Re: parity. I know we've been down this rabbit hole before. But to me you try to lesson the impact of the superstars on the game. One way is to eliminate the frigging "star" calls that we all know happen. Call the game the same for the rookie as you do for Lebron. That alone will help even things out a little..but the league will never do it because now Lebron wont be playing as many minutes because he'll be in foul trouble. But I think it woudl help. Or speaking of minutes...maybe there is a minutes limit on players. No one can play for longer than X. (I dont like this either but I'm just throwing stuff out).
Re: rosters. The ONLY thing I can think of at the moment is to make it financially impossible to have more than 1 superstar on your team. We;ve talked before about how guys like Lebron simply cannot earn enough based on thier real worth to the game. Well...lets change that. Each team is allowed 1 player who can make (and I'm pulling these numbers out of my ***) 60% of your payroll. Then you have to divvy up the rest based on a sliding scale. So unless a player is going to take a HUGE paycut...they arent going to be as likely to go play with Lebron....or Steph.....or whoever. Your contracts would have to be much shorter. Maybe 2 years or 3 years max. As players progress and get better they can move up the scale...but if you have a "superstar" on your team and have a young and upcoming super star....your going to be forced as to which one you want to keep. It'll spread the best talent out (at some point) around the league as the difference between being "the man" and the "next man up" will be large.
I'm really just throwing stuff out against a wall. Of course...now that we have Towns I dont want to introduce ANY of this stuff. But in general....I think it'd improve the parity of the league..thereby increasing interest.