[Malik-UniversalParticipant]

Adam silver wants to raise the age limit to 20 which im in favor of… and wants to have the playoff format be strictly the best 16 records be included regardless of conference… which im also in favor of… with that said.. what u guys think of his ideas… im not sure if someone else has already had this as a forum topic but im very interested to see what u guys think

 

 

[imAboutDatActionParticipant]

 i dont like the age limit. if you’re ready, you should be able to declare for the draft and support your family.

if you’re not ready and your stock is at an all time high, you still should be able to leave. That falls on the NBA scouts/GM’s to do your research. you dont have to draft them.

as for the playoff format, it would make great basketball. im all for it.

[220Participant]

I’m certainly in agreement with you. I do wonder if they went with the best 16 teams if they’d need to make additional changes to work things out for the TV deal and fans sake. If a lot more games are on the West Coast there would be a lot of games that wouldn’t likely air earlier than 10pm Eastern Standard Time. This could hurt TV deals not having the balance of when games air.

Adam Silver can want these things to happen, but he has to get the owners and the players association on board. I think the players would be ok with the top 16 teams making the playoffs, but not necessarily the increased age limit. Owners (at least the East coast owners) may not want the top 16 teams making the playoffs while I’d imagine all the owners would be perfectly happy overall with an increased age limit.

 

[220Participant]

I’m certainly in agreement with you. I do wonder if they went with the best 16 teams if they’d need to make additional changes to work things out for the TV deal and fans sake. If a lot more games are on the West Coast there would be a lot of games that wouldn’t likely air earlier than 10pm Eastern Standard Time. This could hurt TV deals not having the balance of when games air.

Adam Silver can want these things to happen, but he has to get the owners and the players association on board. I think the players would be ok with the top 16 teams making the playoffs, but not necessarily the increased age limit. Owners (at least the East coast owners) may not want the top 16 teams making the playoffs while I’d imagine all the owners would be perfectly happy overall with an increased age limit.

 

[imAboutDatActionParticipant]

 i dont like the age limit. if you’re ready, you should be able to declare for the draft and support your family.

if you’re not ready and your stock is at an all time high, you still should be able to leave. That falls on the NBA scouts/GM’s to do your research. you dont have to draft them.

as for the playoff format, it would make great basketball. im all for it.

[SwatLakeCityParticipant]

 I’m in favor of his second want, that being have the best 16 teams faces off in the playoffs regardless of conference. I’m tired of seeing playoff series between teams that have no business being in the playoffs, but are because they belong to a weak conference. 

As for changing the age limit to 20, no I’m not in favor of that. In this country we allow people to become adults when they are 18. That means they are free to make their own choices and also live with the consequences that come with them. The age limit on the NBA needs to go back to being 18 years old. This may mean that we have prospects come into the NBA before they are ready, but I’m willing to live with that. We have to give everybody the power to choose and live with the consequences that come with it. You can’t prolong someone’s choice by raising the age limit, that only makes it all the more desirable, and possibly all the more stupider depending on the prospect. Raising the age limit makes the college system weaker. College teams are built for 3 or more year players. Players that don’t want to be there for 3 or more years but are because of a raised age limit, are really not there at all. Also not everyone is meant for college, and nothing is wrong with that. NOTHING. Raising the age limit forces future prospects to go to college when they were probably not meant for it in the first place. Now because of their forced choice, more and more prospects are choosing to play internationally or in the D-league before they go to the NBA. But doing that also makes one system weaker. The place that they end up going to. That’s right no matter if the age limit is raised or lowered, one system (NBA, College, International or D-league) is made weaker. Lets give that weakness to the system that can handle and knows what to do with it, the NBA.

 

[3 No Biases 3Participant]

I agree… I actually hate both ideas.

Forcing kids who are ready to wait 2 years is only gonna hurt the NCAA and the players.  They need to allow high schoolers to come out, they already make a joke out of the NCAA and are more likely to bring sanctions on the school.  GM’s just need to do their homework when drafting a young player and quit blaming it on the age rule, teams aren’t obligated to draft high schoolers if they don’t want to.

As far as the playoffs,…Every sport has conferences, it leads to better rivalries and followings.  Yeah, this year is lopsided based on records but how many other years have people complained about this?  Not many. Usually the records are pretty evened out on both sides.   The West seemingly has had more star power amongst their playoff teams but thats just part of it.  I just can’t see it working.  Are they just gonna blow up the conferences??  Would Celtics and Lakers meet in the first round??  As much as I would like to watch the 16 most deserving teams battle it out, I think it would hurt the league by doing something this drastic. 

[3 No Biases 3Participant]

I agree… I actually hate both ideas.

Forcing kids who are ready to wait 2 years is only gonna hurt the NCAA and the players.  They need to allow high schoolers to come out, they already make a joke out of the NCAA and are more likely to bring sanctions on the school.  GM’s just need to do their homework when drafting a young player and quit blaming it on the age rule, teams aren’t obligated to draft high schoolers if they don’t want to.

As far as the playoffs,…Every sport has conferences, it leads to better rivalries and followings.  Yeah, this year is lopsided based on records but how many other years have people complained about this?  Not many. Usually the records are pretty evened out on both sides.   The West seemingly has had more star power amongst their playoff teams but thats just part of it.  I just can’t see it working.  Are they just gonna blow up the conferences??  Would Celtics and Lakers meet in the first round??  As much as I would like to watch the 16 most deserving teams battle it out, I think it would hurt the league by doing something this drastic. 

[SwatLakeCityParticipant]

 I’m in favor of his second want, that being have the best 16 teams faces off in the playoffs regardless of conference. I’m tired of seeing playoff series between teams that have no business being in the playoffs, but are because they belong to a weak conference. 

As for changing the age limit to 20, no I’m not in favor of that. In this country we allow people to become adults when they are 18. That means they are free to make their own choices and also live with the consequences that come with them. The age limit on the NBA needs to go back to being 18 years old. This may mean that we have prospects come into the NBA before they are ready, but I’m willing to live with that. We have to give everybody the power to choose and live with the consequences that come with it. You can’t prolong someone’s choice by raising the age limit, that only makes it all the more desirable, and possibly all the more stupider depending on the prospect. Raising the age limit makes the college system weaker. College teams are built for 3 or more year players. Players that don’t want to be there for 3 or more years but are because of a raised age limit, are really not there at all. Also not everyone is meant for college, and nothing is wrong with that. NOTHING. Raising the age limit forces future prospects to go to college when they were probably not meant for it in the first place. Now because of their forced choice, more and more prospects are choosing to play internationally or in the D-league before they go to the NBA. But doing that also makes one system weaker. The place that they end up going to. That’s right no matter if the age limit is raised or lowered, one system (NBA, College, International or D-league) is made weaker. Lets give that weakness to the system that can handle and knows what to do with it, the NBA.

 

[HaleParticipant]

College basketball is fun because of the parity it has. Making the age limit 20 instead of 19 takes away from that big time. It’s going to destroy the schools who typically get by because they recruit 3 stars and 4 stars who stay 3-4 years. Keeping the super freshman in college another year is just going to make UK, Duke, UNC, Zona and KU way better than everyone else.

[HaleParticipant]

College basketball is fun because of the parity it has. Making the age limit 20 instead of 19 takes away from that big time. It’s going to destroy the schools who typically get by because they recruit 3 stars and 4 stars who stay 3-4 years. Keeping the super freshman in college another year is just going to make UK, Duke, UNC, Zona and KU way better than everyone else.

[OrserParticipant]

I’m pretty neutral on the age limit thing, since I think both sides have good arguments. My main concern is that if they did change the age limit, the year that the limit changed could have a terrible draft, which would be unfair to lottery teams that year. From the ESPN report, it sounds like the earliest that the NBA would institute the new limit is the 2016 draft, so hopefully teams will at least have fair warning.

In theory I like the idea of the best 16 teams getting into the playoffs, but I’m not sure how it would work:

 -Would teams just be seeded 1-16 in order of record and regardless of conference? It would be a shame in some ways to see some of the great conference rivalries lessened, and travel budgets would go up. Also, teams in the East and West have very different schedules, which could cause problems in the future; obviously that isn’t the case this season, but in the future we could see (e.g.) a team with a 42-40 record in a weaker conference getting into the playoffs over a team with 41-41 record in a stronger conference. On the other hand, this seems like the simplest way of ensuring that the best teams get in.

  -Would conferences remain in place, with some teams switching conferences? How would this work? In this season, for example, if you sent Phoenix out East in place of the eighth-seeded Hawks, that wouldn’t be fair to: a)the Pacers, who as a 1 seed should face the easiest team in the conference, and b)other low-seeded West teams like the Mavericks and Grizzlies, who would probably rather play Indiana than the Spurs or Thunder. You could make Phoenix the 3rd-5th seed (Phoenix has the same record as Chicago and Toronto), but this seems even more unfair to teams like the Mavs and Grizzlies.

[OrserParticipant]

I’m pretty neutral on the age limit thing, since I think both sides have good arguments. My main concern is that if they did change the age limit, the year that the limit changed could have a terrible draft, which would be unfair to lottery teams that year. From the ESPN report, it sounds like the earliest that the NBA would institute the new limit is the 2016 draft, so hopefully teams will at least have fair warning.

In theory I like the idea of the best 16 teams getting into the playoffs, but I’m not sure how it would work:

 -Would teams just be seeded 1-16 in order of record and regardless of conference? It would be a shame in some ways to see some of the great conference rivalries lessened, and travel budgets would go up. Also, teams in the East and West have very different schedules, which could cause problems in the future; obviously that isn’t the case this season, but in the future we could see (e.g.) a team with a 42-40 record in a weaker conference getting into the playoffs over a team with 41-41 record in a stronger conference. On the other hand, this seems like the simplest way of ensuring that the best teams get in.

  -Would conferences remain in place, with some teams switching conferences? How would this work? In this season, for example, if you sent Phoenix out East in place of the eighth-seeded Hawks, that wouldn’t be fair to: a)the Pacers, who as a 1 seed should face the easiest team in the conference, and b)other low-seeded West teams like the Mavericks and Grizzlies, who would probably rather play Indiana than the Spurs or Thunder. You could make Phoenix the 3rd-5th seed (Phoenix has the same record as Chicago and Toronto), but this seems even more unfair to teams like the Mavs and Grizzlies.

[JordanC20Participant]

 If it ain’t broke don’t fix it…I think it is stupid raising the limit to 20 I mean what is the difference…also I think Silver is looking to do way too much way too early.

[Lotto StudParticipant]

I hope he’s not being influenced by Roger Goodell to “revolutionize” basketball.

[Lotto StudParticipant]

I hope he’s not being influenced by Roger Goodell to “revolutionize” basketball.

[JordanC20Participant]

 If it ain’t broke don’t fix it…I think it is stupid raising the limit to 20 I mean what is the difference…also I think Silver is looking to do way too much way too early.

[HitsterParticipant]

 I’d prefer the draft age to stay as it is or go back to being 18 years old. If teams with their vast scouting resources cannot figure out who will be a legit NBA player then who can. College basketball wasn’t affected when teams took players out of HS before.

As a Phoenix fan I certainly would have no issue with the play offs being the best 16 teams. This year only two teams from the West would have made the play offs if they had been in the East so it wasn’t like 4 teams or so missing out. I’d be happy to do it as top 7 from each Conference go into Play Offs then the next two best records or you don’t have Conference leagues as such and do the 6 divisional champions and do the play offs as the top 16 teams in a 30 team Conference.

My other thing would be if the East get the rub of getting into the play offs with weaker records, why not do draft order along the same lines – worse team gets number 1 chance in lottery, then worse team in other conference, 2nd worse team behind worse team etc.

The draft lottery order would for this year be:-

Bucks – same spot as in actual draft lottery order

Utah – up 2 spots

Philly – down 1 spot 

Lakers – up 2 spots

Magic – down 2 spots

Kings – up 1 spot

Boston – down 2 spots

New Orleans to Philly – up 2 spots

Detroit – down 1 spot

Denver – up 1 spot

Cleveland – down 2 spots

T-Wolves – up 1 spot

Knicks to Orlando via Denver – down 1 spot

Phoenix – same

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HitsterParticipant]

 I’d prefer the draft age to stay as it is or go back to being 18 years old. If teams with their vast scouting resources cannot figure out who will be a legit NBA player then who can. College basketball wasn’t affected when teams took players out of HS before.

As a Phoenix fan I certainly would have no issue with the play offs being the best 16 teams. This year only two teams from the West would have made the play offs if they had been in the East so it wasn’t like 4 teams or so missing out. I’d be happy to do it as top 7 from each Conference go into Play Offs then the next two best records or you don’t have Conference leagues as such and do the 6 divisional champions and do the play offs as the top 16 teams in a 30 team Conference.

My other thing would be if the East get the rub of getting into the play offs with weaker records, why not do draft order along the same lines – worse team gets number 1 chance in lottery, then worse team in other conference, 2nd worse team behind worse team etc.

The draft lottery order would for this year be:-

Bucks – same spot as in actual draft lottery order

Utah – up 2 spots

Philly – down 1 spot 

Lakers – up 2 spots

Magic – down 2 spots

Kings – up 1 spot

Boston – down 2 spots

New Orleans to Philly – up 2 spots

Detroit – down 1 spot

Denver – up 1 spot

Cleveland – down 2 spots

T-Wolves – up 1 spot

Knicks to Orlando via Denver – down 1 spot

Phoenix – same

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SwatLakeCityParticipant]

 If the NBA abolished the conferences and went strictly with the 16 best teams going to the playoffs, this would be seeding order for this year:

1. Spurs
2. Thunder
3. Clippers
4. Pacers
5. Heat
6. Rockets
7. Blazers (tie between 5-7)
8. Warriors
9. Grizzlies
10. Mavs
11. Raptors
12. Bulls
13. Suns (tie between 11-13)
14. Wizards
15. Nets
16. Bobcats

Well, this is interesting. Maybe the conferences aren’t such a bad idea after all. It turns out that if we abolished the conferences and sent the best 16 teams to the playoffs, we would only have one extra team make it (Suns) which then bumps only one team from the east (Hawks). I think we can live with 1 team in the playoffs that shouldn’t be there. This is about how it is every year. The West is always tight, and much more competitive than the East. This year it is only more slightly pronounced because a lot of eastern conference teams decided to tank. But in the end, there is only one team that would be bumped out and sent to the lottery. A lot less then I thought. (I was thinking 4 or 5 eastern conference teams would be bumped out)

Okay then, that has certainly convinced me. I now only see a problem with the potential age limit, and the tanking issue. I hate the wheel idea. To me the wheel sounds like teams would get into a system and groove and tank the year that they select number 1, and it ruins the suspence of the lottery which I actually like. I don’t like the idea of tanking one bit, so even one year of tanking is not good enough for me, its no tanking ever or nothing.

I like the lottery how it is, I just think they need to tweak it just a hair. Instead of having the winners of the lottery selecting in the top 3, you should do a lottery for all 14 picks. This would create a lot more suspence leading up to the lottery which would discourage teams from tanking because they still might end up with the 14th pick even if they originally had the worst record. I also liked the "exciting as hell tournament" idea that Bill Simmons published a couple of years back. If I remember right this was the idea: top 7 teams from each conference make it to the playoffs and get the added advantage of rest while the other 16 teams battle it out for the last 2 seeds. 8 from each conference, winner gets the 8th seed in the respective conference. Then once the playoff order is decided, the lottery order would be decided by 1st team out of the exciting as hell tournament gets the first pick, 2nd team out, 2nd pick and so on until we have the last team out getting the 14th pick. In this idea the season would have to be shortened from 82 games to I think 55-56, which would be excellent. The season is way too long as it is, very grueling and tiring, players are gassed by the time the playoffs come around. Which is why smart teams like the Spurs are resting their star players for meaningless games. This shouldn’t be happening, and wouldn’t with only 55-56 games instead of 82.

 

 

[SwatLakeCityParticipant]

 If the NBA abolished the conferences and went strictly with the 16 best teams going to the playoffs, this would be seeding order for this year:

1. Spurs
2. Thunder
3. Clippers
4. Pacers
5. Heat
6. Rockets
7. Blazers (tie between 5-7)
8. Warriors
9. Grizzlies
10. Mavs
11. Raptors
12. Bulls
13. Suns (tie between 11-13)
14. Wizards
15. Nets
16. Bobcats

Well, this is interesting. Maybe the conferences aren’t such a bad idea after all. It turns out that if we abolished the conferences and sent the best 16 teams to the playoffs, we would only have one extra team make it (Suns) which then bumps only one team from the east (Hawks). I think we can live with 1 team in the playoffs that shouldn’t be there. This is about how it is every year. The West is always tight, and much more competitive than the East. This year it is only more slightly pronounced because a lot of eastern conference teams decided to tank. But in the end, there is only one team that would be bumped out and sent to the lottery. A lot less then I thought. (I was thinking 4 or 5 eastern conference teams would be bumped out)

Okay then, that has certainly convinced me. I now only see a problem with the potential age limit, and the tanking issue. I hate the wheel idea. To me the wheel sounds like teams would get into a system and groove and tank the year that they select number 1, and it ruins the suspence of the lottery which I actually like. I don’t like the idea of tanking one bit, so even one year of tanking is not good enough for me, its no tanking ever or nothing.

I like the lottery how it is, I just think they need to tweak it just a hair. Instead of having the winners of the lottery selecting in the top 3, you should do a lottery for all 14 picks. This would create a lot more suspence leading up to the lottery which would discourage teams from tanking because they still might end up with the 14th pick even if they originally had the worst record. I also liked the "exciting as hell tournament" idea that Bill Simmons published a couple of years back. If I remember right this was the idea: top 7 teams from each conference make it to the playoffs and get the added advantage of rest while the other 16 teams battle it out for the last 2 seeds. 8 from each conference, winner gets the 8th seed in the respective conference. Then once the playoff order is decided, the lottery order would be decided by 1st team out of the exciting as hell tournament gets the first pick, 2nd team out, 2nd pick and so on until we have the last team out getting the 14th pick. In this idea the season would have to be shortened from 82 games to I think 55-56, which would be excellent. The season is way too long as it is, very grueling and tiring, players are gassed by the time the playoffs come around. Which is why smart teams like the Spurs are resting their star players for meaningless games. This shouldn’t be happening, and wouldn’t with only 55-56 games instead of 82.

 

 

[Author]

Posts