There are 195 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Does this bother you about the NBA?

LA, wouldn't you say the other problem is it is a star driven league that creates super stars. Superstars want to be in big name cities; LA, NY, Boston, Miami, etc.
I'd also argue that the NBA doesn't have any teams that CAN'T be good due to location. Two of their best franchises, San Antonio & OKC, are in two of the smallest markets. In MLB, on the other hand, small markets almost can't be good. They have to be PERFECT and have everything go right to be competitive, and then they automatically lose their best players to free agency because they can't afford them. For every surprise like the A's were this year, you have teams like the Royals and Pirates who are awful almost every single year. You've gotten have a total stud of a GM to even be somewhat competitive in a small market in baseball.
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
LA, wouldn't you say the other problem is it is a star driven league that creates super stars. Superstars want to be in big name cities; LA, NY, Boston, Miami, etc.

I think that's an issue, but only to an extent. I also wouldn't put Boston on that list, as I don't think they've ever landed a legit free agent.

All things being equal, stars do prefer big markets, no doubt. But I think the NBA does a good job of giving the smaller teams the capacity to retain their guys. It's my opinion that stars stay with the small markets that are good organizations (Durant/Westbrook with OKC, Duncan with SA), and want to leave ones that aren't. (LeBron in Cleveland, Howard in Orlando, etc)
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
LA, wouldn't you say the other problem is it is a star driven league that creates super stars. Superstars want to be in big name cities; LA, NY, Boston, Miami, etc.

I think that's an issue, but only to an extent. I also wouldn't put Boston on that list, as I don't think they've ever landed a legit free agent.

All things being equal, stars do prefer big markets, no doubt. But I think the NBA does a good job of giving the smaller teams the capacity to retain their guys. It's my opinion that stars stay with the small markets that are good organizations (Durant/Westbrook with OKC, Duncan with SA), and want to leave ones that aren't. (LeBron in Cleveland, Howard in Orlando, etc)

Ya, but those were great drafts and OKC has a great GM. They just lost Harden so we will need to see if they can keep them together. There will always be outliers in every sport where a star stays with a team, Duncan in SA, Ripken in Baltimore, Brett in KC, etc, but the NBA has the star culture and the gravitate to bigger cities. Look at Howard, financially it was silly to go to LA (taxes) (not sponsorships) but he still jumped at the chance. Baseball can have success in less sexy cities, STL, etc. baseball has shown it creates a place where championships are spread across the league. ESPN just did a special showing how even without a cap, baseball has least frequent winners than any other league. The worst was the NBA, than football, than baseball. They wrote an article in ESPN MAG about it also.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
LA, wouldn't you say the other problem is it is a star driven league that creates super stars. Superstars want to be in big name cities; LA, NY, Boston, Miami, etc.

I think that's an issue, but only to an extent. I also wouldn't put Boston on that list, as I don't think they've ever landed a legit free agent.

All things being equal, stars do prefer big markets, no doubt. But I think the NBA does a good job of giving the smaller teams the capacity to retain their guys. It's my opinion that stars stay with the small markets that are good organizations (Durant/Westbrook with OKC, Duncan with SA), and want to leave ones that aren't. (LeBron in Cleveland, Howard in Orlando, etc)

The poor part of the league is the monopolization of talent. The best teams have several REALLY good players.

I think setting a low, hard cap would spread the superstars more. Having Wade, Lebron, Kobe, Dwight all on different teams and surrounding them with supporting casts would make it much more interesting than having them all the same rosters.

As you say, stars impact the game too heavily to not have them spread more thinly around the league imo.

Or maybe the cap wouldn't be the answer. Classify players by stats or something you know, and you can only have 1 class A player. Obviously this is all just hypothetical and will never happen, but just my opinion of what would make it more interesting for more teams.
[ Edited by IdentityCrisis on Nov 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM ]
Honestly, I've never entered an NBA season with so little interest/excitement. Definitely part of that has to do with what is happening with my own team -- a garbage ownership, a mediocre product. However, growing up, the Kings sucked worse than they do today and I loved the league. Guess maybe I'm just growing tired of it.

Looking at the league as a whole, who wins this year? MIA, LAL, OKC, maybe SAS. Bleh. You can basically fast forward to the semifinals. I respect those teams for having built contenders, but you can't tell me that's good for the league to have 4-5 super teams and a bunch of other teams just playing for fun.

I love a good NBA game and still will watch plenty this year, but in my opinion, too many times referees over assert themselves. It's the nature of the game, but I don't perceive the same problems in MLB/NFL.

I don't know, something about the NBA just doesn't appeal to me anymore and I would put it at a distant third behind MLB/NFL.
Really tired of the Lakers. So much so that if it can't be the Warriors I don't care who wins as long as its not the Lakers.
Originally posted by SacRock14:
Honestly, I've never entered an NBA season with so little interest/excitement. Definitely part of that has to do with what is happening with my own team -- a garbage ownership, a mediocre product. However, growing up, the Kings sucked worse than they do today and I loved the league. Guess maybe I'm just growing tired of it.

Looking at the league as a whole, who wins this year? MIA, LAL, OKC, maybe SAS. Bleh. You can basically fast forward to the semifinals. I respect those teams for having built contenders, but you can't tell me that's good for the league to have 4-5 super teams and a bunch of other teams just playing for fun.

I love a good NBA game and still will watch plenty this year, but in my opinion, too many times referees over assert themselves. It's the nature of the game, but I don't perceive the same problems in MLB/NFL.

I don't know, something about the NBA just doesn't appeal to me anymore and I would put it at a distant third behind MLB/NFL.

The Maloofs have really sucked the "fandom" out of me. IMO, that is one of their goals. To have the Sac fanbase lose interest and stop going to games and such. That way, it'll make their case that they have to move. Very sleezy. So hard to be a fan... in turn, I'm not as excited this year as well. Just get to the finals and put in the Heat/Lakers. Then I'll watch.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I'd also argue that the NBA doesn't have any teams that CAN'T be good due to location. Two of their best franchises, San Antonio & OKC, are in two of the smallest markets. In MLB, on the other hand, small markets almost can't be good. They have to be PERFECT and have everything go right to be competitive, and then they automatically lose their best players to free agency because they can't afford them. For every surprise like the A's were this year, you have teams like the Royals and Pirates who are awful almost every single year. You've gotten have a total stud of a GM to even be somewhat competitive in a small market in baseball.

That comes back to being a superstar driven league though. Yes, San Antonio and OKC are small markets, but they also struck gold in the draft with Duncan and Durant. No Duncan, no dynasty. No Durant, OKC is among the 4-8 seeded teams with little to no shot.

Baseball actually has the most parity of all the major sports, despite being the only sport with no salary restrictions. Sure, teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City are never good, but that has alot more to do with how they are run, not their market.

The Marlins proved twice in a 7 year span that a very small market team has a shot to win a ring. Its about fielding a team that can hang in with the big boys long enough to grab a playoff spot, and if you catch fire, anything goes at that point. In the NBA, even if you make the playoffs, its an all-time shocker if a low seeded team ends up in the Finals. Remember that season the Warriors beat Dallas? Wasnt that the only time an 8 seed has EVER beaten a 1? Just the fact that theres a round where the 1 seed basically never loses, ever, is weak.

For example, the last time a National League team had the most wins in the regular season, and went on to win the WS, was the 1986 Mets. Baseball has the most parity, yet they still added another WC to get even more cities involved late in the season. 1 seeded NFL teams lose in the divisional round all the time. The NBA playoffs is basically 85% predictable, which is why nobody cares.

I understand that the best teams always winning is the nature of the sport due to how the game is played, but there has to be things the NBA can do to give other teams a chance each season. The power teams fanbases keep the NBA afloat, but they could be making so much more money if cities like Portland, Denver, Toronto, Cleveland, Charlotte, New Orleans, etc. could get excited about their shot at a ring every year. There has to be something they can do.

Ive been a Jazz fan since I was 7 years old and starting liking basketball. We lived there for 3 years when i was young, and im too loyal to change. Ive seen both ends of the argument. In the mid-late 90's the Jazz were one of those power teams. Now were just a 4-8 seed with no chance at a title. Im already much too occupied following the 49ers and Giants closely, so the fact that I already know the Jazz wont be winning anything this year just makes following the NBA not worth the time and emotion. Ill check scores every night, keep up with the players a bit, but I can already lock it in: Jazz will be a low playoff seed, and be booted in the 1st round. maybe a 2nd round boot if we match up with someone well.
Yes, I hate that it is down to a few teams and basically everyone else doesn't matter. Way way too many trades. Player switching teams constantly. You can be traded and then traded again before playing a game for the 1st team you were traded to. Not nearly as many trades in the NFL and at the deadline you don't have everyone giving away their best players to a good team and becoming their farm system like mlb. NBA has too many stars switching teams. Half or more teams don't even have a star.... way too much star power for only a handful of teams.

Also, hate that the draft is 2 rounds and really only a handful of guys (usually in top 5 or so) contribute. In the NFL you got guys from rounds 1-7 and even UDFA's contributing. A lot of players becoming stars early on. Also, hate how teams will over pay everybody and then just trade them away to get rid of the salary.

Also, I would say too many teams in the playoffs. I would go down to 6 on each side. Maybe play a best of 3 series (or even 5), might have to do 3 otherwise the 1st and 2nd seed byes would be too long. Then go best of 5 the next round and then 7 for the conference championships/nba championship. Also, I wish there were less games. They aren't as bad as baseball (I'd go down to 120 or so, make them mean more) but 82 is probably too many still. Maybe go 10-12 less. Problem is it's about money so we have to deal with games meaning less and the playoffs being 2-3 months long.

And off topic but I would put a salary cap for baseball and also decide on both sides either letting pitchers hit or having a DH. Oh and back to basketball I think with Benson buying the Hornets and getting the 1st pick it might have finally been the straw that broke the camel's back for the lottery system. You got teams winning 7 games like Charlotte that really need the 1st pick and then a team that won 21 games and 46 the year before. To make sure teams don't tank because I think it happens in the nba unlike the other two sports maybe take the amount of wins in the last 2 seasons and lowest gets the 1st pick. So Charlotte had 41, New Orleans has 67... maybe do that for the top 5 or so.
[ Edited by Gore_21 on Nov 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM ]
The league needs to contract to spread the talent out better.
Originally posted by SacRock14:
Honestly, I've never entered an NBA season with so little interest/excitement. Definitely part of that has to do with what is happening with my own team -- a garbage ownership, a mediocre product. However, growing up, the Kings sucked worse than they do today and I loved the league. Guess maybe I'm just growing tired of it.

Looking at the league as a whole, who wins this year? MIA, LAL, OKC, maybe SAS. Bleh. You can basically fast forward to the semifinals. I respect those teams for having built contenders, but you can't tell me that's good for the league to have 4-5 super teams and a bunch of other teams just playing for fun.

I love a good NBA game and still will watch plenty this year, but in my opinion, too many times referees over assert themselves. It's the nature of the game, but I don't perceive the same problems in MLB/NFL.

I don't know, something about the NBA just doesn't appeal to me anymore and I would put it at a distant third behind MLB/NFL.

SACROCK HAS SPOKEN
If it was only a "big market" vs "small market" issue, then we would have had champions recently from NY, Philly, Chicago, LA Clippers...

Teams still have to draft well and have front office personnel who know what the hell they are doing. I would submit to everyone that the teams listed who have had most of the championships can demonstrate that they do both probably very well.
Small market success in SA and OKC is due to the main super star on each team : Duncan and Durant. The way they got those players is straight luck in regards to their lottery draft position duing a particular year.

Promising NBA players Can get drafted by small markets. But, Before they reach their full potential (especially since most get drafted before 20 yrs old), their rookie contracts expire and the bigger market teams can afford the tax to pay them on the important second contract.

Small market teams become disparate for NBA talent, and tend to over pay for sub super star talent. This tends to choke the small market teams flexibility with its cap room.

The NBA lacks parity and is somewhat predictable, on top of that super star driven . It creates a "big event" style of season, in which certain match ups between the top teams are what we crave to watch. As long as these big events exist, people will be interested and watch.
Originally posted by dcsham:
If it was only a "big market" vs "small market" issue, then we would have had champions recently from NY, Philly, Chicago, LA Clippers...

Teams still have to draft well and have front office personnel who know what the hell they are doing. I would submit to everyone that the teams listed who have had most of the championships can demonstrate that they do both probably very well.

I don't really think the Lakers do both well. Aside from drafting Bynum, they haven't really done anything in the draft that's fabulous. Mitch just trades his 1st rd picks like he's trading magic beans.