Sources: Expect the NBA back playing by mid/late June with 10 reg season games before POs

Dwight Howard: "DANNNNG LOOK AT THAT BOOTY!!!!"

Lebron: "WHAT? There's no FANS."

DWIGHT: "YEA, that Trainer named Marcus is hot!

 

Keeps getting a later date, don’t be surprised if all starts in august / september, if at all.

 

Not really. The date has consistently remained in July

 

What people keep forgetting is the importance of gate revenue next season. That's a huge part of the calculus for both owners and players.

Sure, there's the $900 million in playoff TV revenue this season. Salvaging that is a big deal. But they also want to buy as much time as possible to figure out some way to get fans in next year and for vaccine developers to do their trials. O'Connor reported that 2020-21 might not even start until January:

https://rocketswire.usatoday.com/20...y-believe-next-season-could-start-in-january/

So there's no reason to make a huge deal out of whether you start July 10, July 17, July 24, etc. From a rust and competition standpoint, it's already going to be an extreme layoff, no matter what. And in terms of future timeline implications, even if you could get the offseason started earlier, there's not a real reason to rush closer to 2020-21 if you might not have fans for your start date.

IMO, besides fulfilling TV contracts and crowning a champion, the 2020 playoffs are also about tiding us over and buying time. So if they'd be more comfortable taking a couple more weeks to develop all the logistics, there's not much downside. That's how I suspect they're looking at it.

 

Why not just start the playoffs if you are in July have a few warm up games and start the playoffs.

 

TV revenue has a 70 game requirement.

 

Spoiler

Hang on, because here comes the hard part.

The NBA, its 30 individual teams and its 500 or so players are more or less agreed on playing out the remainder of the season this summer, and, according to our Sam Amick and Shams Charania, will do it in a “bubble” environment at the Disney property outside Orlando.

And now the fighting among the 30 teams begins.

The league’s owners must decide how many teams will take part in The Great Disney Plus Bubble, Presented By Frozen II, what type of brief or nonexistent finish to the regular season they will play, how many of those teams will then make the playoffs, and what that playoff tournament might entail. There is no plausible way to satisfy all 30 of them.

While theoretically the league is still looking at proposals and will decide nothing at Friday’s Board of Governors meeting, history tells us that things may well be further along than we’ve been told. BOG meetings typically are where “proposals” are put before owners after the league already knows it has enough votes to get them approved.

In this case, however, getting a bloc of teams to agree on anything could be tough. Take, for instance, the increasingly discussed idea of having 20 teams return and having those toward the bottom of the standings participate in some kind of play-in tournament.

It’s pretty easy to see how this could get nasty. There are four teams hugely interested in a 20-team tournament (the otherwise eliminated Spurs, Kings, Pelicans and Blazers), three teams massively opposed to a play-in (Memphis, Orlando and Brooklyn), one team completely cool with a play-in as long as only the teams directly behind it have to participate (Dallas) and one team hugely insulted by being team 21 in a 20-team tournament (it rhymes with Kleenex).

You can see similar blocs forming against a lot of other proposals. A World-Cup style “group stage” idea is likely to face massive opposition from Milwaukee and the two L.A. teams, and probably multiple other East teams. Meanwhile, a mixed playoff that seeded teams 1 through 16 regardless of conference would be opposed by basically the entire East.

A number of different ideas have surfaced in the past two weeks, and it’s tough to gauge the smoke-to-fire ratio of each. However, triangulating all the reporting with the scuttlebutt that I’ve heard leads me to believe there will be at least 16 teams but certainly not 30, and that the league might have interest in some kind of play-in tournament with 20 or 24 teams.

That said, the number of questions without answers still seems really high. Let me start with four big ones, questions that lead me to a final recommendation for what the NBA should do.

Why are we just playing in for the bottom seeds?

So far all the focus in expanded-field scenarios has been on a play-in tournament, which seems weird. First of all, it requires the entire league to hang out for several days while a small handful of teams hog the spotlight. HORNETS! WIZARDS! LET’S GO!!!

Second, in the event the league doesn’t have any regular-season games and just launches into the playoffs, are we really having the Sacramento Kings come back to train for a month just so they can have 48 hours of glory in an empty gym in Orlando?

Finally, I’m glad everybody cares so much about which team will get the right to be first-round roadkill, but shouldn’t there be a lot more interest in settling the seedings in the middle of the pack?

For instance, Dallas is closer to the 4 seed in the West than any of the teams in the 9 to 12 seed area are to cracking the top 8. Oklahoma City and Houston are tied; so are Indiana and Philadelphia. And if the league plays a cross-pollinated bracket that just seeds teams 1 through 16, we could potentially see seedings determined by mere half-game differences – which is luck of the draw on how many games out of the schedule a team has played.

Wouldn’t playing a few games to finalize the standings be helpful? And wouldn’t it be useful, rather than just turbo-boosting everybody into the playoff cauldron right away? Obviously, there is a financial component here too (mo’ games = mo’ money), but virtually every game the top teams would play in a compressed ending to the season would matter. That’s a lot more fun than holding everything up for some Kings-Spurs.

How do you avoid competitive issues in World Cup groups?

World Cup style groups seemingly kill two birds with one stone – they eliminate the need for play-in shenanigans, and they provide a regular-season-ish format for play to resume. One major drawback is that they heavily invalidate the regular-season dominance of teams such as the Bucks and Lakers.

The focus on that, however, has glossed over an even bigger issue: World Cup-style groups are likely to have serious competitive issues toward the end of the group stage. Once teams at the bottom are eliminated, which could happen relatively early in a scheme where just two of five advance, those mathematically eliminated teams aren’t going to put up much of a fight. I’m shocked nobody is talking about this more.

Let’s say a team starts 1-5 in an eight-game Cup group. They’re toast. At that point, they would likely pull their most crucial players and skew the race for the other teams. Can you imagine if the league lost the Bucks or Lakers in the group stage because some eliminated team played their 12th-best player 43 minutes in one of the final games?

This isn’t as big a problem when players are playing for their flag, which is why group stages tend to work a lot better in international tournaments. I don’t see them as a good way to play out the rest of the NBA season. And as often happens with the NBA, I fear the league wouldn’t discover all of the unintended consequences until it was too late.

What about a bye for the top 4 teams?

If the league is really determined to bring more than 16 teams to frolic with Mickey and Minnie, there is a much better way to do this that actually rewards regular-season performance: Giving a bye to the best teams.

In a 24-team scenario where the top 12 teams in each conference return to play, the teams seeded fifth through 12th in each conference would play, and then the top four seeds would face the winners. In a 20-team scenario, the top two teams in each conference would chill while the other 16 duked it out.

If the top four seeds right now lacked marquee names this would be a no-brainer for the league, but I can already see them hesitating to lose a playoff round with names like LeBron, Giannis and Boucher. (OK, maybe just LeBron and Giannis. But still, Boucher is a cool name.)

Even so, perhaps there is a middle ground here. If we’re not wasting time with a play-in tournament, it leaves more room for a few regular-season games before these playoffs start. Meanwhile, this less consequential first round can be a best-of-five rather than a best-of-seven. Fans get their fill of Giannis and LeBron being back on the court in the regular-season finish, and the league quickly gets them back on the air for the second round.

This is my second-favorite way to settle things. If the league insists on bringing back more than 16 teams, it’s by far the most reasonable way to do it.

However, they really might want to think about …

What happens to the lottery?

From everything I’ve gleaned, not one person has mentioned anything substantive on this front. So let me make sure the question gets asked: What is the league doing to the lottery odds if it has a play-in tournament, or if it just invites 20 (or 24) teams to a modified playoff?

For instance, it’s possible the Grizzlies could be abruptly eliminated in a play-in game (or two) but still end up with the 17th pick in the draft. Conversely, somebody like Portland could advance to the playoffs but also get a spin for the top pick. Will the league adjust these teams in the draft based on the play-in results? And if so, how? What is even fair?

The more teams that are invited to the soiree, the more problematic this becomes. If the league brings back 24 teams and the Bulls make it into the top 16, what happens then? Chicago was supposed to have the seventh-most ping-pong balls – there was a decent chance the Bulls could get the top pick. Do they forfeit that chance and move back to 15th by virtue of defeating the Nets in The Mulan Play-In Tournament Hosted by The Mandalorian?

A modest proposal

So, what should the league do?

Here’s a simple idea: Bring 16 teams back. Have them play a few regular-season games to get their juices going and shake out the standings a bit. Dispense with the play-in silliness and all the weird unintended draft consequences. Run a regular tournament with a West bracket and an East bracket.

Yaaaaaawwwwwn, right?

But this is by far the most logical way to do things, and it’s one that I haven’t really heard discussed much. Perhaps that’s because of this plan’s plainness – I get that the league wants to try some new stuff.

Here’s the thing, though: Less is more when you’re talking about a communicable disease. Cutting the bubble to 16 teams right away mitigates the league’s No. 1 risk. Plus, this is the method that ditches the sideshow stuff and guarantees fans what they want most – Clippers-Lakers in the West, a possible Raps-Bucks rematch in the East, and as little of Orlando and Brooklyn as possible.

Some of the ideas above are worth pursuing in other contexts – particularly the play-in. But as the league launches into a brave new world on about a hundred other levels, this is the one area where it already has a solution. Keep it simple, guys. You have plenty of more important things to worry about right now.

 

Leroux: Time for the NBA to allow top teams to pick their playoff opponents

Spoiler

The unusual circumstances brought on by COVID-19 have created an unusual situation for the NBA that presents an exciting opportunity for experimentation. There has already been intriguing reporting and speculation about how the league could both return and determine a champion with some indication that Commissioner Adam Silver is open to an uncommon resolution. That is extremely encouraging because there are a variety of priorities to manage, but also worthwhile proposals to best accomplish their goals for concluding the 2019-20 campaign.

Having this many intelligent and focused people coming up with ideas will inevitably produce viable and exciting plans, but there is a specific nuance that works with many of them that would be an important addition both for this season and the long-term. Over a decade ago, the NBA’s development league (then the D-League) allowed top teams a “pick your poison” power to choose their opponent. The appeal of that idea is the combination of a stronger reward for regular season success reduced incentives for losing late-season games. This set up a more favorable match-up and arguably greater equity because then lower seeds may not get the otherwise random benefit of an unhealthy or inferior opponent.

For example, the 2015-16 Grizzlies made the playoffs despite losing both Mike Conley and Marc Gasol for the season, but the second-seeded Spurs faced them since the Grizzlies finished one game ahead of the Rockets for the seventh seed. There was blatant short-term tanking last season as well which led to three of the four best teams in the Western Conference on the same side of the bracket and a Western Conference Finals sweep.

While it would be a worthy addition to the NBA playoffs in every postseason, top teams choosing their opponents is far more important in 2020 due to the unusual circumstances. Typically, the superior seed gets homecourt advantage and the benefits that come from that in terms of a home Game 7, more games in front of their own fans and more nights sleeping in their own beds.

None of those perks exist in the bubble system and the hiatus adds in even more variability in terms of health, conditioning and injury. It is certainly fair to note that these circumstances are extremely unusual and will always create winners and losers, but rewarding the best regular season teams certainly feels like the best way to address it.

The upside

The beauty of letting top seeds pick their opponents is that it meshes with different playoff systems, including a top-16 format or the World Cup concept Kevin O’Connor broke down on Tuesday.

Whenever the time for a bracket arises, the top half and bottom half of the playing teams are split and starting with the best record, each team picks their preferred opponent from the bottom half until everyone is selected. It could even be done in a televised event somewhat like the March Madness bracket reveal show, especially this year since they will all be in the same place.

That process can repeat for each round of the playoffs before the Finals (either NBA or Conference, depending on which format they use), creating a larger advantage for a better regular season record. If adopted for longer than the 2020 playoffs, the ability to choose opponents and even just avoiding being chosen by being in the top half would push franchises more than they are now. They would not be able to finesse their matchup by losing late-season games, for example.

The downside

There are two major issues with letting the best teams choose their opponents, one logistical and one practical. The logistical issue is that the “pick your poison” process requires each round to complete before the next one starts so the choosing teams actually know what their options are and that creates lulls in the playoff schedule. At times, the NBA is allowed to get ahead when some series finish more quickly but the late series are always set in stone so it is not that big a shift. That makes less of a difference this time around since every team will be playing in the same bubble and there are no travel considerations. This should not be a deal-breaker in a normal year, but is even less of a problem in 2020 specifically.

Additionally, it would be very hard for a team at the bottom to make a run because the bracket could consistently work against them. However, overperforming squads in early rounds could potentially scare off the top teams and secure more favorable opposition in future rounds too, another fun quirk of this system.

The other major concern is a more practical one: would the decision-makers actually choose aggressively?

This system absolutely produces additional drama and bulletin board material no matter how the selections go but the whole thing becomes significantly less interesting if teams play it safe rather than channeling their inner Machiavelli. Still, at least they have the opportunity.

My Full Playoff Proposal For 2020

In years with the full slate, the league can absolutely stick with the conference-centric format for travel and television timing reasons, but those concerns are totally different this time around. Due to that and the abruptly stopped regular season, my approach would be similar to O’Connor’s group stage idea with some stronger benefits for strong records.

The twenty best records would be eligible and split into four groups by record like in his proposal. Originally I toyed with the idea of tweaking the group selection order to further reward the top teams but another wrinkle does the trick: while either eight or sixteen teams from the group stage advance to the knockout stage (I’d prefer sixteen after a shorter preliminary stage but either works), the top half of the total number of teams going to the knockouts are both automatically through and will choose their first round knockout opponents in the order of regular season finish. After all, it would be unfair for the Bucks, Lakers, Raptors and Clippers to not make it that far, plus they will need tune-up games and get to influence who qualifies for the knockouts rather than sitting home in a bye situation.

It also allows every team to get into the knockout round on merit without any single elimination randomness. In fact, they could even let everyone play their group opponents twice for an eight-game sample closer to the group stage format of the UEFA Champions League.

From there, the top half pick out of the bottom half all the way until the NBA Finals, so either two or three rounds depending on whether it is an 8 or 16-team field.

While this NBA season faces unusual and hopefully never repeated obstacles, this hiatus and re-start provides a unique opportunity to assess and experiment with new ideas that will improve the league. There are a series of playoff concepts worth considering, but allowing top teams to choose their opponents should be a key new wrinkle added this postseason because it gives the best teams a stronger reward for their regular season record, creates drama and incentivizes competitiveness in future seasons.

 

Regardless of who wins the "title" this season, it won't be viewed as such.

Having said that, if they do decide to go off the beaten path with the format, it could create some extremely memorable moments.

Round Robin to set up an 8 team single elimination bracket, or something like that. We shouldn't waste time pretending this is a real playoffs, if it happens at all.

 

Yep. Nobody is going to ever look at this as a real season, so you might as well have some fun with it. I say play a tournament like the NCAA, since we got screwed out of March Madness, let all the teams play, and let the 1 seed play the lowest seed, etc. Single elimination tournament, winner take all.

 

Easiest thing would just lock in the records as they were before the hiatus.

The top 8 teams of each conference just go straight to playoffs. Keep the same seeding. East is east and west is west.

If best out of 7 is too many games, I'm ok with best out 1, 3 or 5.

Teams in #9 or #10 spot, try for next year. Guys like Dame expressed they don't want it anyways.

 

I like the 20 team scenario best so far. top 16 teams play games/scrimmages to get to the ~70 game mark, while NOP, POR, SAC & SAS play some kind of tourney to play memphis for the final 8th spot in the playoffs

 

If there is no rush for the start of next season, why don't they simply play out all the remaining games of the regular season and save all the discussions about a modified playoffs format?

 

I think in a perfect world, they would. But then you get into the problems of A) the safety risks of expanding your bubble to include all 30 teams, and B) the conundrum of how to incentivize teams like the Warriors who have out-of-shape players after the long layoff and nothing to play for.

 

I've heard many times about the 70-game minimum. How does that play in? If they have to meet that number of games in order to avoid some contract breaching, then they have to involve all 30 teams anyway. The problem with just playing 70 games is that those non-playoffs teams are really much ado about nothing. That leads to your second point.

The incentive problem is always there with teams that have no hope for the playoffs. The long layoff just magnifies it. But a shortened season magnifies it even further for the reason I stated above. If there is still 20% of the season left to play, it's probably worth it to go through a mini training camp and get back to shape. If it's just 5 games, then why bother?

Personally, for the sake of fairness, I think they should include all teams that are not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs if the full season was available. Give them a chance to compete for a playoffs spot.

 

They'd meet the 70-game threshold for some of the teams, not all. At this point, it's just about mitigating the losses.

Agree, all this does is magnify the existing problem come February and beyond.