For the foreseeable future at least, so collapse away!
The NBA will be fine, if not better off after all the stars have come together in the past few months. Small market teams aren't what makes any league successful. It's all about teams in NYC, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago pulling the rest of the league along. People are more likely to watch Melo/Stoudemire play the Heat than they are to watch a team with one or no stars (San Antonio, Portland) play each other. All of this recent talk about what's going to happen now is unnecessary. This isn't an unprecedented time in NBA history; the 80s were much the same. Bird and the Celtics, Magic and the Lakers. Can anybody else recall the big names of that era? If so, they were in big markets playing with other big stars. This is nothing but good for the league.
The NBA is not fine. The star players are what drives the ticket sales and if they all cluster together in the larger marktes, then the smaller market teams will struggle. Also there are more teams now than there were in the 80's which also has some impact.
This discussion has a tendency of becomming political. Which is a no no on this blog. I hope this thread doesn't turn this way.
During their run the Pistons didn't have a single player I would call a "star", but chemistry and efficiency and defense made them difficult to beat, and people showed up because they won. Star power is overrated. Wins are what matter, and you can win without "stars." GM's just have to find the right combination of solid players.
No need for me to reply, because you said what I was going to say. Wins put the old asses in their seats...and Mike Valenti gets those asses out of said seats...
You can't just look at an outlier and say that this proves things are fine. Outside of that Pistons team that did only win once, look at the other past champions of the last 20 years: Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Heat, Bulls, Rockets. All of these teams had at least 2 bona fide stars. The Pistons did not, but again, one out of 20.
You need stars to win in the NBA and the fact that they are all clustering to a few teams means there are teams that have no shot and know that they don't. That is bad for the NBA.
I'm assuming you mean the 2004 team, Thomas was a no doubt "star". And with the exception of the '04 Pistons and maybe '08 Celtics (though Garnett was first team all-NBA) you have to go back to the 1970's where a team without a top 5 player (All-NBA 1st team) wins a championship. There's barely any teams that make it to the Finals without a top five performer.
Since when has the NBA cared about its small market teams? They're looking for stars and teams to market globally.
Bingo. The global comment hit the nail on the head. Kids in China and Europe will recognize LeBron and the Heat before they recognize any player on the Bucks or Kings.
I'll echo this as well.
The NBA is huge overseas. Much more so than in the US where it's somewhere behind the NFL, college football and baseball.
I had a cab driver in Istanbul who knew more about the Milwaukee Bucks than anyone in the US, outside of Milwaukee.
If the Milwaukee Bucks are marketed well enough to win fans in freaking Turkey, of all places, the NBA isn't going to care about the bad franchises as long it has at least some blockbuster teams. As long as the players don't get too greedy and switch teams every other week, the current model is sustainable indefinitely.
The current model is not sustainable indefinitely. That is why they are contemplating getting rid of some teams.
Getting rid of a few teams does not change the basic structure of the current model. There's a core of extremely good teams and a lot of bad teams; getting rid of a few bad teams leaves the marketors with sufficient highlights, fluff, and games for the national and global markets.
I should clarify: The current model being unsustainable meaning that there are too many teams especially in this economy. But, yes you are correct, it wouldn't really change the model as a whole.
I think we had slightly different ideas of "sustainability." My idea of sustainability is that the business model can run indefinitely without major organizational changes. Telling three or four basket case teams to pack up shop and writing severance checks is a lot easier than, say, replacing an entire coaching staff or executive management for Pro Team X. The NBA can protect its investment pretty easily here. All they need are a few years of market studies to figure out which markets to cut or reorganize, and the system will proceed as before.
The NBA is huge overseas. Much more so than in the US where it's somewhere behind the NFL, college football and baseball.
I don't agree, at least not when it comes to Europe. (China I don't know about.) The NBA is far more mainstream here than there. Over there, it has a cult following - playoff games get little blurbs in the newspaper - but the vast majority of people in Europe (other than, perhaps, a few hotbeds like the former Yugoslavia) know next to nothing about the league, and can't name more than a few teams. Even the few who are familiar with the sport will often say that they lost interest after Jordan retired.
This is completely overblown. Small market teams as championship contenders have always been few and far between, which will continue to be the case. Like most sports, small market teams must win with innovation and chemistry, and they will, occasionally.
Which is why I loved growing up in Michigan/Illinois. Go Wings; Go Bears.
Go Lions ;)
Go Browns! (kidding--I don't have that much tolerance for pain but I do have a soft spot for the team)
In the NFL the small markets have just as good a shot at winning the super bowl as large market teams. Look at Green Bay and Pittsburg both cities are small This is done through revenue sharing. It is very socialist in nature, every team gets the same cut of the pie.
The NBA should just contract some teams and hold a draft for those players. This would raise the talent level of all teams and make the competition better.
That's because the NFL has a salary cap, revenue sharing deal, and restrictive rules regarding free agency that really put most teams on equal footing. Also, since each team is comprised of 53 active players, no one man has as big an impact on any game as in basketball. There may also be a higher rate of injury in the NFL, which may play into it somehow, but I really don't have any data on that. I feel like the value of any one player, or even three players, in the NFL is much lower as far as their impact on their team vs. the impact of one guy or three guys in the NBA.
I'd have to disagree with this notion that small market teams can't compete in major sports. Though the major markets do make the headlines on ESPN, the smaller markets can and do compete across all sports.
Take this year alone as an example: The Spurs are one of the best teams in the NBA; the superbowl was between a city in Wisconsin and a city in Western PA; a team from Vancouver leads the west in the NHL; and the World Series could have potentially been NY-Philly but instead ended up being 2 teams from the Western half of the country.
The NBA looks pretty ridiculous at times, but I think it has to do with the relative value of one player.
In football, hockey, baseball, one player won't play the vast majority of the time and be responsible for so much of the offensive/defensive output of the team.
Compared to baseball, basketball looks just fine. But, it is the big market teams that make the $$ for the league. What baseball doesn't have is revenue sharing that keeps the small teams as "little brother".
Now, the NFL provides the best model and teams like Green Bay couldn't win anything without the revenue sharing agreements that they have.
just so false. the packers are in the top 5 of revenue every year. Packer tickets are worth their weight in gold (not to be taken literally...paper isn't heavy).
Reveue sharing is why the Arizona Cardinals aren't football's version of the KC Royals. Just because a team exists in a small town doesn't make them small market. GB is the second most popular team in the NFL behind the Steelers.
But revenue sharing did save the franchise early on, when the NFL decided to share tv money equally. That prevented GB from being at a competitive and revenue disadvantage given the size of their market. Then almost immediately, the Lombardi teams insured they had a national following.
The NFL has made almost no global inroads. Great teams sell. Kids in Europe can tell you about Michael Jordan and the Bulls, Kobe and the Lakers, LeBron and the Heat etc. Kids in the US know about Barcelona, Real Madrid and the Big 4 (now 5) English teams.
NFL is making huge profits now, but I wonder how much it would be doing if people weren't betting on it playing fantasy football.
Of course American football hasn't made inroads. No one else plays it, and it requires a too expensive equipment set and too many players for it to sprout in places that it is not played.
Soccer, baseball, and hockey are played all over the world. And the American invention basketball requires just a ball, a couple of hoops, and a few players.
Hockey is played all over the world? Try like 10 other countries, tops. Outside of the U.S., Canada and some European countries, it's unheard-of.
Baseball is at maybe 15-20. It's big in North America, the Spanish-speaking Caribbean, the northern part of South America, Japan and a couple other Asian countries. Elsewhere it's off the map.
Actually, hockey is played all over the world.
We just call it field hockey. It's even an Olympic sport which men play. No, really.
Imagine my surprise as a kid watching the Summer Olympics, and they mentioned hockey. What? Girls play that!
Field hockey and ice hockey are two quite different games and no, neither is played worldwide.
C'mon, I knew he was talking about ice hockey, but leaving out "ice" left the door open for me to throw in the other as tongue-in-cheek.
Field hockey may not be as "worldwide" as soccer, but looking at Wiki's Hockey World Cup page, there have been teams from 6 continents - is that not "all over the world" enough for you? ;)
The Field hockey at the Summoer Olympics page lists 40 nations.
The NFL has made some inroads in the UK and Germany. It gets a modest amount of coverage there. Actually, in the UK it's probably the most well-known North American league. Basketball, baseball and hockey are almost completely unknown there.
But I think what makes the NFL the most popular pro league in the country is it's parity. For me, I can get so much more engaged when there are more than a handful of teams (not individuals) that have a prayer of contending for titles.
I think it has more to do with football being the ideal American spectator sport.
Unlike people in Canada, who like watching intently for sixty minutes of mayhem, or people in the rest of the world who watch a good portion of an event intently, sometimes zoning out when the ball is stuck around midfield, we seem to like predictability (four chances guarenteed in normal circumstances, guarenteed possession after a score) and being able to focus in and then zone out.
Wow that was too long of a sentence.
I am confuzzled
Hockey is nonstop maddness, soccer is a little less than hockey, but still way more than football. Watching football allows us to grab a drink between plays or when the offense is bogged down deep in their own zone.
Nothing against football, I love watching, but you can zone out for much more of the clock time in football compared to those other two.
Other reason's football is king
- your team plays once a week making it a must see event
- only 16 games a year in the regular season making the regular season matter
- playoffs are limited to the elite teams only 12 of the 32 teams get in
- the violence of the game.... i'm sorry hockey was better with more fights... who doesn't think the best red wings regular season game wasn't the brawl with the Aves?
- Fantasy football... this gives you more than just your team to root for
- As a kid its a great game to play either in the back yard or on an organized team
- its a better game to watch on tv... baseball, hockey, and basketball are better live.
Heck, I watched the Columbus Clippers play once at their new-ish park. $10 ticket, you can walk around anywhere you want and you aren't packed in shoulder-to-shoulder in the seats, greasy ballpark food, goofy promotions. It's got everything except good athletic play.
i love live baseball i go to toledo mud hens games for about the same... the only problem is that dame drive home after 9 innings of beer and hot dogs. Also being a michigan fan did you chear or Bo Henson when he played in cbus?
I didn't know much about him, so I looked him up on wikipedia. I'm not suprised that he got booed by the CBus fans for being a Michigan grad. Similar crap has gone down with Manny Harris and the Cavs. It's really sad that Michigan can take advantage of the Ohio pipeline but Ohio can't seem to put a pipeline to Michigan to help out their pro teams. Oh well.
Teams playing once a week:
I think that's another huge reason. I played hockey for well over a decade, and I remember realizing for the first time (as a pretty young kid) that football teams played once a week.
You're also right about the ease of playing it as a pick-up game. Hockey is my first and strongest love, but anyone can see that football is the more easily watchable game. I think there's something to be said for casual fans being able to turn it on and have some idea of what's happening. Hockey is too fast (and sometimes complicated) plus it really is intense the whole way through.
As to the violence, I have to disagree. Hockey hits are every bit as hard as football hits, and at a much faster speed.
i was considering the violence more geared to baseball and basketball... as a detroit fan i used to love the Bad Boy's and the Jordan Rules.
As far as hockey, the hits are comprable to football. I just think they should allow more fighting in hockey. I never grew up a hockey fan, but i enjoy going to minor league games and its all ways fun when a fight breaks out. I think one of the main reason's it does not translate to the TV is because the puck is hard to follow. Part of this is because a lot of americans don't know how to watch the game properly, you have to be more aware of the strategy of hockey and following the action rather than just trying to watch where the puck is going. In basketball you don't watch the ball as it is bouncing up and down, and football unless it is a pass you don't just watch the ball while someone is running with it. Hopefully with HDTV the puck issue becomes less of an issue.
As far as making Soccer more watchable. Get rid of the offside penalty. If a team playing defense doesn't want to keep a defender back to guard against cherry picking then shame on them. plus you have a goalie to help stop the ball. To me the offsides in soccer would be like calling a penalty everytime Braylon got pass a saftey because they are to slow.
I agree with most of what you're saying, if not all. Hockey has its problems, football is king here. Personally I like the contact sports, but the fighting in hockey pisses me off. Only because of the stereotype. It's like Greek life I guess. Too much steriotype and not enough knowledge
Sorry for bringing that into this, just the best analogy I could think of in my inebriated state.
What's fun about watching a bunch of average teams play each other? If there are some stakes to it, fine, but if there aren't forget it. People tune in in record numbers to watch great teams play at historically high levels even if there are no stakes (think Pats Giants reg. season finale).
Look at San Antonio, my favorite team. You have to build a loyal fan base and make the fans want to come out. That is why OKC and San Antonio are both really successful organizations. They both have plans and devoted fans.
The reason why San Antonio is successful is because of their management. They tend to draft really well and like you said have really loyal fans.
I wouldn't compare OKC to San Antonio, but they are becoming a successful organization. I would say that most of it has to do with them having such an exciting young team. It could all change if they loose Kevin Durant and Westbrook. If it were not for Durant and Westbrook OKC might be like the Timberwolves or Bucks.
Who even gives a shit about the NBA anymore, I don't mean to insult anyone but it's garbage. Isn't taking 5 steps for a lay up called traveling? Apparently not.
They've curtailed the blatent traveling in the last few years. If you dont watch just for every time a player travels, you'll see that there's never been a greater depth of talent in the league than there is today.
8 teams have won the NBA championship in the last 30 years. The league has 22 irrelevent franchises and will continue to have 2/3 of the league not matter. OKC is the only small market team of remote interest right now in the entire league that hasnt done it before (meaning pretty much just San Antonio as an "already established" small market success story).
Yes and they all play for 4 teams
Boston- KG, etc.; Miami-LBJ, DWade, Bosh; NY-Melo, Stoudemire; Orlando-Howard; NJ-Deron Williams; Chicago-Derrick Rose; Dallas-Dirk; LAL-Kobe; LAC-Blake Griffin; OKC-Durant; NO-CP3; That's 11 teams with legitimate superstars. I didn't count SA and PHX because Duncan and Nash are nearing the end. Within a few years Washington will have John Wall to represent them. That's a pretty good amount of teams with a star player.
(Que Piano) Where
(Que Piano) Where
I'm done with basketball for a while after last night.
Who cares which teams have one star player? The point is that it's impossible for a small market team to develop more than one star because the players run the league and go where they want, where the money is ie the big markets. The competition in the league is a joke.
Yeah, damn those players for making good career moves! To hell with them!
Good career moves? Carmelo engineered a trade to New York, which had to give up anyone who was any good besides Stoudemire in order to get him. That's a good career move? It's a good career move for Carmelo, the brand. Not Carmelo, the player.
Rick Reilly agrees with you. He managed to argue that Melo had a much better chance to win a title in Denver than in NY. He then called Billups old and Martin and JR Smith garbage. Man, with opportunities like that, why would he ever leave the Nuggs?
The fact is you have a better chance in this league to win with 2 superstars than 1 with a decent cast (just ask, well, the pre-trade Knicks). Melo realized that. LeBron and Bosh did too. Hell, so did Boozer, who could have gotten far more $$$ in NJ but went to Chicago to play with Rose.
People are mad because they think only teams should decide where players go. They long for a pre-free agency world. They can't handle that players have leverage or some say in their destinies. A franchise tag is so fundamentally unfair in basketball, where there are only 12 players on a team (not 55) and there are absolute maximum salary levels, it's ridiculous.
Nobody complaining about any of this is a real NBA fan (except for Cavs fans lol) - it's just people who hate the league because TRAVELING and THUGS. They hate these young cocky millionaires and want them to live in purgatory in Toronto for 15 years. The league should ignore them. I'm not sure the current situation is ideal or sustainable, but 2 players in 2 years having some say in where they go, one of whom WAS A FREE AGENT, seems to have driven people insane. Unfortunately, it's hard to explain without mentioning the elephant in the room.
You're setting up a lot of straw men here. The choice isn't between indentured servitude and no free agency, and the current situation.
And it's not just "two people in two years." You seem to forget, for example, Kobe, who engineered his way out of Charlotte. You forget the infamous "lets all play in NYC" toast. It's one thing for players to choose where they play. It's another for players to choose which teams will be good and which won't. If Dwyane Wade had been drafted by Utah, you think LBJ and his buddies would have all settled down in Salt Lake City? Hell no. This sets up a situation where an organization doesn't have to be good, it just has to be located in a hip-hop-friendly city. Why do you think the Kings want to move to LA? Why do you think the Nets want to go to Brooklyn?
That's fine and great if you want to be a league for just one kind of fan. But the fans you dismiss out of hand are a pretty big group of people. Your flip line about "except for Cavs fans lol" is truer than you think and it isn't going to be just Cavs fans any more. It's Jazz fans now, too. And Hornets fans when CP3 bolts. This league is slowly moving toward having teams clustered in a select few cities. Not a good thing.
Good move for Carmelo the brand and the player. With either CP3 or Deron Williams alongside he and Stoudemire, they will compete for championships. The Knicks didn't really give up a bounty to get him. Chandler and Gallinari are "nice" players, but they were D'Antoni system guys a la Quentin Richardson. Mozgov sucks and picks in the NBA are highly unreliable.
It's almost impossible to have balance on the financial side of any business anymore, let alone sports. Sports is like any other business: if the owners do what they want, everyone is underpaid and overworked. If the employees run the business, it's the opposite.
For some reason, in the last thirty years, arbitrators and judges treat player's unions as if they were the UAW fighting for the rights of exploited workers in the 30's. I don't know how the "I can't feed my family" argument is taken seriously by anyone when it is made by a guy with a multi-million dollar contract.
So, what happens? In situations where unions are really needed, where Joe Sixpack is trying to make a living, they get "busted." Meanwhile, the unions who are fighting for the rights of all those "poor, exploited" multi-millionaires who drive up the prices of professional sports events are allowed to do what they want.
Down here in the Tampa Bay area, the hockey team doesn't break even until it gets through the second round of the playoffs. And hockey is the least player-friendly of all the major sports.
Players in all sports need to realize that the fans who pay their salaries don't have a lot of money anymore, and that they are in danger of totally blowing what they have now. I wish the owners would lock them all out in all sports and get things to a more managable level again.
Then, there's the "dirty little secret." Players are exploited, but the people doing the exploitation are usually the agents entrusted with their money. It is the agents who are really running the unions, and the agents who make sure to get their money off the top.
On the subject of agents, I just have one question: do agents ever refund players who are sued for their signing bonuses? I'm betting they don't.
I can't remember the figures now, but athletes are actually underpaid in an economic sense. I had a sports-minded economics teacher in high school and he went through the figures. Turns out professional athletes make less than Average Joe as a relative percentage of revenue brought in (e.g. Kobe makes 75% of revenue brought in, while Average Joe Middle Manager brings in 85%).
Like I said, I don't remember the numbers, and those are made up, but the concept is true.
The problem with that kind of analysis is that middle managers are paid within a relatively narrow range of one another and in accordance with cost of living in the area. Athletes' compensation is all over the place.
NBA 5 Players, 2 Superstars. 40% of starting roster+Superstars. Play 90% of game
MLB 2 Super Stars 15% of Starting line-up. Start 20% of games. Bat 10% of the time.
NFL 2 Super Stars 10% of Starting line-up. Play 50% of the time.
This is why the NBA sucks. And only a few teams win. This and the fact that the teams that have won championships in the last 10 years other than the spurs have gotten one of their stars for a bag of basketball via a trade. Shaq-Gasol-Sheed-KG/Ray Allen. Unwanted older players who were traded for money/garbage and 2nd round draft picks.
They ruined the game for me when they started rewarding offensive players going to the rim out of control or lowering their shoulder.
You're watching but there's no way in hell you could win a title in the current NBA by running iso and trying to draw fouls. The top-tier defenses are just too good and most players aren't good enough to live off of the drive game alone; this sort of play gets exposed during the playoffs. The most cited-to exception is the Dwyane Wade Heat title but that title was also partially won with typical Pat Riley defense and veteran leadership.
It is hard to tell the difference between a NBA game and an AND 1 game. At least the AND 1 announcer sounds like some one who should be calling the game.
Jason Whitlock is a relatively charismatic guy but an absolutely garbage writer, at least lately.
This is what I got out of the article. I don't watch the NBA and really have no idea if these moves are killing it or not, but god damn that's a terribly written article. Just a string of independent sentences.
Whitlock is wrong - the NBA isn't on a bubble that's about to collapse. It's not like the whole model is going to come tumbling down like a house of cards. That doesn't mean it's in good shape, though. The Hornets are already in league ownership because Shinn couldn't find a buyer, and the Pistons' sale is going slowly because the team lost a ton of value and the current ownership isn't willing to accept that. It's a good thing the Cavaliers aren't on the market, too, Gilbert couldn't give them away right now.
The league has generally always had its best teams in just a few select places. That was fine, but now the value is starting to congregate, too, and that's not a good thing. The Kings are threatening to move to Anaheim, which is basically LA. The Nets are moving to NYC. These players engineering their arrivals in places like Miami and New York are making it worse. You can't just say that more teams should be like the Spurs, because by definition that's impossible. Not everyone can be like the Spurs.
I hesitate to say a franchise tag will fix things. NFL teams are hesitant to use it because players get whiny when they're tagged. NBA players will act like two-year-olds. I don't know what the way forward is, though.
It would be great if instead of contracting the NBA could have a second tier and a promotion/relegation system. Parity in the NBA became a farce as soon as Bird rights got introduced and it's an impediment to the global brand anyway.
Yeah, everyone thinks it'd be cool to have Euro-style relegation in this and that league, but it's impossible. Owners like to have their franchises keep their value, which is mutually exclusive with relegation to the second tier.
The NBA isn't on a bubble now, but it was on one - when Michael Jordan was playing. The main problem with the league is that its business model is based on the league enjoying 1990s-style popularity, which it no longer is receiving. It's doing somewhat better now than it was immediately after Jordan's retirement, but it just doesn't have the crossover appeal it had then. People who didn't even care about sports were tuning in to watch Jordan. That doesn't happen anymore. NBA salaries became the highest of any sport in the 1990s (by a wide margin) and then when the MJ bubble burst, teams started losing money.
Good career moves for them personally, bad for the sport, hence this thread.
I'm kind of happy. I'm not a huge NBA fan but I like watching the stars. I would rather watch someone with 3 stars like the heat than someone that doesn't have any stars
My comments above might make it seem like I care about the NBA, but I too do not care. They should just have the league be 12 teams filled with all superstars. Then it would be fun to watch.
and this is why I prefer NCAA.
I think what he is trying to say is that, we don't care about the NBA so just have fewer teams with more super stars.
I do not have the same wish for college football because I care about Michigan football and college football as a whole.
The league is experiencing the largest talent pool it has had in a long time, maybe ever, but it's diluted because there are too many teams. Contraction will bring more stars to more places.
Also, instituting a hard cap will keep salaries in check and prevent teams from selling the entire estate to build a team of two or three players, because they simply can't afford to build a legitimate, competitive team around them.
That doesn't make sense. The league has added one team in the past twenty years, and five in the last thirty. If the talent pool is in fact growing, then the league is less diluted, not more.
Contraction is another one of those magic wands people try and wave and it's not a workable solution unless a team simply collapses and dissolves. In order for the league to make a concerted effort to contract, it has to find an owner willing to sell and then buy that team. They paid $300 million for the Hornets - they'd probably have to do that at least once more for another team in order to make contraction work. They only did that because they'll get their money back when the Hornets sell. The owners would never agree to pay $600 million that would just disappear into the void.
Raptors and Grizzlies came in together.
Well the league has added three teams in the past 20 years and seven in the past 30 - or eight if you're willing to go back one more year to 1980.
However, I wasn't saying it's diluted compared to any other time period, e.g. now compared to the 80s, but that it's more diluted than it could be. Eliminating teams would solve that problem.
And contraction could be a process, not an instant thing - get rid of teams over a period of time, not all at once.
At the same time, owners could potentially recup the money they spend to collectively buy out a team in the added revenue they'll get from increased viewership, ticket sales, and lower salaries among other things. Again, it won't be immediate, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
My point is that if a diluted talent pool is a problem now, it was more of a problem back then when there were still almost as many teams, and they seemed to work through it OK.
The ways you're talking about making money are nebulous at best. Owners won't see the link between the huge pile of cash they'll spend in the short term and the fuzzy possibility of somewhat better revenue from TV and such in the long-term, because there's too much else that affects that. And owners in the favored markets already sell out their games, so they're not likely to be easily convinced that contraction will increase their ticket sales.
Besides, how can you make contraction a "process?" They won't be able to keep secret the teams they're planning on getting rid of, and planning to contract a team six years from now will crater that team's value to the point where the owner would have a legitimate court case to sue the league. Or are you suggesting the owners will get together in secret and plot to get rid of a team without the owner's knowledge? That won't fly either. Neither will picking and choosing a team after each offseason. Owners just aren't going to agree to be bought out.
Let it burn. That league is garbage anyway.
it's the "I hate the NBA so I will post random complaints on any NBA-related thread without any real explanation" troll!
When there's more talk of a dunk contest, the league is in trouble. It's ridiculously predictable and the only noteworthy thing that garnered true national attention was LeBrn's "decision". It's an individual-centric league.
There was a dunk contest? There hasn't been a dunk contest for a few years now. There's been a prop contest though.
Sad when a dunk contest has gotten replaced by "Who can wow the crowd the most with this prop"
Buzz Bissinger (author of Friday Night Lights) attributes much of the NBA's decline to racial factors. I agree with him to a degree, but I think it's not just a factor of the players being mostly black (which has been the case for a few decades now) but also with them being more culturally removed from older white Americans than before. The league has become more "hiphopified," for lack of a better term. David Stern seems to be aware (and worried) about this, if the league's dress code is any indication.
Is NBA viewership down? Are teams/ players making less money than before? If not, then why the collapse talk, other than some sportswriters who need more publicity?
NBA viewership is much lower than it was in Jordan's heyday and yes, many teams are currently losing money.
As long as the WNBA collapses I will be sated.
This is the problem with the NBA that you don't have with the NFL. We just saw two examples in the last week, 2 relatively smaller market teams who had to trade the franchise player because they knew neither of them would be back at the end of the season. This is the reason the NBA is so lopsided, a lottery pick builds his carrer with a lower market team and when his contract is up he leaves. It is impossibe to sustain success when you have to find a new franchise player every 5 years.
Honestly, I don't see what Whitlock is complaining about. Yeah, some teams have built-in advantages when it comes to attracting players and that can sometimes be exploited to the detriment of others. But that has existed since the beginning of sport, and outside of baseball I haven't really seen a team in any of the major sports really abuse that ability to an unfair advantage (and even in baseball it doesn't always work out).
And complaining about the fact that players want to decide where they want to play is incredibly hypocritical given that Mr. Whitlock has changed addresses quite a few times because of more exposure, better money, etc. Sure, he couldn't hold the nation "hostage" like LeBron or 'Melo, but that is more because there are quite a few fat, overrated sports writers in this world, but far fewer 6'8" men who can jump over cars and shoot a ball from 30 feet away. And last time I checked, Cleveland and Denver enjoyed a number of years of success with their stars, the owners receiving millions of dollars in additional revenue, and the fans enjoying having one of the best players in the game on their team.
I think the NBA, like the NFL and MLB, is going to need to make some hard decisions as it applies to salaries and player retention, but those existed long before free agents started actually picking where they want to play. I don't think any of these moves "destroy" basketball in those respective cities, though I'm sure it sets back those franchises a couple of years. But so be it - it is the natural lifecycle of any NBA team, and at least those clubs were able to restock somewhat with draft picks and young players. I'm not a huge fan of the NBA by any means, but complaining about basic supply-demand economics because you don't like where guys chose to play is disingenuous.
League is ruined because it's all about the super-teams now, and all the players are dictating where they want to go.
In the 80's, Jordan never would have teamed up with Bird and Barkley to create super teams. They played where they were drafted, they made teams better. And they all hated each other too. Everyone's a friend in today's NBA. Everyone hates Kevin Garnett, but that's it ; otherwise they're all buddies. Lol
The Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and Pistons teams that you remember were just as bad about shuffling players as they are now.
Kareem wanted out of Milwalkee for New York or L.A.. Magic wanted to be traded his first year with L.A. and got Westhead fired for Pat Riley.
The Pistons traded for Laimbeer, Mahorn, and VJ, not to mention trading for Dantley and then trading him for Aguirre.
Ditto the Bulls: traded Oakley to the Knicks for Strickland and Cartwright. The Bulls, of any team, had great draft picks and played a very young team.
If anything, the 80's NBA was dominated more by individual, talented young players that a team got in the draft. Jordan was the 3rd pick, Magic, Isiah, Bird were all high draft picks. Sure, I'll grant that they played there careers for one team, but that's before the '99 lockout changed the rookie rules and made LeBron situations more common.
But you're talkiing about teams trading players around, whereas now it seems to be the players who have the upper hand, dictating where they want to go. Very different. The danger here is that fans of small-market teams may lose hope that their franchises can win championships, and may tune out the league altogether.
1. 8 teams have won a championship in the past 30 years.
2. The fact that people are upset players take less money to play where they want is asinine beyond belief.
3. We don't even know yet if the teaming up super groups of players in big cities will lead to championships.
4. The worst thing for the Nuggets would have been Carmelo peacing out right after the season. I feel he did Denver a favor by making the Knicks believe he would sign with the Nets, but he would have been better off waiting until after the season and signing before he lost potential teammates.
5. Being pissy about parity in the NBA is lame. There's Iowa State fans for crying out loud, and they'll never win anything in football.
This whole debate amounts to people being upset that superstars might choose to live and play in a city that doesn't suck. It's an issue that could affect all sports, but since NBA success is closely tied to having that one great player it's a big deal apparently.
TL;DR - No one cares about the have nots, it's just life.
There's Iowa State fans for crying out loud, and they'll never win anything in football.
Except for certain games in Austin, TX.
NBA fans seem to be fans of players, not teams. Guess we can thank MJ for that. That's more like WWE and Nascar and a very unstable foundation. The NHL is the greatest sport because of team loyalties and not to get off topic but the way the league tries to force Crosby and Ovi down fans throats ( just go to NHL.com to see it) makes me sick and is very NBAish. Go Wings.