PDA

View Full Version : When you have a great team is it easier to be more dominant in 10, 20, 30 team league



JordansBulls
09-17-2010, 01:25 PM
When you have a great team is it easier to be more dominant in a 10 team, 20 team or 30 team league for a longer period of time?

JordansBulls
09-17-2010, 01:32 PM
I brought this up because many think it is easier to win with more teams. Let's look at the WNBA for example.

Case in Point the Houston Comets when the WNBA came out had like 8 teams and they won 4 in a row. Now there are 12 teams and a bit harder to win.

Hawkeye15
09-17-2010, 01:37 PM
WNBA is a poor example, there just aren't that many good women players yet

if you have an elite team, you want more teams. If you have 10 teams, the top 150 players in the world would be your competiton. If you have 30 teams, you now get 450 players. After a certain number of players, the talent drops and drops. More teams means greater disparity

dhopisthename
09-17-2010, 01:47 PM
the thing with having more teams is that the talent thins out making it harder and harder to get a more dominant team. In 30 team league there would be starters that would not even make a team in a 10 team league so when you get someone like a kobe and a gasol on one team along with a decent cast you can become a dominant team

JordansBulls
09-17-2010, 01:49 PM
WNBA is a poor example, there just aren't that many good women players yet

if you have an elite team, you want more teams. If you have 10 teams, the top 150 players in the world would be your competiton. If you have 30 teams, you now get 450 players. After a certain number of players, the talent drops and drops. More teams means greater disparity

But again that is the same in every sport. Every sport starts off with a small amount of teams where there aren't that many good players in it yet. Which is also why it is easier to be dominant with less teams.

Hawkeye15
09-17-2010, 02:57 PM
But again that is the same in every sport. Every sport starts off with a small amount of teams where there aren't that many good players in it yet. Which is also why it is easier to be dominant with less teams.

sure. But as that sport grows, more and more of our youth now start to play it, because there is the potential to go professional, make money, fame, etc. The world in general probably has 20 or so great players. Probably another 50-60 really good players. Maybe another 100 fairly good players. And so on. Of course, I have nothing to provide evidence of these exact numbers, but you see where I am going. If you have an elite team, you want the talent level spread out more, so you are not competing against a smaller sample size, where you will eventually run into another team of equal talent level.
Sorry if this comes off as confusing haha.

sep11ie
09-17-2010, 03:12 PM
Umm, a 2 team league...

Hawkeye15
09-17-2010, 03:27 PM
Umm, a 2 team league...

best answer of all haha

WadeKobe
09-17-2010, 04:54 PM
This question misses the point of the entire equation.

How much talent is there?

The fact is that if you took the talent in the current league and squeezed it into 10 teams, no one would repeat. Ever. (except maybe the Heat since they do have 3 of the top 12).

However, if there were only 3 real stars in the league, and they were on the same team, it wouldn't matter how many teams there were.

It's a flawed question without an answer.

SteveNash
09-17-2010, 05:50 PM
This question misses the point of the entire equation.

How much talent is there?

The fact is that if you took the talent in the current league and squeezed it into 10 teams, no one would repeat. Ever. (except maybe the Heat since they do have 3 of the top 12).

However, if there were only 3 real stars in the league, and they were on the same team, it wouldn't matter how many teams there were.

It's a flawed question without an answer.

This. JB should just come out with his agenda about this thread to begin with. I'm guessing Russel vs Jordan?

JordansBulls
09-17-2010, 05:52 PM
This. JB should just come out with his agenda about this thread to begin with. I'm guessing Russel vs Jordan?

No the question is what it is.

In most sports it appears a dominant team last longer for some reason when there are less teams.

kArSoN RyDaH
09-17-2010, 05:53 PM
i was just debating over this question the other day with some friends.

a great team in a 10 team league would mean that the chances of the best talent being spread amongst 9 other teams is very high. whereas if you have a great team the chances of putting together a great team out of 29 other teams is low. the talent level spreads with more teams and more teams will mean more players so the talent level drops.

i think you could make an argument for a 10 team league you could dominate more but not much. one could say that in a 10 team league you would have to go through less to get to the championship which is true but the talent in that league would be spread amongst only 9 other teams which means that they are probably loaded as well.

if you take all the talen from 29 teams to form 9 teams you will get some dammm good rosters and it might be more difficult to beat teams with that amount of talent.

kArSoN RyDaH
09-17-2010, 05:55 PM
sure. But as that sport grows, more and more of our youth now start to play it, because there is the potential to go professional, make money, fame, etc. The world in general probably has 20 or so great players. Probably another 50-60 really good players. Maybe another 100 fairly good players. And so on. Of course, I have nothing to provide evidence of these exact numbers, but you see where I am going. If you have an elite team, you want the talent level spread out more, so you are not competing against a smaller sample size, where you will eventually run into another team of equal talent level.
Sorry if this comes off as confusing haha.

i completely understand. :p

SteveNash
09-17-2010, 05:58 PM
No the question is what it is.

In most sports it appears a dominant team last longer for some reason when there are less teams.

Could it be older teams = less teams.

Older teams = Not losing players to free agency.

JordansBulls
09-17-2010, 05:58 PM
i was just debating over this question the other day with some friends.

a great team in a 10 team league would mean that the chances of the best talent being spread amongst 9 other teams is very high. whereas if you have a great team the chances of putting together a great team out of 29 other teams is low. the talent level spreads with more teams and more teams will mean more players so the talent level drops.

i think you could make an argument for a 10 team league you could dominate more but not much. one could say that in a 10 team league you would have to go through less to get to the championship which is true but the talent in that league would be spread amongst only 9 other teams which means that they are probably loaded as well.

if you take all the talen from 29 teams to form 9 teams you will get some dammm good rosters and it might be more difficult to beat teams with that amount of talent.

There are two ways to look at it.

1. You certainly need more talent on your team in a 10 team league to be more dominant

2. It is tougher to get that talent in a 30 team league, but if you do have it, you will be tough to beat.

JordansBulls
09-17-2010, 06:00 PM
Could it be older teams = less teams.

Older teams = Not losing players to free agency.

I think Free Agency is a big part. I went back and noticed that teams for instance in Baseball in the early 1900's-1940's repeated a lot or won a lot with less teams. You only saw that from 1996-2000 with the Yankees since then IIRC.

Same thing for Football before the Superbowl came about and also for Hockey

kArSoN RyDaH
09-17-2010, 06:07 PM
There are two ways to look at it.

1. You certainly need more talent on your team in a 10 team league to be more dominant

2. It is tougher to get that talent in a 30 team league, but if you do have it, you will be tough to beat.

well the thread said "when you have a great team" so i assumed a great team was already established which is why i didnt make that argument.

but yea it is harder in a 30 team league to acquire the amount of talent teams in a 10 team league would acquire.

carter15
09-17-2010, 06:14 PM
20 teams yeye.

John Walls Era
09-17-2010, 06:18 PM
I would say 30. Assuming talent is = in all categories (10, 20 or 30), it is much easier to win if the team you have is great (assuming top 3 team in your conference and top 5 overall). Look at the NBA now... every year theres only a handful of true contenders who dominate. In a 10 team league, the team you have might be great, but the other 9 teams must be alright as well; hard to dominate.

dc5jdm
09-17-2010, 09:38 PM
ASk this to the lakers and celtics.lol

WadeKobe
09-18-2010, 03:11 AM
No the question is what it is.

In most sports it appears a dominant team last longer for some reason when there are less teams.

I would say this is because it's always early in the League's development when there simply isn't enough talent. So, the team that can collect the most talent can win and win and win until more talent comes in. Then, as talent does, it eventually gets spread out across more teams again.

In fact, that's why LeBron joining Wade has caused such an uproar. That's why Michael and Magic both stupidly and erroneously said "I wouldn't have done that."

The fact is, they didn't have to. They were in a League with LESS teams and MORE talent. So, most teams had multiple stars anyhow...

Also, Magic and MJ already had better no. 2 options than LeBron could ever get. So, they already had what it took to win.

In today's league, there are very few bonafide stars and more teams. This makes teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and Magic just downright impossible to get through. There isn't enough talent to go around the other teams. If LeBron stayed there is no way with the team he had that they could have competed with any of those teams or a Miami team with Wade/Bosh. Just wasn't going to happen. Or a Bulls team with Noah/Boozer/Rose.

What is happening right now is that the league has a few teams concentrating talent and they're gonna run all over the rest of the league (as they've been doing for a couple of years). However, we are in a development process and I think there will be more talent in a few years and things will begin to even out.

JordansBulls
09-18-2010, 08:34 AM
I would say this is because it's always early in the League's development when there simply isn't enough talent. So, the team that can collect the most talent can win and win and win until more talent comes in. Then, as talent does, it eventually gets spread out across more teams again.

In fact, that's why LeBron joining Wade has caused such an uproar. That's why Michael and Magic both stupidly and erroneously said "I wouldn't have done that."

The fact is, they didn't have to. They were in a League with LESS teams and MORE talent. So, most teams had multiple stars anyhow...

Also, Magic and MJ already had better no. 2 options than LeBron could ever get. So, they already had what it took to win.

In today's league, there are very few bonafide stars and more teams. This makes teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and Magic just downright impossible to get through. There isn't enough talent to go around the other teams. If LeBron stayed there is no way with the team he had that they could have competed with any of those teams or a Miami team with Wade/Bosh. Just wasn't going to happen. Or a Bulls team with Noah/Boozer/Rose.

What is happening right now is that the league has a few teams concentrating talent and they're gonna run all over the rest of the league (as they've been doing for a couple of years). However, we are in a development process and I think there will be more talent in a few years and things will begin to even out.

You can apply that logic to Magic, but not MJ. Magic is the one that came in with a MVP player on his team that won MVP. MJ got a 8 and 4 player that took time to develop.
Jordan never went to go play with a MVP player or anyone that led a team anywhere. Lebron did that when he decided to go play with Wade. Like I said it would have been fine had he went to play with CP3, Roy and guys like that who are in the 7th-10th range. But to go play with a player that is arguable top 3 is the point Magic and them were making.

ET92898
09-18-2010, 08:45 AM
A 10 team league in a real life league, a 30 team league if it was like fantasy

Law25
09-18-2010, 10:17 AM
There are two ways to look at it.

1. You certainly need more talent on your team in a 10 team league to be more dominant

2. It is tougher to get that talent in a 30 team league, but if you do have it, you will be tough to beat.

This

Law25
09-18-2010, 10:20 AM
You can apply that logic to Magic, but not MJ. Magic is the one that came in with a MVP player on his team that won MVP. MJ got a 8 and 4 player that took time to develop.
Jordan never went to go play with a MVP player or anyone that led a team anywhere. Lebron did that when he decided to go play with Wade. Like I said it would have been fine had he went to play with CP3, Roy and guys like that who are in the 7th-10th range. But to go play with a player that is arguable top 3 is the point Magic and them were making.

I could be mistaken but wasnt the Iceman on Jordan's team in his begining years. I guess he could of been past his prime

Chronz
09-18-2010, 09:05 PM
I refuse to call you by that moniker Trophico its time to go back, anyways you bring up the most important point. FA

The # of teams in the league doesnt matter, all it takes is 1 to lure your best player away and your done. Id imagine the possibilities of that happening in a 30 team league is higher so I cant discount the importance of teams as well, just not as crucial as FA.

_KB24_
09-18-2010, 09:17 PM
I could be mistaken but wasnt the Iceman on Jordan's team in his begining years. I guess he could of been past his prime

Don't feel like checking the exact year, but it was around 86 or 87 when Gervin was traded to Chi-town, and Jordan missed pretty much the whole season due to injury. They may have played less than 10 games with each from what I remember?

netsgiantsyanks
09-18-2010, 09:23 PM
WNBA is a poor example, there just aren't that many good women players yetif you have an elite team, you want more teams. If you have 10 teams, the top 150 players in the world would be your competiton. If you have 30 teams, you now get 450 players. After a certain number of players, the talent drops and drops. More teams means greater disparity

lol,yet????............:rolleyes: