due to the lack of competitiveness. The only reason it's lasted so long is because the clubs are such strong institutions, most fans are so committed that they simply can't give up even when they know that their teams have about as much chance as North Korea has of winning the World Cup.

I've supported a relatively unsuccessful Premier League team (Newcastle) for about a decade now, and watching Boston be terrible this year has really driven home the point to me about the difference between the two systems.

Even when the Celtics are bad, there is hope of improvement that keeps you going. Newcastle will never win the league within my lifetime unless we're bought out by a rich benefactor and possibly not even then.

[PhoSita]

I'll be surprised if a relegation style system ever gets implemented in American sports.  American sports fans just don't think about their sports leagues that way.

[Celtics18]

I'll be surprised if a relegation style system ever gets implemented in American sports.  American sports fans just don't think about their sports leagues that way.

In what way?  Do you mean that the majority of fans would stop following their team if they were relegated to the second division?

I mean, the majority of NBA franchises are in essence second division teams much of the time as it is right now.  Somehow, those teams manage to stay alive. 

[celticsfan8591]

TP Yoki,

I've made the same suggestion before and been met with the same dismissal.

The thing I would change about the idea as you have presented it, though, is that I wouldn't involve the D-League.  Rather, I would split the current NBA teams into a sixteen team first division and a fourteen team second division. 

Each year I would swap the bottom four first division teams and the top four second division teams.  I would keep a fourteen team lottery for the second division teams, but would have it equally weighted.

The first division playoffs would be comprised of eight teams.  That would leave a limbo of about four first division borderline playoff teams fighting simultaneously to make the playoffs and to avoid relegation, and about four teams fighting furiously for their first division lives. 

I think it would be a fun league with enough turnover that relegation wouldn't necessarily be a franchise death sentence, but, on the other hand, it would definitely be enough of a deterrent to "tanking" that every team would fight like heck each year to avoid getting sent there or to try to get out.

This is a pretty good idea.  It's similar in principle to giving all non-playoff teams the same odds, but there's less incentive to tank into the lottery because the punishment is an entire season in the lower division.  You also are getting a lottery pick in the next year's draft if you do that, so you don't know who will be in the draft and the pick is less desirable.  I also don't see fans jumping ship if their team is in the second division, it's not really any different than being a non-contender in the current league.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

TP Yoki,

I've made the same suggestion before and been met with the same dismissal.

The thing I would change about the idea as you have presented it, though, is that I wouldn't involve the D-League.  Rather, I would split the current NBA teams into a sixteen team first division and a fourteen team second division. 

Each year I would swap the bottom four first division teams and the top four second division teams.  I would keep a fourteen team lottery for the second division teams, but would have it equally weighted.

The first division playoffs would be comprised of eight teams.  That would leave a limbo of about four first division borderline playoff teams fighting simultaneously to make the playoffs and to avoid relegation, and about four teams fighting furiously for their first division lives. 

I think it would be a fun league with enough turnover that relegation wouldn't necessarily be a franchise death sentence, but, on the other hand, it would definitely be enough of a deterrent to "tanking" that every team would fight like heck each year to avoid getting sent there or to try to get out.

This is a pretty good idea.  It's similar in principle to giving all non-playoff teams the same odds, but there's less incentive to tank into the lottery because the punishment is an entire season in the lower division.  You also are getting a lottery pick in the next year's draft if you do that, so you don't know who will be in the draft and the pick is less desirable.  I also don't see fans jumping ship if their team is in the second division, it's not really any different than being a non-contender in the current league.

This is what I mean. Reward winners and demote losers. It really does make the league competitive if you look at it, because, of course, no one wants to get relegated. It also brings more responsibility for teams to not screw up in their decision making.

While I do understand now that financially, it might not make sense because big franchises getting down and small market teams moving up may not make that much money. But I think the NBA can find a way. If they can market the league globally, I'm pretty sure they can do something to make the system work, where everyone makes money.

And I agree, if the Kings, Knicks and Charlotte still have fanbases even though they suffered years of mediocrity, I think even after relegation, they'd still be fans. And as for TV, isnt it must watch TV to see the recently relegated Knicks try to work their way up in the NBA, or, watch them suffer more (if your not a Knicks fan)?

[Celtics18]

TP Yoki,

I've made the same suggestion before and been met with the same dismissal.

The thing I would change about the idea as you have presented it, though, is that I wouldn't involve the D-League.  Rather, I would split the current NBA teams into a sixteen team first division and a fourteen team second division. 

Each year I would swap the bottom four first division teams and the top four second division teams.  I would keep a fourteen team lottery for the second division teams, but would have it equally weighted.

The first division playoffs would be comprised of eight teams.  That would leave a limbo of about four first division borderline playoff teams fighting simultaneously to make the playoffs and to avoid relegation, and about four teams fighting furiously for their first division lives. 

I think it would be a fun league with enough turnover that relegation wouldn't necessarily be a franchise death sentence, but, on the other hand, it would definitely be enough of a deterrent to "tanking" that every team would fight like heck each year to avoid getting sent there or to try to get out.

This is a pretty good idea.  It's similar in principle to giving all non-playoff teams the same odds, but there's less incentive to tank into the lottery because the punishment is an entire season in the lower division.  You also are getting a lottery pick in the next year's draft if you do that, so you don't know who will be in the draft and the pick is less desirable.  I also don't see fans jumping ship if their team is in the second division, it's not really any different than being a non-contender in the current league.

This is what I mean. Reward winners and demote losers. It really does make the league competitive if you look at it, because, of course, no one wants to get relegated. It also brings more responsibility for teams to not screw up in their decision making.

While I do understand now that financially, it might not make sense because big franchises getting down and small market teams moving up may not make that much money. But I think the NBA can find a way. If they can market the league globally, I'm pretty sure they can do something to make the system work, where everyone makes money.

And I agree, if the Kings, Knicks and Charlotte still have fanbases even though they suffered years of mediocrity, I think even after relegation, they'd still be fans. And as for TV, isnt it must watch TV to see the recently relegated Knicks try to work their way up in the NBA, or, watch them suffer more (if your not a Knicks fan)?

As far as TV goes, the bottom dwelling (second division) teams don't play on national TV as it is.  The local stations would still carry those teams' games. 

I think it could work.  Unfortunately, it probably won't happen, though, because those in charge and the fan base have a hard time thinking outside the box.

We've already seen that Adam Silver's first grand plan for improvement is to talk about raising the minimum age again to further perpetrate the fraud of having our universities act as unpaid minor league systems for top young basketball talent. 

[Ogaju]

I do not think there is any avid supporter of European Soccer that has not given thought to the idea of a relegation system in American pro sports. This will never happen because the American Leagues are based on a monopoly based partnership that is a win win for everyone regardless of team performance. That is why a DTS made millions for years though he did not field competitive teams.

When you have true competition in the NBA for example with city based teams then you will have fans follow their teams even to the second division. You will also need different competitions. The soccer teams have league play and playoff type competition that get played simultaneously. The playoff type competition is open to all teams across all divisions. The league play (what we call the regular season) is actually a more prestigious title (as it should be) than the playoffs. What we have done here is render the regular season secondary to the playoff season. In England the regular season is the big title and the playoff type competition is the secondary competition. In England Indiana would have received a big trophy for winning the regular season and whoever wins the playoffs gets a lesser trophy. I get it because it takes a different type of preparation and planning to win a regular season than it takes to win a playoff. Try convincing anyone of that here.

Bottom line is a lot of dynamic has to be changed before you can implement a relegation system.

Too much of American Sport is based on entertainment. Soccer is more passion driven.

[Celtics18]

I do not think there is any avid supporter of European Soccer that has not given thought to the idea of a relegation system in American pro sports. This will never happen because the American Leagues are based on a monopoly based partnership that is a win win for everyone regardless of team performance. That is why a DTS made millions for years though he did not field competitive teams.

When you have true competition in the NBA for example with city based teams then you will have fans follow their teams even to the second division. You will also need different competitions. The soccer teams have league play and playoff type competition that get played simultaneously. The playoff type competition is open to all teams across all divisions. The league play (what we call the regular season) is actually a more prestigious title (as it should be) than the playoffs. What we have done here is render the regular season secondary to the playoff season. In England the regular season is the big title and the playoff type competition is the secondary competition. In England Indiana would have received a big trophy for winning the regular season and whoever wins the playoffs gets a lesser trophy. I get it because it takes a different type of preparation and planning to win a regular season than it takes to win a playoff. Try convincing anyone of that here.

Bottom line is a lot of dynamic has to be changed before you can implement a relegation system.

Too much of American Sport is based on entertainment. Soccer is more passion driven.

We'll probably never be able to re-create the passion that exists for European club soccer.  That's not what these proposals are even going for. 

What they are going for is trying to come up with creative solutions that take away the incentives and encouragements for teams to not try to compete every year. 

I think a tiered system complete with promotion and relegation could be a good idea towards trying to accomplish those goals. 

Again, these ideas (I can't speak for Yoki, but at least not mine) aren't trying to turn the NBA into European soccer.  However, I don't see anything wrong with borrowing some ideas and incorporating them to try to make our league better. 

[Ogaju]

there has to be a less intrusive way to stop tanking than imposing a relegation system. As you can see a relegation system is so foreign to most non soccer fans you would have to get over psychological barriers as well as devising a new business model.

[PhoSita]

I'll be surprised if a relegation style system ever gets implemented in American sports.  American sports fans just don't think about their sports leagues that way.

In what way?  Do you mean that the majority of fans would stop following their team if they were relegated to the second division?

I mean, the majority of NBA franchises are in essence second division teams much of the time as it is right now.  Somehow, those teams manage to stay alive.

Yeah, I think that for fans it matters that there's at least the slightest hope of their team making the playoffs and going far.  Especially in the NFL, the NHL, and to a lesser extent the MLB.  Obviously one year flukes and deep runs by lower seeds happens less often in the NBA, but it happens occasionally.

As a fan you need to have a certain mindset to accept the relegation concept and still look at your team as a legitimate professional team even though they aren't in the highest division.  I don't think American fans have that mindset.

[freshinthehouse]

The current free-market model of European soccer is unsustainable due to the lack of competitiveness. The only reason it's lasted so long is because the clubs are such strong institutions, most fans are so committed that they simply can't give up even when they know that their teams have about as much chance as North Korea has of winning the World Cup.

I've supported a relatively unsuccessful Premier League team (Newcastle) for about a decade now, and watching Boston be terrible this year has really driven home the point to me about the difference between the two systems.

Even when the Celtics are bad, there is hope of improvement that keeps you going. Newcastle will never win the league within my lifetime unless we're bought out by a rich benefactor and possibly not even then.

This.  And what I think a lot of people that are pro-relegation are forgetting is that in these Euro markets, soccer is king.  Even when the team is consistently awful, that soccer team is still the biggest game in town.  In the NBA, most teams share a city with two to three other pro sport franchises that are often bigger and more powerful than the NBA franchise.  There are other options for sports fans.  When teams have prolonged losing streaks, fans look to other sports where the local team is more competitive.  Sterling's Clippers are an exception to that rule because they are in a giant market that loves basketball.  The vast majority of the league isn't so lucky.

[Celtics18]

Guys, we aren't talking about creating the disparity in wealth, success, and marketability that exists between the likes of Manchester United and Everton on the one hand and Bournemouth and Oxford on the other.

England has like, I don't know, hundreds of professional and semi-professional Soccer Clubs.  Those clubs, from the biggest to the smallest, are ingrained in their culture.  The tiny, little home town clubs probably aren't going away.  The supporters will be there from generation to generation.  On the other hand, most of those clubs won't even dream of playing in the premier league some day.  They don't have to.  They realize that their competition is other clubs that play on the same scale as them. 

I agree with the argument that this is culturally ingrained in a totally different way than our professional leagues (some of our college and high school allegiances, maybe, come close to that).

What we are talking about as a proposal for the NBA is completely different.  Charlotte, Milwaukee, Sacramento, and Utah will still be gigantic, multi-billion dollar operations, even when they are spending a year or two or three . . . in the second division.  We aren't talking Bourne Town Football Club, here. 

[oldtype]

I think a better solution would be the "split" system that was implemented in Scottish football for a few seasons. Basically, you go through about 3/4th of the season and then split the teams into two tiers that only play each other, the 1st tier competing for the championship and the 2nd competing to avoid relegation.

You could adopt this to the NBA (sans relegation, of course) as follows:

1. split the league 20-10 64 games into the season. (Lets call these League A and League B
2. League A teams would play each other League A team in their conference twice to jockey for playoff seeding
3. League B teams get their records reset and play each other League B team twice with the winner of League B getting the #1 draft pick, and the remainder of the picks being assigned according to finishing position.

The numbers may need a bit of tweaking but I think it would be a lot of fun. You'd create more of the big team v. big team national TV matchups while giving the bad teams something to play for. You also solve the problem of teams making the playoffs by beating up crap teams like the 76rs late in the season.

Would eliminate tanking and make those last few throwaway games of the regular season more interesting.

[loco_91]

Pretty radical. It could work, but here's a simpler solution that I posted a few days ago: http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/5/4/5679912/pick-swap-a-tanking-solution

[Celtics18]

I think a better solution would be the "split" system that was implemented in Scottish football for a few seasons. Basically, you go through about 3/4th of the season and then split the teams into two tiers that only play each other, the 1st tier competing for the championship and the 2nd competing to avoid relegation.

You could adopt this to the NBA (sans relegation, of course) as follows:

1. split the league 20-10 64 games into the season. (Lets call these League A and League B
2. League A teams would play each other League A team in their conference twice to jockey for playoff seeding
3. League B teams get their records reset and play each other League B team twice with the winner of League B getting the #1 draft pick, and the remainder of the picks being assigned according to finishing position.

The numbers may need a bit of tweaking but I think it would be a lot of fun. You'd create more of the big team v. big team national TV matchups while giving the bad teams something to play for. You also solve the problem of teams making the playoffs by beating up crap teams like the 76rs late in the season.

Would eliminate tanking and make those last few throwaway games of the regular season more interesting.

This one is interesting.  I hope that when you say "the remainder assigned according to finishing position" that you mean a better finish gets a better draft pick among the bottom ten.

That's a cool idea.