In real basketball, the Golden State Warriors can go play at the Boston garden against a non-banged up Celtics team and steal a win they have no business getting. In BB this doesn't happen, because there can only be so much randomness in the game. If you reduce HCA but do not affect the degree of randomness, the best team would finish the season 21-1: so here you have a choice point.
I think this is a good point, but the other side of it is that one of the reasons Golden State has a chance to go on the road and steal a game from a superior team is the long 82 game schedule...Perhaps Boston just got back from 5 road games in 9 days, and are whipped, and Golden State hasn't played a game in 3 days?
I think if the NBA played a BB schedule, 22 games, just 2 games a week, you'd see teams like San Antonio, and other elite teams never lose a home game. Take this NBA season for instance how it was reduced to 66 games, and they kept making a big deal over and over and over how important each game is, because of the condensed schedule. This is even more true in our 22 game schedule.
I think without question HCA is very strong in BB, but like you pointed out Coco, you can win on the road if you are better than everyone else. I think the bigger issue is the effect that tanking is having on the competition, the economy, and other variables. Just focusing on tanking, and I agree with Red, a team should have the choice to do what they feel is best for their franchise...however, because tanking is viewed as financially prudent, many teams in most leagues are now tanking, all that same time.
This requires less Normals and more Ties for the better teams in the league knowing they will get free wins. If the competition were stronger from top to bottom, you would have a bigger variation of enthusiasm management, and this would also open the door for more road wins.