I'm fully aware that I'm not qualified to be throwing out blog posts like this... but that's why they're called opinions. Everyone has 'em and while they may not be the most logical or even realistic at times, that doesn't mean I'm not going to write about it.
So, I know I'm not an expert in the NBA or anything, but this whole Sacramento Kings debacle seems a little... exhausted.
They want to relocate to Anaheim or Orange County. This might be idiotic (I'm just a Bulls fan afterall), but why not just get rid of the team all together?
Seems like the franchise isn't profitable or gaining any progress, having a less than mediocre season going 24-58. They hit an league-low payroll of $44 million. While there may be rookie talent available, the only thing really keeping the team above water are the Maloofs -- not their coach, not the team chemistry, not even one particular outstanding player -- and certainly not the fans. They can barely sell suites at Power Balance Pavillion. They've made the playoffs once in five years, which plenty of teams have struggled with, but have also earned the titles of worst record and 3rd lowest performing and team.
With these kind of statistics, fan loyalty has been shot and aspirations to build a bigger and better stadium have also been passed by tax payers. Evidentally, nobody wants to pay to see a team lose in a more expensive arena (they obviously don't understand the passion in Dallas Cowboys fans).
So why is this team still around? Can I get an answer? I hate to say it but they might as well be extinct like the Sonics and reformulated to a new team, in a different location, with better fan support, like the Thunder. (If it were only that simple.)
If I were running the NBA (which sportsfans can thank God I'm not), I'd propose a weed-out system, similar to a new GRAMMY rule, which is as such:
"It is now expected that each Category shall have at least 40 distinct artist entries, up from 25. If a Category receives between 25 – 39 entries, only three recordings would receive nominations that year. Should there be fewer than 25 entries in a Category, that Category would immediately go on hiatus for the current year — no award given — and entries would be screened into the next most logical Category. If a Category receives fewer than 25 entries for three consecutive years, the Category would be discontinued, and submissions would be entered in the next most appropriate Category."
Maybe something along these lines? To continue on to the next season, teams must either a) make playsoffs, or if they don't, b) make a certain number of wins to losses for a certain amount of years (like three to five). If they can't pick up the slack and make some progress, they're put on hiatus. Yeah, it might sound elementary, but it would create more selectivity, give the players another reason to work hard, and could garner more support from the fans.
Not sure how this would actually work out considering if they did get put on hiatus, how would they be taken out of it? A lump sum is paid? They play in a league during the off-season to contend for regular season privileges again? I know it's flawed but at least I'm thinking... right?
Not to mention everyone in Sacramento is too busy worrying about their gonads to just sink the ship and start over from scratch in a few years.