Dear Mr. Silver,

I have some thoughts... (Proposed rule changes to the NBA and more!)

In college, I took a class focused on engineering design principles, where we learned processes for designing new devices. A core tenet of the class was that you first had to determine the existing problems that needed to be solved. Then you could start concocting solutions in the form of new or improved devices to meet these problems.

Let’s apply that here: what are the biggest issues in the NBA currently? So glad you asked — here are the two that bother me the most:

1. The end of games can take WAAAY too long. I’ve timed games that take 20-30 minutes to finish the last four minutes. It ruins the suspense. Players aren’t even sweating anymore by the time the game finishes. Are there any other sports that ruin the drama of a close game more than basketball by making you so bored you might rather change the channel and watch something else than finish the game? I can’t think of one. (For the record, I don’t think the NBA causes fans to change the channel at the end of games due to boredom… but it is tempting sometimes.)

2. The new collective bargaining agreement has started to remedy the issue of owners spending their way to the top. Boston will be spending way more than any other team very soon — but, likely, they won’t be able to retain their depth long enough to build a Warriors-esque dynasty. The CBA forced the Clippers, Nuggets, and Warriors to drastically decrease their spending to gain roster flexibility. (Though I vehemently disagreed with the Nuggets doing so — why do you need flexibility to create a championship roster if you already have one??)
   
   Now, the issue is shifting the other way: owners refusing to spend. (Maybe this was always the real issue.) Consider this, the Chicago Bulls — rated as the sixth most valuable NBA franchise by Forbes in 2023 — have only paid the luxury tax twice since its origins in 2003 per Spotrac. Despite the Grizzlies having a team worthy of championship contention, they have been selling off depth pieces for several years to avoid the luxury tax. Perhaps the most damning, the Houston Rockets went over the tax once in all of James Harden’s era with the team despite being a consistent championship contender and valued as the eighth most valuable franchise by Forbes. (Kudos to the Bucks, who despite ranking 20th on the Forbes list, have paid the luxury tax the past four seasons — with huge payments the past three.)
   
   As long as teams are unwilling to spend, there will always be a gap between the small and large markets, and the NFL-style parity that the league seeks will never come to fruition.

With our problems established, let’s discuss potential solutions.

The End of Game Problem

Elam Ending

The Elam Ending became famous after being adopted for the 2020 All-Star Game. It was developed by Nick Elam after he, like many of us, became frustrated watching teams intentionally foul on one end and jack rushed shots on the other to attempt to get back into games.

For those not familiar (or only familiar with the All-Star Game version), here’s how it works: the game clock shuts off at the first dead ball under four minutes and is replaced with a “target score” for the teams to hit. The target score is set by adding eight points to the leading team’s score. (I believe Elam set this number based on his research on how many points are typically scored in the final minutes of a game.) For example, if the score is 90-84 when that dead ball hits and the clock turns off, the first team to score 98 wins.

With the game clock eliminated, trailing teams can focus on getting stops and playing real offense instead of trying to beat the clock. This results in greater intensity on both ends of the floor and fewer free throw parades. Every game ends in a game-winning shot (though you do have to live with that game-winning shot being a free throw on occasion).

Some complain that eliminating the game clock takes away from the purity of the game; my counter-argument is simple: every game of pick-up that you’ve ever played has been determined by a target score, whether that’s 11, 15, 21, or some other made-up number. We are all familiar with the target score system from the years of playing your sibling in the driveway — we’d simply be bringing that to the televised version of the sport.

The Basketball Version of Penalty Kicks

I was watching the Germany-Canada women’s soccer (football) quarterfinals during the Olympics which went to penalty kicks. Like almost every soccer game I’ve watched that goes to penalty kicks, I found myself screaming aloud at every kick and miraculous save — even though I was not invested in who won and didn’t know who any of the players were.

Hockey does penalty shootouts at the end of games in overtime. Baseball starts with a player in scoring position in extra innings. College football alternates possessions until one team scores and the other doesn’t. Even the NFL has changed their overtime rules to be closer aligned to college.

Every major sport has found a way to make their overtimes intensely exciting. So, I asked myself, “What is the basketball version of these rules?”

And it came to me: one-on-one. Here’s my proposal:

• If a game is tied at the end of regulation, a one-on-one shootout is played (i.e. it takes the place of overtime).

• Like soccer, each team gets five possessions on offense and five on defense.

• Players can only go one time on offense and one time on defense. The offense chooses the player first and the defense can match with the player of their choice. (For example, the Thunder may send Lu Dort to defend Luka Doncic. Dort would not be eligible to play any more defensive possessions but could still play an offensive possession.)

• The offensive player can start with the ball from anywhere outside the paint.

• Teams get a point for scoring. The team with the most points after five possessions or when an insurmountable lead has been established wins. A sudden-death format follows if the score is tied after five possessions.

• The offensive team will be awarded a point on a shooting foul and the possession will end to prevent the defender from hacking his opponent when he gets an advantage. The first non-shooting foul results in a re-do of the possession. A second non-shooting foul results in an automatic point for the offensive team and the end of the possession.

I, for one, would’ve loved to see a finals game come down to Jayson Tatum trying to defend Luka one-on-one in an overtime “shootout”.

Timeouts and Reviews

The fouling is a big issue at the end of games. But it’s not the only issue: the endless reviews and long timeouts kill any flow that the game has at the end.

My proposal here is simple:

Moving forward, each team will only get one 30-second timeout for the last three minutes.

Additionally, teams will get two “advances” where they can stop the clock after a rebound or change of possession and inbound the ball at halfcourt instead of under the opposite baseline as their basket. This will be treated like a dead ball (substitutions are allowed). Consider it the equivalent of spiking the ball in football to stop the clock.

Some will scream, “That’s not enough timeouts for the coaches to get on the same page as the players.” To which I respond with this clip.

This play came directly after a timeout. Do we really need a timeout to call a Karl-Anthony Towns-Anthony Edwards two-man game at half-court to get a contested three-pointer? (This is not exclusive to the Timberwolves — this is common in the NBA after timeouts. Many teams call a timeout only to call an isolation at the top of the key with their best player. Very creative, right?)

Last part of the proposal: no more reviews! I would love for reviews to go away altogether; however, if I must compromise, reviews should no longer be allowed in the final two minutes. It is the most exciting point in the game (or at least it’s supposed to be). Let’s stop killing it with five minutes of watching the same replay over and over trying to determine if Kyle Lowry slid in front early enough for it to be a charge.

(On that note: let’s ban the block/charge call from being reviewed. It is a bang-bang call and I’m convinced we only get it right after a review 50% of the time anyway.)

Getting Rid of Free Throws at the End of the Game

This is my last idea for fixing the end of games. Fair warning, it’s fun… but it’s a little radical.

• In the last two minutes of games, when a team is down and intentionally fouls to extend the game, the players involved in the foul go one-on-one with the same rules as above instead of the offensive player getting free throws.

• Points are awarded based on standard scoring. (Players who opt to start at the elbow or on the block likely forego their chance of a three-pointer — but these players wouldn’t be shooting threes anyway. This is to give post players a better chance of scoring instead of having to back their guy down from the three-point line.)

• If the offensive player is fouled during the one-on-one possession, they are awarded two points. If they score while being fouled, it is automatically worth three points (no free throws involved.) This eliminates the risk that the defense will choose to foul immediately, instead forcing them to play good defense.

• As on a free throw, the defensive team regains possession after the one-on-one matchup on the opposite baseline from their basket.

• No timeouts will be allowed after the foul as there will already be a significant amount of dead time occurring in these situations with the setup involved.

Look, I know this is radical. But, if I have to watch a free throw parade at the end of every close game, can we at least make it entertaining?

The Spending Problem

I had more trouble coming up with solutions for this issue — perhaps the difficulty in solving this is part of why it hasn’t been.

It has been suggested to reward teams with a discount for retaining players that they draft. In other words, a drafted player’s salary only counts for 80% (or whatever the chosen number) of the salary cap when they start their second contract. For example, when Anthony Edwards starts his second contract this season at ~$42 million, only $33.6 million would count towards the team's salary. However, because the Timberwolves acquired Rudy Gobert via trade instead of drafting him, his full $43.8 million salary would still count towards the team’s salary. If you did this with all of their players, their total team salary would go from $205 million — well north of the dreaded Second Apron — to ~$180 million — just above the First Apron, lowering the amount of tax they would pay and giving them more flexibility to retain players and add to their team in the years to come. This rewards the Timberwolves for four of their top six players having been drafted by them.

(Celtics fans argue that they’re being punished for “drafting well” with this new CBA; however, even with this 80% system, they would still be above the Second Apron next year because Tatum and Brown are the only original Celtics of their high earners — and that’s without resigning Al Horford or filling out the empty roster spots.)

I don’t hate this idea — it may incentivize owners and front offices to focus more on retaining young players and building a good, young team. However, it may reward teams a little too much.

Maybe meeting in the middle is the answer: the aprons stay the same, but the 80% rule applies to the luxury tax. (If you are unfamiliar, the luxury tax works on a tiered system with penalties increasing the further a team spends past the luxury tax line.) In this scenario, team building is still difficult when you start passing apron levels, but the owners don’t face the same financial burden if their teams are truly built through the draft.

Here’s an example of the meet-in-the-middle solution going back to the Timberwolves. Based on my math earlier, the Wolves would stay in the second apron and all the team-building rules that apply to those teams with a team salary of around $205 million — about $15 million above that apron. However, when applied to the tax, their team salary would be only $180 million — about $9 million above the tax line of $170.8 million. This takes their estimated tax payment from $105.6 million this year to $14.6 million in 2024-25 — a $90 million decrease (!!) which may be a number the Wolves ownership can stomach for a few years instead of being forced to trade away one of their star players next summer.

That said, the NBA may have already fixed this issue. Starting next season (2025-26), the tax brackets will change with teams just over the tax being punished less and teams way over being punished significantly more. If we take the Wolves example with the same numbers as before but with the 2025-26 tax bracket rates instead of the current rates, they would face a $134.5 million tax payment (a $30 million difference) vs only $10 million (roughly $4.5 million less) when only $9 million over the tax. Perhaps that $4.5 million is enough for teams to be willing to spend into the tax and even out the competition. Time will tell.

---

Thank you for taking the time to read this article! I had a lot of fun putting together these ideas. If you want to talk more about them, feel free to leave a comment or invite me to a podcast to discuss them more!