Suggestions to improve the NBA

OK, I have two suggestions to improve the NBA- one to fix the strike issues, the other to make the game itself more interesting.

1)  Financial Solution:  HARD CAP + FRANCHISE PLAYER

Understand- I'm not in favor of the players or the owners.  I honestly don't care who 'wins' or 'loses' the strike.  But while I want pro basketball back, I don't want it at the expense of the small market teams.  I'm a Cleveland Cavaliers fan, and I want the hope that they have the same chance to put together a winning franchise as the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls or Heat.  If that doesn't happen- if basketball becomes like baseball, with haves and have-nots- then the league can just fold, for all I care.

So here's my solution- institute a hard cap (both overall and per player)... but also allow one "Franchise Player" per franchise.  The normal players can be signed for at most four years and at most $X dollars (where X is based on a 50/50 split). 

The franchise player can be signed for ANY amount of money, and that money does not apply to the cap.  So if the Lakers want to pay Kobe Bryant $75 million a year, they can. 

Why the owners go for it- they reign in the costs of the mid-sized players. 

Why the players go for it- The 50/50 sounds like a bad deal for them- until they realize that the top 30 salaries won't be part of that deal.  The owners would probably need to give up on other issues to make it more palatable, but the players lose in the long haul- and the agents of the best players would love this deal.

As a fan, I know the best players are going to the major markets.  But this means that the major markets can't monopolize the best players.  The Lakers might get Kobe, or Dwight Howard; but they can't get BOTH players.  Not unless one wants to take a major league cut.

2)  Quality of play improvement:  INDIVIDUAL COURTS

Every NBA court is the exact same dimension- same court size; same height of the basket, same three point line.

Why?

One of baseball's best charms is that each stadium is individual and unique, and clubs design their teams around various styles.  Baseball is best when different styles win- the speed of the 85 Cardinals, the power of the 86 Mets, the pitching of the early 90's Braves.

When one style dominates to the point that every team copies it, the game becomes boring.  Both in baseball and basketball.

Here's my solution- allow a range of dimensions for the court, the height of the basket, and the width of the three point line.  Better yet, allow teams to decide if they want a three point shot at all.  Say that you can only change in between seasons, and that you have to keep those dimensions for three years at a minimum.

When a team goes to a NBA court, they play by that team's rules. 

For example:  Indiana has a narrow court and no three point line, so they build around rebounders and slashers.  The Rockets have a wide court and a short three point line, so they build around fast gunners.  The game between the teams looks a lot different in Indiana than in Houston.

Here's the advantages:

1)  Increase the number of successful styles
2)  Makes home court advantage that much more important
3)  Greater use of the entire roster- even teams that don't have three point shooters need them for certain stadiums
4)  More strategies
5)  Makes the teams more unique

I think implementing both ideas would make the gamer much better.  And well... I'm right.