There are 87 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What are your thoughts on superstars creating NBA "Mega Teams""

What are your thoughts on superstars creating NBA "Mega Teams""

Originally posted by GameOver:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by GameOver:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I agree with some of those principles. I think the hard cap is good, and comp picks. I'm not a fan of the franchise tags though. Would the Nuggets just franchise tag Melo until he retires? I dislike the idea of teams holding players hostage just as much as I dislike players holding teams hostage.

I doubt the age limit is a big deal though. Players have to be 19 for the NBA and 21 for the NFL. There's not a big difference in the maturity level there or between the two leagues.

I sort of like the non-guaranteed contracts in the way the NFL has them. It's laughable that Tracy McGrady was THE highest paid player last year while Jermaine O'Neal was 3rd on the list.

You're s**ttin me right? Having to play 3 years in a legitimate collegiate program and being free (out of your parents house) for 3 full years is a huge process for these kids...I would love for the NBA to adopt that rule...

I'm not a fan of the franchise tag either, compensatory picks are nice though...

And Im not quite sure where I stand with the hard cap...but its a negative in regards to revenue sharing, just cannot see why most owners would want that...it would promote teams to not try as hard to improve, promote, and push their team because they know their revenue will get tossed into a pot along with LA's revenue, NY's revenue, etc and they'll get a larger piece than they deserve

It's not that big of a difference in the level of maturity for a player after one year of college and a player after 3 years of college. It just amounts to 2 more years of getting an easy ride on campus while being king. But I don't see NBA rookies as more problematic than NFL rookies.

I'm not sure about revenue sharing either, but it does serve its purpose in the NFL.

Like I said, I like the comp picks, I'm just not sure how it would work in a league with only two rounds for the entire draft. I probably can work, but our only example is from a sport with 7 rounds to place those comp picks.

You are looking at this 1 vs. 3 years thing from a very narrow perspective...these are KIDS who have had their parents/friends around them growing up in their respective towns and this is their first opportunity in a brand new place with brand new expectations (usually high if we are talkin about the kind of kids who have the ability to be "one and done" kids that go to the NBA) in a high level (not professional but still a high level) of the sport...the transition takes a while and is huge, hell, look at some of the kids in the league now like Derozan in Toronto, dude went to USC, I would say struggled his first year (yes he had flashes but dude was really inconsistent) and several of his teammates attributed that to his inability to adjust to living in that kind of environment, being independent and in college and all that other s**t...

Then a few years later, he still is inconsistent in Toronto...imagine if he just stayed at SC for a couple years, grew up, made a full transformation at the college level, and then when he had to do the same thing AGAIN by going professional, he would have already had a blueprint for how to go about it...sure some guys can do it (both the "1 and done" guys and the guys who came straight out of high school back when they could) but it would have been a huge benefit to them and their respective team had they been able to mature and grow both physically and mostly mentally/emotionally in college before getting to the league...

These kids cannot even f**king legally drink when they go to play with grown men who can go to the bar at night to just have some drinks or go for a night on the town or some s**t...yet you want to put hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some of their cases pending where they get drafted) and freedom with grown men in huge cities where they can and will get ravaged by groupies/whores/b*****ds/pieces of s**ts?

Plus, this would make the collegiate game better too, which is a double whammy for all basketball fans

I'm looking at the big picture for the 1 year vs 3 years in college. I'm saying as far as maturity and ability to perform, NFL and NBA early entry rookies aren't any different. NBA rookies don't seem to struggle any more than NFL rookies and they also don't seem to make a higher proportion of immature mistakes. Of course we can go back and forth with players that excelled after being 1 and done in college vs players who haven't cut it. But the NFL rookies don't seem any more ahead of the curve than NBA rookies. DeRozan just isn't that good.

Also, in my opinion only, the 3 year wait is more necessary with football. In my opinion there's a bigger learning curve for football than basketball.

I do agree that it would be MUCH better for college basketball to make them stay longer though. I guess no one can disagree with that.
[ Edited by LAFortyNinerfan on Feb 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM ]
edit
[ Edited by LAFortyNinerfan on Feb 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM ]
Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I disagree that the NFL produces a superior product. In a global market, the NFL is comparably insignificant to the NBA.

The English Premier League doesn't even have a salary cap, and has the curious "transfer window" policy which allows strong teams to get stronger. You have guys like Jose Baxter who started in the EPL at the age of 16, and ton of others who are key components of teams at a comparably young age. Only 3 teams have won the title in the last 15 years.

The most successful sports league in the world shares many of same traits that many criticize about the NBA, and in many instances they're more severe.
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by GameOver:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by GameOver:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I agree with some of those principles. I think the hard cap is good, and comp picks. I'm not a fan of the franchise tags though. Would the Nuggets just franchise tag Melo until he retires? I dislike the idea of teams holding players hostage just as much as I dislike players holding teams hostage.

I doubt the age limit is a big deal though. Players have to be 19 for the NBA and 21 for the NFL. There's not a big difference in the maturity level there or between the two leagues.

I sort of like the non-guaranteed contracts in the way the NFL has them. It's laughable that Tracy McGrady was THE highest paid player last year while Jermaine O'Neal was 3rd on the list.

You're s**ttin me right? Having to play 3 years in a legitimate collegiate program and being free (out of your parents house) for 3 full years is a huge process for these kids...I would love for the NBA to adopt that rule...

I'm not a fan of the franchise tag either, compensatory picks are nice though...

And Im not quite sure where I stand with the hard cap...but its a negative in regards to revenue sharing, just cannot see why most owners would want that...it would promote teams to not try as hard to improve, promote, and push their team because they know their revenue will get tossed into a pot along with LA's revenue, NY's revenue, etc and they'll get a larger piece than they deserve

It's not that big of a difference in the level of maturity for a player after one year of college and a player after 3 years of college. It just amounts to 2 more years of getting an easy ride on campus while being king. But I don't see NBA rookies as more problematic than NFL rookies.

I'm not sure about revenue sharing either, but it does serve its purpose in the NFL.

Like I said, I like the comp picks, I'm just not sure how it would work in a league with only two rounds for the entire draft. I probably can work, but our only example is from a sport with 7 rounds to place those comp picks.

You are looking at this 1 vs. 3 years thing from a very narrow perspective...these are KIDS who have had their parents/friends around them growing up in their respective towns and this is their first opportunity in a brand new place with brand new expectations (usually high if we are talkin about the kind of kids who have the ability to be "one and done" kids that go to the NBA) in a high level (not professional but still a high level) of the sport...the transition takes a while and is huge, hell, look at some of the kids in the league now like Derozan in Toronto, dude went to USC, I would say struggled his first year (yes he had flashes but dude was really inconsistent) and several of his teammates attributed that to his inability to adjust to living in that kind of environment, being independent and in college and all that other s**t...

Then a few years later, he still is inconsistent in Toronto...imagine if he just stayed at SC for a couple years, grew up, made a full transformation at the college level, and then when he had to do the same thing AGAIN by going professional, he would have already had a blueprint for how to go about it...sure some guys can do it (both the "1 and done" guys and the guys who came straight out of high school back when they could) but it would have been a huge benefit to them and their respective team had they been able to mature and grow both physically and mostly mentally/emotionally in college before getting to the league...

These kids cannot even f**king legally drink when they go to play with grown men who can go to the bar at night to just have some drinks or go for a night on the town or some s**t...yet you want to put hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some of their cases pending where they get drafted) and freedom with grown men in huge cities where they can and will get ravaged by groupies/whores/b*****ds/pieces of s**ts?

Plus, this would make the collegiate game better too, which is a double whammy for all basketball fans

I'm looking at the big picture for the 1 year vs 3 years in college. I'm saying as far as maturity and ability to perform, NFL and NBA early entry rookies aren't any different. NBA rookies don't seem to struggle any more than NFL rookies and they also don't seem to make a higher proportion of immature mistakes. Of course we can go back and forth with players that excelled after being 1 and done in college vs players who haven't cut it. But the NFL rookies don't seem any more ahead of the curve than NBA rookies. DeRozan just isn't that good.

Also, in my opinion only, the 3 year wait is more necessary with football. In my opinion there's a bigger learning curve for football than basketball.

I do agree that it would be MUCH better for college basketball to make them stay longer though. I guess no one can disagree with that.

I do not think you can compare the NFL and NBA in many cases, this being one of them...in the NFL, rooks have a much different learning curve to step into, that and you have a much longer (and maybe just IMO but a much more hands on in regards to coaching) off season where you are basically tied down to your specific teams headquarters while you are attempting to learn the odds and ends of the NFL...there is also a lot less of an ego issue and entitlement in the NFL because you really do need an entire team to get anywhere, so guys are a lot more modest and work harder (except for the WRs, which is why we have diva receivers) in hopes of succeeding and having the team accept them for a hard working rook that wants to help that specific team win, winning the team and organizations respect in a case...

In the NBA, its a whole different story, these mofo's walk in feeling like they own the place (as they should when you got whole cities treating them as if they are prophet-like figures and a good number of people in a stadium of 15k+ wearing your name on the back of their jersey) and have the ability to make a much bigger difference on the court and further feed that ego...as a result, they do not hit the need to develop a better work ethic, to mature as a player and person, etc, all which are traits that I feel they could pick up by playing at a good collegiate program...

These 1 and done-ers have the talent, hence why they are 1 and done-ers, so most of the time the only reason they do not succeed at the professional level is maturity/off the court s**t (there are other potential issues, but I feel like this is the most common one)...that is why it is important to highlight guys like Derozan and the others because they obviously had/have the talent, so what went wrong? Then for most other guys, it just takes them a few years before they start picking things up, we don't know why, I like to think its because its hard to go out and ball when you have personal s**t on the side buggin you (inability to transition from the life they are used to, to this new NBA lifestyle)...OJ Mayo is another example (and another USC guy) of a guy who is struggling and I think again, it could be his inability to transition fully...give him a change of scenery and hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy starts rippin s**t up, hes got the talent, just needs to grow into himself...

There are an overwhelming number of NFL rooks who don't cut it, the average player's life span in the NFL is 3 years, thats it, 3 damn years...but again, you cannot compare the sports since there are a lot of different variables at play here...

But this is all speculation on both our parts really, so yeah...
Originally posted by GameOver:


I do not think you can compare the NFL and NBA in many cases, this being one of them...in the NFL, rooks have a much different learning curve to step into, that and you have a much longer (and maybe just IMO but a much more hands on in regards to coaching) off season where you are basically tied down to your specific teams headquarters while you are attempting to learn the odds and ends of the NFL...there is also a lot less of an ego issue and entitlement in the NFL because you really do need an entire team to get anywhere, so guys are a lot more modest and work harder (except for the WRs, which is why we have diva receivers) in hopes of succeeding and having the team accept them for a hard working rook that wants to help that specific team win, winning the team and organizations respect in a case...

In the NBA, its a whole different story, these mofo's walk in feeling like they own the place (as they should when you got whole cities treating them as if they are prophet-like figures and a good number of people in a stadium of 15k+ wearing your name on the back of their jersey) and have the ability to make a much bigger difference on the court and further feed that ego...as a result, they do not hit the need to develop a better work ethic, to mature as a player and person, etc, all which are traits that I feel they could pick up by playing at a good collegiate program...

These 1 and done-ers have the talent, hence why they are 1 and done-ers, so most of the time the only reason they do not succeed at the professional level is maturity/off the court s**t (there are other potential issues, but I feel like this is the most common one)...that is why it is important to highlight guys like Derozan and the others because they obviously had/have the talent, so what went wrong? Then for most other guys, it just takes them a few years before they start picking things up, we don't know why, I like to think its because its hard to go out and ball when you have personal s**t on the side buggin you (inability to transition from the life they are used to, to this new NBA lifestyle)...OJ Mayo is another example (and another USC guy) of a guy who is struggling and I think again, it could be his inability to transition fully...give him a change of scenery and hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy starts rippin s**t up, hes got the talent, just needs to grow into himself...

There are an overwhelming number of NFL rooks who don't cut it, the average player's life span in the NFL is 3 years, thats it, 3 damn years...but again, you cannot compare the sports since there are a lot of different variables at play here...

But this is all speculation on both our parts really, so yeah...

The funny thing about Mayo is he has greatly regressed this year. During his first two years, he looked like a potential star. A lot of Laker fans were saying we should try to get him from Memphis when he becomes available. Now he's coming off the bench behind someone who probably wont even be in the league in a couple of years. When the small market teams mishandle the talent they do accumulate, they're not doing themselves any favors either.
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by GameOver:


I do not think you can compare the NFL and NBA in many cases, this being one of them...in the NFL, rooks have a much different learning curve to step into, that and you have a much longer (and maybe just IMO but a much more hands on in regards to coaching) off season where you are basically tied down to your specific teams headquarters while you are attempting to learn the odds and ends of the NFL...there is also a lot less of an ego issue and entitlement in the NFL because you really do need an entire team to get anywhere, so guys are a lot more modest and work harder (except for the WRs, which is why we have diva receivers) in hopes of succeeding and having the team accept them for a hard working rook that wants to help that specific team win, winning the team and organizations respect in a case...

In the NBA, its a whole different story, these mofo's walk in feeling like they own the place (as they should when you got whole cities treating them as if they are prophet-like figures and a good number of people in a stadium of 15k+ wearing your name on the back of their jersey) and have the ability to make a much bigger difference on the court and further feed that ego...as a result, they do not hit the need to develop a better work ethic, to mature as a player and person, etc, all which are traits that I feel they could pick up by playing at a good collegiate program...

These 1 and done-ers have the talent, hence why they are 1 and done-ers, so most of the time the only reason they do not succeed at the professional level is maturity/off the court s**t (there are other potential issues, but I feel like this is the most common one)...that is why it is important to highlight guys like Derozan and the others because they obviously had/have the talent, so what went wrong? Then for most other guys, it just takes them a few years before they start picking things up, we don't know why, I like to think its because its hard to go out and ball when you have personal s**t on the side buggin you (inability to transition from the life they are used to, to this new NBA lifestyle)...OJ Mayo is another example (and another USC guy) of a guy who is struggling and I think again, it could be his inability to transition fully...give him a change of scenery and hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy starts rippin s**t up, hes got the talent, just needs to grow into himself...

There are an overwhelming number of NFL rooks who don't cut it, the average player's life span in the NFL is 3 years, thats it, 3 damn years...but again, you cannot compare the sports since there are a lot of different variables at play here...

But this is all speculation on both our parts really, so yeah...

The funny thing about Mayo is he has greatly regressed this year. During his first two years, he looked like a potential star. A lot of Laker fans were saying we should try to get him from Memphis when he becomes available. Now he's coming off the bench behind someone who probably wont even be in the league in a couple of years. When the small market teams mishandle the talent they do accumulate, they're not doing themselves any favors either.

I still think Mayo can be something, I just think dude hasn't matured yet and its showing, supposedly they are saying that he is playing like he is still in college and that the team revolves around him, as if he has a green light to do whatever he wants, which is obviously not the case...

Im telling you, put him in a better environment, the guy will succeed...I want him in LA
6 teams have won 29 of the past 31 titles. honestly would it be any different?

you could argue that if more teams stacked up like the Heat, there would actually be MORE parody in the NBA. meaning teams like the Lakers didnt just steamroll their way to a title every year. they actually had to go through a couple other dynasty caliber teams every year to win it all. itd still be the same group of teams winning, but less repeats and "three peats".

the NBA imo is flawed as it is. for whatever reason, its the same franchises year after year. the haves and have-nots. the Lakers and Celtics have won over 50% of the Finals in NBA history. its always been unbalanced.

i really think with the energy and excitement pro basketball can bring, the sport could be doing so much better if different teams were winning each year. example, the Indiana sports fans LOVE basketball. huge basketball following there, but the Pacers have NO chance to win the title every single year. if you live there, you go to Pacers games if you got tickets from someone at work or something, but everyone knows they arent winning a title.

every sport that has over 50% of its teams that start every season with almost NO shot to win the title that year, has problems imo. basketball has become a league where your team either is in the title hunt every year, or they never are, and the whole point of following your team is in the hopes your best player gets voted to the All-Star game. the NBA is about dynasties and marketing campaigns for shoes.
Originally posted by Niners99:
6 teams have won 29 of the past 31 titles. honestly would it be any different?

you could argue that if more teams stacked up like the Heat, there would actually be MORE parody in the NBA. meaning teams like the Lakers didnt just steamroll their way to a title every year. they actually had to go through a couple other dynasty caliber teams every year to win it all. itd still be the same group of teams winning, but less repeats and "three peats".

the NBA imo is flawed as it is. for whatever reason, its the same franchises year after year. the haves and have-nots. the Lakers and Celtics have won over 50% of the Finals in NBA history. its always been unbalanced.

i really think with the energy and excitement pro basketball can bring, the sport could be doing so much better if different teams were winning each year. example, the Indiana sports fans LOVE basketball. huge basketball following there, but the Pacers have NO chance to win the title every single year. if you live there, you go to Pacers games if you got tickets from someone at work or something, but everyone knows they arent winning a title.

every sport that has over 50% of its teams that start every season with almost NO shot to win the title that year, has problems imo. basketball has become a league where your team either is in the title hunt every year, or they never are, and the whole point of following your team is in the hopes your best player gets voted to the All-Star game. the NBA is about dynasties and marketing campaigns for shoes.

I agree 100%. Good post.
  • Dino
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 21,890
gay
  • jrg
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 105,011
As a Magic fan, its getting kinda annoying all these super teams adding up in the East.
Originally posted by jrg:
As a Magic fan, its getting kinda annoying all these super teams adding up in the East.

They are all afraid of Dwight.
lol with all the hinting that both Pujols and Dwight Howard may be leaving their teams when f/a hits, jrg must be getting nervous.
Originally posted by crzy:
Pretty much every NBA legend, Barkley, Jordan has said the same thing....


That NBA players used to have competitiveness. They used to take pride in leading their teams to success and beating their competition instead of joining them.


Sadly, this era of NBA superstars want to play with their buddies, take the easy path toward rings.

It's pathetic.

Lebron leading Cleveland to one championship would have been worth more than 10 rings in Miami.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by Niners99:
6 teams have won 29 of the past 31 titles. honestly would it be any different?

you could argue that if more teams stacked up like the Heat, there would actually be MORE parody in the NBA. meaning teams like the Lakers didnt just steamroll their way to a title every year. they actually had to go through a couple other dynasty caliber teams every year to win it all. itd still be the same group of teams winning, but less repeats and "three peats".

the NBA imo is flawed as it is. for whatever reason, its the same franchises year after year. the haves and have-nots. the Lakers and Celtics have won over 50% of the Finals in NBA history. its always been unbalanced.

i really think with the energy and excitement pro basketball can bring, the sport could be doing so much better if different teams were winning each year. example, the Indiana sports fans LOVE basketball. huge basketball following there, but the Pacers have NO chance to win the title every single year. if you live there, you go to Pacers games if you got tickets from someone at work or something, but everyone knows they arent winning a title.

every sport that has over 50% of its teams that start every season with almost NO shot to win the title that year, has problems imo. basketball has become a league where your team either is in the title hunt every year, or they never are, and the whole point of following your team is in the hopes your best player gets voted to the All-Star game. the NBA is about dynasties and marketing campaigns for shoes.

I agree 100%. Good post.

Maybe it's not the players because every playoff team has great players but a few seem to keep "steam rolling" through to the finals.

Maybe it's the coaching. Some coaches get played and allow the players to do just a little too much and some coaches have the players doing things the right way.

Larry Brown had Indiana competing year in and out and they actually got robbed in one conference finals vs the Bulls. The NBA needs to give the power back to the coaches so teams like Denver don't keep doing dumb s**t and shooting themselves in the foot.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home