One of the challenges of the current CBA situation is that so much of the material that I write is dependent on the existence of rules or guidelines when it comes to personnel moves. The sheer level of uncertainty that surrounds things like the salary cap, Bird exceptions, and trades makes even articles like Trade Value pieces a waste of time. As such, I have chosen to take my basketball energy and turn it into pieces on issues that exist at least partially out of that space. First up: what happens after the regular season ends.

That wording proves to be important here because these changes affect more than just the playoffs.

Step One: The NBA Draft Tournament

The ping pong ball system currently employed by the NBA has its advantages and disadvantages compared to comparable systems in other North American professional sports leagues, a situation made even more distinct by the NBA’s unique characteristics of small roster sizes, largely immediate inclusion on the “big league” roster, and the impact players on rookie contracts make in the league. As such, a system that discourages tanking carries some meaningful import. However, distinguishing solely based on wins and losses, even if solely for determining probability, does not need to be the only part of the end-game either. Instead, the NBA should embrace their circumstance and create something no other league has tried: a tournament for the #1 overall pick in the draft. Since fourteen teams at present do not make the playoffs, creating a single-elimination tournament is both feasible and practical. The teams should be “ranked” in order of finish, worst to best, giving the two lowest records a bye through the first round and a better chance of winning it all. This gives those teams a somewhat substantial leg up. From there, the locations of games would work similarly to the post-season NIT in college basketball, with the better seed (team with the worse record) hosting the games until only four teams remain.

The “Final Four” would then be played at a neutral site. There are some limitations with this, as the NBA playoffs would be happening at the same time. Taking out any NBA arenas limits the pie somewhat but not entirely. Both non-current NBA cities (Seattle, Kansas City) and non-NBA venues would have ample opportunities to host the game. Beyond hosting and gate revenues, the television rights would be enough to pay the administrative and labor costs associated with 13 extra games in the Draft Tournament.

From here, there are two important details to mention:

First, the tournament would be for the #1 pick only. The rest of the draft lottery would be done in a more traditional manner, whether that be ping pong balls to determine #2 and #3, or a lottery that runs the entire rest of the non-playoff board (my personal preference). This creates an incentive to win and would pique the interest level of fans.

Second, in order to get players on board, there needs to be a cash incentive for winning (and likely some for finishing in second). Something like $5 million to be distributed among the 14 players as the NBPA sees fit should be workable from the revenue side and enough for players to be OK. In addition, teams would be permitted to hold players out should they want, since the downside of doing so is borne by them anyway. Plus, players would still be protected by insurance since they would be playing under their team flag.

By creating an NBA Draft Tournament, the league would effectively discourage tanking among non-playoff teams via reduced incentives while also giving fans something to follow and discuss as the first round of the playoffs begins. After all, that is a time when many non-NBA lifers are not tuned in (since things have not really kicked in yet), so the knock-out format and #1 pick could actually increase viewership and interest in the league.

Step Two: Revamping the Playoff structure

There are two chronic problems that the current NBA playoff system cannot address. The biggest one gets much less attention, and that is the relative insignificance of regular season success. Sure, teams get the advantage of potentially hosting one extra game in a series or two down the line (particularly big in the 2-3-2 format which should be abandoned), yet that is not enough to reflect the importance and impact of regular season dominance. Beyond that, a system that allows for teams to strategically lose games in order to dictate opponents needs fixing. The challenge of combining a long season and a rigid structure means that under the current system, undesirable situations like that can and will happen with no recourse for the league to take since teams are acting in their own justifiable self-interest.

How can that be fixed? By letting teams with better regular season records pick their opponents each round. A system like this would not change which teams get into the playoffs; it shifts what matchups happen each round as well as the selection mechanism for those matchups. This should be structured in a way where division winners get a benefit in the first round by being exempt from selection by higher seeds.

Whether the first round would be open to the entire league (meaning a total 16-team playoff with no regard to conference) or holding firm with traditional conference matchups for round one can be settled either way. I personally prefer for the first round to be conference-limited, though a strong case sits there for doing away with it since it would also allow the best sixteen teams to have a better shot at the postseason when there is imbalance between the conferences, as often persists. It works either way, as the process filters out the “in” teams and the “out” teams first and then gives the teams with the better record choices while exempting division winners in the first round should that be desired.

In the NBA, the current system typically leads to match-ups and seeding not being determined until the last day of the season, as I can attest to being in the Portland Trail Blazers locker room on the last day of the 2010-11 regular season as they watched the Lakers/Kings game to see who their first round opponent would be. Shifting the end of the season to a weekend and then running a Selection Sunday-esque show would do no greater competitive or time disadvantage than the current system. After the first and second rounds, allowing teams to select opponents would take no longer than the NHL needs to re-seed, which works well and is also more equitable than the current NBA system.

There are a few awesome other effects of a system where teams get to choose opponents. Since injuries are a part of the game and can strike at seemingly any time, it only seems fair for that random chance to benefit teams who earned a better record rather than the luck of the draw or tanking. I think back to the 2007 playoffs when the Washington Wizards limped in without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler. Cleveland, the #2 seed in the conference, got the perk instead of the Detroit Pistons who had the best record in the conference (and won the division they share with the Cavs).  Additionally, the pride and ego components of this shift cannot be overestimated. There is always the “No One Believed in Us” factor- imagine how much that would be amplified with higher seeded teams picking opponents. Sports talk could light up with stories about certain teams ducking opponents or tactically wanting to take out a rival squad early.

All of the intrigue and improved competitive advantage of these two systems would come with no increased travel or logistical costs and also spark casual interest in a way that proves hard to quantify, though all it really takes is explaining the concept to a sports fan who is not too enthused about hoops and see what they do.

The NBA has issues beyond the CBA to fix- now all they need is a reason and the drive to do so before the rest of the situation firms up leaving fixable flaws in place for no reason better than the fact that they have been there for a while now.

Comments or suggestions can be sent to Daniel.Leroux@RealGM.com.