PDA

View Full Version : Lack of parity in the NBA



nygiants242
12-23-2010, 03:05 AM
It's been a knock on the league forever, and although I am a huge fan of the NBA, I am starting to buy into the criticism.

These winning streaks are getting a little ridiculous:
- Boston Celics with 14 straight wins (still running)
- San Antonio Spurs with 10 straight wins (still running)
- Miami Heat with 12 straight wins
- Dallas Mavericks with 12 straight wins

.. just to name a few.

I mean these are pretty lengthy winning streaks we are talking about (over 1/7th of the WHOLE SEASON).

Furthermore, think about the NBA Champs (since 1980), it has either been the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, or Spurs 23 out of 31 times.

That really is insane. As fans of mediocre franchises, it's hard to see teams ever rising above the elite.

What do you guys think? Agree or Disagree? How do you feel about this? Any suggestions on what can be done to "fix" this? Or is it really no problem at all?

Htownballa1622
12-23-2010, 03:16 AM
Can't be fixed. Stern controls things. there's a reason only seven teams have won in the past 25 years.its really lame though.the lakers/celtics/heat or spurs will win it all this year.just the way it is....i get my thrill in watching lowerseeds beat high seeds in playoffs though.

sargon21
12-23-2010, 03:16 AM
Completely agree, it's a big problem. I really don't mind it all that much because I live in and support a major market, but I feel that if I supported a lesser market team, I couldn't support the NBA nearly as much.

210Don
12-23-2010, 03:28 AM
im happy my spurs are in there lol maybe one day well be a top flight place like la or boston where free agents wanna come

Giraffes Rule
12-23-2010, 03:32 AM
The way I see it, the Spurs winning so often is proof that if you play your cards right you can build a winning franchise with good player development, good coaching, and a little bit of luck in landing a hall of famer in the draft. If there's a lack of parity in this league, it can largely be attributed to franchises that know how to run things and franchises that don't.

clutchski
12-23-2010, 03:33 AM
I don't think it's fixed. Great franchises learn how to 'stay great'. Look at English Premier League Soccer. Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and until recently Liverpool..always top of the table for many, many years. Granted they can buy many of their players with lots of money, but they know how to develop a great team over a period of many years.

abe_froman
12-23-2010, 03:34 AM
of all sports basketball is the one where a single player has the greatest impact on what happens during a game.so unless one of those franchise's you opine over manages to fall *** backwards into a superstar..they're well ****ed until they do.

its just how the game is played,unless you change that,parity in the sport is impossible

bholly
12-23-2010, 03:41 AM
Can't be fixed. Stern controls things. there's a reason only seven teams have won in the past 25 years.its really lame though.the lakers/celtics/heat or spurs will win it all this year.just the way it is....i get my thrill in watching lowerseeds beat high seeds in playoffs though.

I hate this argument. Parity is good for the league and good for Stern. You really think if he was in control he'd be using that control to make a small-town team like the Spurs perennial contenders and giving the Knicks a decade of mediocrity or worse?

210Don
12-23-2010, 03:45 AM
I hate this argument. Parity is good for the league and good for Stern. You really think if he was in control he'd be using that control to make a small-town team like the Spurs perennial contenders and giving the Knicks a decade of mediocrity or worse?

sometimes you just cant stop greatness [spurs] & sucking & horrible management [knicks]

bholly
12-23-2010, 03:45 AM
These are my thoughts from another thread on the subject. They aren't written that well, but good enough to not bother writing them again:


Firstly, it's the nature of the sport. Like someone said, basketball is a sport where one brilliant individual can affect the game far more than in other team sports. Combine that with relatively long primes, and one great player can lead to championships or contention for years and years, which just doesn't happen as easily in the large-team sports.
So that's why there's a concept of a lack of parity. It's not that it's unfairly weighted to a few select teams, it's just that a good team can often contend for 5+ years, so you get a sport dominated by dynasties. In a sport that favours dynasties like that, of course there're going to be relatively few champions over a timeframe as short at 30 years. Look again after 100+ years and see what's different.

So the question isn't why there's a lack of parity, because that's unavoidable, but whether it favours certain teams. Honestly, for the most part, I don't think it does. I think it's the draft - so part skill, and a whole lot of luck. By my count, 23 of the last 30 MVPs, and 24 of the last finals MVPs, were playing for the only team they'd ever played for (although Dirk and Kobe weren't drafted by their teams, it's pretty close to the same thing). That's 80% of finals MVPs. So I think, really, it's just that certain teams have gotten lucky with picks, or assessed talent well, or had MJ drop to them at 3rd - and that's been enough to create the vast majority of champions we've had.

Of course, that's not the whole story. You need to be able to build a team around the centre-piece otherwise it won't work (eg LBJ's Cavs), and that requires good management and ownership. It also helps to have an attractive city to lure free agents (eg the Lakers' bright lights luring Kareem and Shaq), and (although this is often overlooked) hold on to the players you already have.

So overall, of course having an attractive city helps, and good ownership/management is often vital to see a team reach its potential, but I think a huge amount of the disparity comes down to the luck of the draft. Things look consistently unfair because the same teams dominate for years and years, but that's just the nature of the sport. Some teams have had more than one great player (Boston got both Russell and Bird, LA got Kareem/Magic/Shaw/Kobe), but beyond that there have been very few teams with multiple dynasties. Essentially, it's just an unavoidable fact of the way the sport is.

arkanian215
12-23-2010, 03:52 AM
I don't think it's fixed. Great franchises learn how to 'stay great'. Look at English Premier League Soccer. Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and until recently Liverpool..always top of the table for many, many years. Granted they can buy many of their players with lots of money, but they know how to develop a great team over a period of many years.

Yup. Also the league benefits from having stability in their ranks.

Htownballa1622
12-23-2010, 03:56 AM
I hate this argument. Parity is good for the league and good for Stern. You really think if he was in control he'd be using that control to make a small-town team like the Spurs perennial contenders and giving the Knicks a decade of mediocrity or worse?

I'm not saying he's a dictator in the sense he's pulling all the strings.but go ahead and ask yourself.do you think he makes more money when major cities win? Or when a team like the bucks win?

I feel alot comes into play.yes spurs are one rare team but unless teams aren't the spurs, players will continue to flock to major cities.it could all change but like you said ...you have to look every 30 years down the road.

abe_froman
12-23-2010, 04:01 AM
I'm not saying he's a dictator in the sense he's pulling all the strings.but go ahead and ask yourself.do you think he makes more money when major cities win? Or when a team like the bucks win?

I feel alot comes into play.yes spurs are one rare team but unless teams aren't the spurs, players will continue to flock to major cities.it could all change but like you said ...you have to look every 30 years down the road.

because stern tells players where to go,and they blindly listen?

just because he reaps benefits from something doesnt mean he has any control over it.even then they instituted a cap what more can be done? you cant force dwight howard to go to the pacers if he doesnt want to go,and thats the only thing that keeps the pacers from being the lakers

Mudvayne91
12-23-2010, 04:10 AM
Can't be fixed. Stern controls things. there's a reason only seven teams have won in the past 25 years.its really lame though.the lakers/celtics/heat or spurs will win it all this year.just the way it is....i get my thrill in watching lowerseeds beat high seeds in playoffs though.

Agreed.

Htownballa1622
12-23-2010, 04:24 AM
because stern tells players where to go,and they blindly listen?

just because he reaps benefits from something doesnt mean he has any control over it.even then they instituted a cap what more can be done? you cant force dwight howard to go to the pacers if he doesnt want to go,and thats the only thing that separates the pacers chances and lakers,ect.

No but explain to me how chicago wins the lottery the year they get rose? Explain to me little things like that.explain why joey crawford or many nba refs can'tbe credible anymore.yes tim donaghy gambled on games but what if he was telling the truth about other crooked officiating? Look it up.there's loads of proof.

Many things come into play but to think he has no control...youre kidding yourself.

The nba is a business.there's a reason why it can't be as credible as it once was.I'm not denying good teams find a way to be and stay relevant but its a little more than that imo.

But I'm just a follower of the game I love...just my OPINION(meaning not factual or could be true)

abe_froman
12-23-2010, 04:29 AM
No but explain to me how chicago wins the lottery the year they get rose? Explain to me little things like that.explain why joey crawford or many nba refs can'tbe credible anymore.yes tim donaghy gambled on games but what if he was telling the truth about other crooked officiating? Look it up.there's loads of proof.

Many things come into play but to think he has no control...youre kidding yourself.

The nba is a business.there's a reason why it can't be as credible as it once was.I'm not denying good teams find a way to be and stay relevant but its a little more than that imo.

But I'm just a follower of the game I love...just my OPINION(meaning not factual or could be true)
oooh i shoulda known you were one of those conspiracy guys.ok well tell me why you guys ignore that the magic got the top pick 3 times in the lotto era ,the spurs getting it twice and the knicks only got it once? why then does the celtics lose the '07 lotto to portland.you told me stern doesnt let things like that happen,he rigs the draft for big markets over small...

Mudvayne91
12-23-2010, 04:53 AM
because stern tells players where to go,and they blindly listen?

just because he reaps benefits from something doesnt mean he has any control over it.even then they instituted a cap what more can be done? you cant force dwight howard to go to the pacers if he doesnt want to go,ands thats the only thing that gives pacers an equal/better chance than lakers,ect.

True, but here's the problem as I see it. It's not a huge coincidence that the same teams are successful every year. Major market teams successful = more money for the league compared to a Minnesota or a Indiana, so as a commissioner, what do you do to maximizes your profits? You tilt the odds towards your major market teams. How? Refs imo. Now if you're a very talented player, and you're going to get the same money wherever you go, are you going to go to the major market that is constantly winning or are you going to a minor market team that has no real significant history of winning?

Stern isn't forcing players to sign with a minor market team, but he certainly isn't setting that team up for success either.

I do think one's opinion is based on the teams market though for the most part. It's the haves vs. the have nots as I see it. A Lakers fan may not have seen anything out of the ordinary when the Nugs played them in the Western Conference Finals a few years ago. However, if you ask most Nugs fans, I guarantee they'll say something along the lines that it's tough enough beating the Lakers, but it is almost impossible to win when you have the refs against you too. Not trying to start a fight with a Lakers fan, just an example that came to mind.

This is just an opinion of a have not and there may certainly be some bias, but when you repeatedly getting the short end of the stick against these same $ making teams when it comes to the referees, it's hard to keep telling yourself it is just one big coincidence.

Mudvayne91
12-23-2010, 04:58 AM
oooh i shoulda known you were one of those conspiracy guys.ok well tell me why you guys ignore that the magic got the top pick 3 times in the lotto era ,the spurs getting it twice and the knicks only got it once? why then does the celtics lose the '07 lotto to portland.you told me stern doesnt let things like that happen,he rigs the draft for big markets over small...

I see your mind is made up. No point in responding to my last post.

Htownballa1622
12-23-2010, 04:59 AM
oooh i shoulda known you were one of those conspiracy guys.ok well tell me why you guys ignore that the magic got the top pick 3 times in the lotto era ,the spurs getting it twice and the knicks only got it once? why then does the celtics lose the '07 lotto to portland.you told me stern doesnt let things like that happen,he rigs the draft for big markets over small...

I NEVER said stern rigs the draft.i said don't think that he just sits back and lets things go.im actually not one of those "conspiracy"guys.i just think that the product we receive (nba) might be a little tainted.

Trust me.i hope that everything I say is incorrect but I'm not going to be na´ve to what COULD be happening.

Not eveything is as rainbows and flowery as you think.i just simply expressed my opinion on how I feel in regards to the thread.

Giraffes Rule
12-23-2010, 04:59 AM
True, but here's the problem as I see it. It's not a huge coincidence that the same teams are successful every year. Major market teams successful = more money for the league compared to a Minnesota or a Indiana, so as a commissioner, what do you do to maximizes your profits? You tilt the odds towards your major market teams. How? Refs imo. Now if you're a very talented player, and you're going to get the same money wherever you go, are you going to go to the major market that is constantly winning or are you going to a minor market team that has no real significant history of winning?

Stern isn't forcing players to sign with a minor market team, but he certainly isn't setting that team up for success either.

I do think one's opinion is based on the teams market though for the most part. It's the haves vs. the have nots as I see it. A Lakers fan may not have seen anything out of the ordinary when the Nugs played them in the Western Conference Finals a few years ago. However, if you ask most Nugs fans, I guarantee they'll say something along the lines that it's tough enough beating the Lakers, but it is almost impossible to win when you have the refs against you too. Not trying to start a fight with a Lakers fan, just an example that came to mind.

This is just an opinion of a have not and there may certainly be some bias, but when you repeatedly getting the short end of the stick against these same $ making teams when it comes to the referees, it's hard to keep telling yourself it is just one big coincidence.
Then how do you explain the Spurs?

Htownballa1622
12-23-2010, 05:02 AM
True, but here's the problem as I see it. It's not a huge coincidence that the same teams are successful every year. Major market teams successful = more money for the league compared to a Minnesota or a Indiana, so as a commissioner, what do you do to maximizes your profits? You tilt the odds towards your major market teams. How? Refs imo. Now if you're a very talented player, and you're going to get the same money wherever you go, are you going to go to the major market that is constantly winning or are you going to a minor market team that has no real significant history of winning?

Stern isn't forcing players to sign with a minor market team, but he certainly isn't setting that team up for success either.

I do think one's opinion is based on the teams market though for the most part. It's the haves vs. the have nots as I see it. A Lakers fan may not have seen anything out of the ordinary when the Nugs played them in the Western Conference Finals a few years ago. However, if you ask most Nugs fans, I guarantee they'll say something along the lines that it's tough enough beating the Lakers, but it is almost impossible to win when you have the refs against you too. Not trying to start a fight with a Lakers fan, just an example that came to mind.

This is just an opinion of a have not and there may certainly be some bias, but when you repeatedly getting the short end of the stick against these same $ making teams when it comes to the referees, it's hard to keep telling yourself it is just one big coincidence.

THIS is an example.thank you

asandhu23
12-23-2010, 05:03 AM
NBA is rigged.

bholly
12-23-2010, 05:14 AM
No but explain to me how chicago wins the lottery the year they get rose?

lol. The Bucks (the team you used before as an example of a small market team that doesn't benefit the league as much to be good) also got a #1 pick, moving up over Atlanta, which is a MUCH bigger market. DC just got one, moving up over New Jersey (you don't think he'd like Brooklyn to be awesome?). Portland won theirs when Boston and Atlanta were much more likely. Toronto won theirs when the Knicks and Atlanta were more likely. Orlando held out Chicago (if he wanted the Bulls to have D Rose, why not D Howard?) and LAC. Cleveland held off LAC, Chicago, NYK.

I just don't see how any rational person can truly believe that the draft is rigged towards certain teams. Especially when the process is overseen by a representative of each team, lawyers, and auditors from auditing firms. The last few years the auditing firm has been Ernst and Young. You really think they're going to jeopardize their business, which is entirely built on trust and reliability, by helping Stern cheat to get a basketball player some place?

Mudvayne91
12-23-2010, 05:20 AM
^ I guess you've never heard about Ewing and the 85 draft.


Then how do you explain the Spurs?

I think there's a misconception about SA being a poor sports place. They're 13 in attendance which isn't horrible and it is the 7th biggest city in the US. Google top NBA sports markets, most of them have SA fairly high in rankings.

Htownballa1622
12-23-2010, 05:23 AM
lol. The Bucks (the team you used before as an example of a small market team that doesn't benefit the league as much to be good) also got a #1 pick, moving up over Atlanta, which is a MUCH bigger market. DC just got one, moving up over New Jersey (you don't think he'd like Brooklyn to be awesome?). Portland won theirs when Boston and Atlanta were much more likely. Toronto won theirs when the Knicks and Atlanta were more likely. Orlando held out Chicago (if he wanted the Bulls to have D Rose, why not D Howard?) and LAC. Cleveland held off LAC, Chicago, NYK.

I just don't see how any rational person can truly believe that the draft is rigged towards certain teams. Especially when the process is overseen by a representative of each team, lawyers, and auditors from auditing firms. The last few years the auditing firm has been Ernst and Young. You really think they're going to jeopardize their business, which is entirely built on trust and reliability, by helping Stern cheat to get a basketball player some place?

I think you misread what I wrote.i said for example if the bucks would win, would that be better for the league than if the lakers won?

That had nothing to do with the bucks drafting.as for the draft I simply asked one question.i never said the entire draft is rigged.i could say"oh they don't let us see what's going on when the ping pong balls fall into place"but I simply brought up one example as to how chicago ended up getting their hometown star with the horrible odds they had.:confused:

How about you take a look at
Past controversial playoff series where there have been questionable calls made?

Mudvayne91
12-23-2010, 05:28 AM
They could just do their draft like all the other major sports. God forbid the worst team getting the most talented player.....

Htownballa1622
12-23-2010, 05:32 AM
They could just do their draft like all the other major sports. God forbid the worst team getting the most talented player.....

alot of tanking might happen

sp1derm00
12-23-2010, 05:32 AM
The reason there's very little parity in this game is because one player has more affect on a basketball game than in a baseball or football game.

If you pair a winner with a winning franchise that not only is willing to spend money on other good players, but also knows how to recognize good players, then you're going to win.

That's my take on why there's not much parity in the NBA. Some franchises are willing to spend but don't recognize winners (Nets and sorta the Clippers). Some franchises aren't willing to spend, but have great players(Hornets and maybe the Thunder). And then some franchises recognize talent and are willing to spend, but have a superstar that folds under pressure (Dirk).

bholly
12-23-2010, 05:41 AM
^ I guess you've never heard about Ewing and the 85 draft.

Of course I have. They had a 1/7 chance of winning, same as 6 other teams, and they won. It's hardly a miracle. Them winning was more likely than Washington in '10, almost 3 times as likely as Portland in '07, more than twice as likely as Milwaukee in '05, three times as likely as Jersey in '00, more likely than Golden State in '95, almost 95 times more likely than Orlando in '93, more likely than Charlotte in '92, more likely than Sacto in '89, and the same likelihood as San Antonio in '87. Were they all rigged as well?


I think there's a misconception about SA being a poor sports place. They're 13 in attendance which isn't horrible and it is the 7th biggest city in the US. Google top NBA sports markets, most of them have SA fairly high in rankings.

There's a cause and effect issue here. Of course more people go when they've had a great team for more than 10 years. And the city population is only part of a team's fanbase - San Antonio is part of the USA's 28th biggest metro area and the 30th biggest urban area.

Blazers#1Fan
12-23-2010, 05:44 AM
its not rigged its like this teams made there rosters 10 years ago good! then they had other good players on em winning, they wanna win its like the lakers other players go to the lakers because they think lakers will win it but when kobe retires not as many players will go there or when tim duncan retires nobody will go there or same with celtics its the teams that develop while winning the championships stay strong others dont! like spurs they will have a chance because they have pieces developing and lakers dont really have developing players celtics do have players developing miami will not be developing but players will go there to get a title its like that it will shift in the next 5 years to different teams because while these teams are going under those teams that developed will be coming up like when lakers go out with age clippers will be coming up because they are young and thunder also and if blazers get back into being young they will to but the nets,Heat,Clippers,thunder will have nice teams when all the good teams go under stuff changes they've said the NBA and NFL were Fixed its just good teams developing good while winning why do you think the spurs stayed good for so long they know how to develop and win at the same time

only sport thats rigged is the MLB and thats because of roids and no cap and your still never guaranteed anything

bholly
12-23-2010, 05:47 AM
I think you misread what I wrote.

In a conversation about league parity, you were saying the reason for lack of parity is that Stern controls things and that he benefits when 'major cities' win. Several of us suggested that he couldn't really rig it for major cities if he wanted to, and your response was 'explain to me how chicago wins the lottery the year they get rose?'

I responded by pointing out that it wasn't outlandish at all that Chicago one, and in fact a lot of small market teams have also beaten the odds to win the draft, suggesting that one big-market success is a long long way from evidence of corruption.

Please tell me which part I have mischaracterized, because I believe I read what you wrote just fine.

Mudvayne91
12-23-2010, 06:03 AM
alot of tanking might happen

Possibly. MLB and NHL don't seem to have huge problems with tanking. You might get a few teams, but I wouldn't say it's an epidemic in either sports. NFL is usually good too. There's certain exceptions, but overall, I think it works well.

I'd rather have it that way instead of the way the lottery is setup.

Mudvayne91
12-23-2010, 06:36 AM
There's a cause and effect issue here. Of course more people go when they've had a great team for more than 10 years.And the city population is only part of a team's fanbase - San Antonio is part of the USA's 28th biggest metro area and the 30th biggest urban area.

So your point is people go to games when their team is winning games and they don't come as often when they're losing? How is that different than any other team? And looking at this site dismisses the fact that it took 10+ years of winning to get a good attendance. They became good in the early 90s in which their attendance started to pick up
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=sas&lg=n

bholly
12-23-2010, 07:16 AM
Possibly. MLB and NHL don't seem to have huge problems with tanking. You might get a few teams, but I wouldn't say it's an epidemic in either sports. NFL is usually good too. There's certain exceptions, but overall, I think it works well.

I'd rather have it that way instead of the way the lottery is setup.

Like a number of people have said, MLB and NHL success are less dependent on one or two star players. That's why tanking is less, not because of their lottery system. In fact, the NBA had a similar lottery system and changed it for exactly that reason - teams tanked.


So your point is people go to games when their team is winning games and they don't come as often when they're losing? How is that different than any other team? And looking at this site dismisses the fact that it took 10+ years of winning to get a good attendance. They became good in the early 90s in which their attendance started to pick up
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=sas&lg=n

I know - like you say, there's an extremely quick, even contemporaneous correlation between winning and attendance - that much is obvious:
http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu341/bholly/Screenshot2010-12-23at115914PM.png
http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu341/bholly/Screenshot2010-12-24at120024AM.png

What I was saying wasn't that it takes 10 years of winning to get people to go to games, I was saying that a team that has had a good team for a long time (ie 10 years or so) will of course tend to have higher attendance in things like the google results you point to, because the data used is likely to be recent (ie from the last 10 years or so). A team that had sucked over their data period, or been up and down over that time, would of course tend to show lesser attendance.

And I never suggested that was different for San Antonio than any other team.

SteBO
12-23-2010, 09:58 AM
You all make gud points. I stand on the fact the major sports markets being gud if not great is just good for the business. At the same time, I take joy in watching good competitive basketball, like it was in the middle of this decade. This was when the Detroit Pistons, Phoenix, Houston, and some other small market teams were good, even Cleveland and New Orleans. It made for some fun playoff series' and I hope it can get back to that point eventually tbh.

Dee Boone
12-23-2010, 10:23 AM
Ya it would be hard to change this..one thing that i would love to see even though i know there is no way in hell it would happen would be a leauge wide draft! meaning that team pick for there number in the draft and every player is in it...everytime starts from scratch!!

JordansBulls
12-23-2010, 10:40 AM
It's been a knock on the league forever, and although I am a huge fan of the NBA, I am starting to buy into the criticism.

These winning streaks are getting a little ridiculous:
- Boston Celics with 14 straight wins (still running)
- San Antonio Spurs with 10 straight wins (still running)
- Miami Heat with 12 straight wins
- Dallas Mavericks with 12 straight wins

.. just to name a few.

I mean these are pretty lengthy winning streaks we are talking about (over 1/7th of the WHOLE SEASON).

Furthermore, think about the NBA Champs (since 1980), it has either been the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, or Spurs 23 out of 31 times.

That really is insane. As fans of mediocre franchises, it's hard to see teams ever rising above the elite.

What do you guys think? Agree or Disagree? How do you feel about this? Any suggestions on what can be done to "fix" this? Or is it really no problem at all?

In basketball one player has wayyy more impact on a game than they do in Football or baseball or Hockey.

Da Knicks
12-23-2010, 11:15 AM
sometimes you just cant stop greatness [spurs] & sucking & horrible management [knicks]

Lets see if you were stern what team in the league has the most fans? Probably the knicks, people from all over the world go see the knicks because its something to do in New York, you want to go to Madison Square Garden. If the knicks are losing, that just gives the die hards a chance to go to the games since most bandwagon fans wont go if they are losing.

The knicks have had some of the best attendances in the league for the last 10 years explian that. There are so many different people from all over the world that live in new york, that makes them fans and they make the people from where they are from fans as well. Im fed up myself with stern making the knicks an after thought just because he knows most knick fans eat, crap, dream knicks basketball and wont leave the team.

Strange coincidence that Miami had the worst attendance in the nba in a good venue get the three chumps? Lakers are another team that has to stay relevant and I think we had this talk last year. L.A. only likes you when you are winning or else you are not cool. Stern looked at the nfl and the attendance for the games, it sucked because they where not winning. I hate talking basketball with most lakers fans because I know more about the team than them. Most of the laker PSD posters are pretty good but they are only a handful and they will tell you themselves that they hate all the bandwagon fans.----last time i talk about this it just ruined my morning!:mad:

Pens_fan_21
12-23-2010, 11:31 AM
As a whole, the ONE rule that I would like to see get changed is where a guy gets traded (and has no intention of playing there) gets bought out or dropped and just signs with a big nam team...and I think even in the past the guys have gobe RIGHT BACK to the team that traded them...foul play I think...its one way to keep things legit if those playrs stay where they are traded...

Htownballa1622
12-23-2010, 11:54 AM
In a conversation about league parity, you were saying the reason for lack of parity is that Stern controls things and that he benefits when 'major cities' win. Several of us suggested that he couldn't really rig it for major cities if he wanted to, and your response was 'explain to me how chicago wins the lottery the year they get rose?'

I responded by pointing out that it wasn't outlandish at all that Chicago one, and in fact a lot of small market teams have also beaten the odds to win the draft, suggesting that one big-market success is a long long way from evidence of corruption.

Please tell me which part I have mischaracterized, because I believe I read what you wrote just fine.

Naw I believe you felt the need to just try and answer every scenario I threw out there.i clearly and repeatedly said imo there were things happening.i never said that just the draft was rigged.i just feel there's more to it then we know.my opinion is the officiating the league has control over...the fact that rose was selected first was just too fishy but like I said that wasn't the point.it was one example of weird instances in the league.

Sixerlover
12-23-2010, 12:54 PM
Possibly. MLB and NHL don't seem to have huge problems with tanking. You might get a few teams, but I wouldn't say it's an epidemic in either sports. NFL is usually good too. There's certain exceptions, but overall, I think it works well.

I'd rather have it that way instead of the way the lottery is setup.

Partly because one player doesn't drastically change the way a game is played in those sports like basketball.

nygiants242
12-23-2010, 03:23 PM
In basketball one player has wayyy more impact on a game than they do in Football or baseball or Hockey.

Okay. So? Doesn't this sort of support the notion that there should be more parity in the NBA?

OnslaughtXX6
12-23-2010, 03:37 PM
Well, it's alot better then it has been the past few years. But yeah.... it's still a major problem.

valade16
12-23-2010, 03:53 PM
Everyone who says explain the spurs must be naive...

Tim duncan!

As has been said, one player has a way bigger impact, and for the spurs that was duncan.

The NBA isnt rigged intentionally. I think teams like boston and LA have such a history of greatness most people who are good scouts/players want to go there.

So they do and they start winning and it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy.

valade16
12-23-2010, 03:54 PM
Okay. So? Doesn't this sort of support the notion that there should be more parity in the NBA?

No because theres less than 10 of those super elite guys, so only a few teams now have a major advantage...

yshNYK
12-23-2010, 04:15 PM
Although I never found the Spurs very exciting as a team (did anyone watch the spurs and pistons finals a couple of years ago?) I can't argue that they have found a way to win from their players to their coaching staff and all the way to their recruiting...they make the best decisions and find the most random players from random places in the world...but they make it work!

obviously they are doing something right..it can't be rigged. like someone mentioned before, they have had a good core for a while, and every year they find players to compliment them, they never needed to go after superstars because they find and develop players so well...hats off to them

i would say the same about the other teams but the Spurs are just ridiculous at what they do

Flash3
12-23-2010, 04:30 PM
Completely agree, it's a big problem. I really don't mind it all that much because I live in and support a major market, but I feel that if I supported a lesser market team, I couldn't support the NBA nearly as much.

Though your in a big market your 1 player away from not ever being relevant. Big time franchise don't usually leave a good winning situation if a team is losing alot the player will want out no matter what Ie: kobe asking for a trade.

Flash3
12-23-2010, 04:31 PM
im happy my spurs are in there lol maybe one day well be a top flight place like la or boston where free agents wanna come

i think san antonio already is, all texas teams are.

NYKNYGNYY
12-23-2010, 04:32 PM
theres nothing anybody can do except the gms draft better and try to lure key free agents to there teams which is hard in some cities :shrug:

Flash3
12-23-2010, 04:38 PM
lol. The Bucks (the team you used before as an example of a small market team that doesn't benefit the league as much to be good) also got a #1 pick, moving up over Atlanta, which is a MUCH bigger market. DC just got one, moving up over New Jersey (you don't think he'd like Brooklyn to be awesome?). Portland won theirs when Boston and Atlanta were much more likely. Toronto won theirs when the Knicks and Atlanta were more likely. Orlando held out Chicago (if he wanted the Bulls to have D Rose, why not D Howard?) and LAC. Cleveland held off LAC, Chicago, NYK.

I just don't see how any rational person can truly believe that the draft is rigged towards certain teams. Especially when the process is overseen by a representative of each team, lawyers, and auditors from auditing firms. The last few years the auditing firm has been Ernst and Young. You really think they're going to jeopardize their business, which is entirely built on trust and reliability, by helping Stern cheat to get a basketball player some place?

Dude Toronto is a huge market especially alot bigger than atlanta, i also just read up that their 11th in franchise valuations. Stern i think might rig drafts but only when theres a cant miss talent like lebron, where he he got to play in his hometown.

Flash3
12-23-2010, 04:39 PM
They could just do their draft like all the other major sports. God forbid the worst team getting the most talented player.....

Then teams would purposefully tank.

smith&wesson
12-23-2010, 04:59 PM
It's been a knock on the league forever, and although I am a huge fan of the NBA, I am starting to buy into the criticism.

These winning streaks are getting a little ridiculous:
- Boston Celics with 14 straight wins (still running)
- San Antonio Spurs with 10 straight wins (still running)
- Miami Heat with 12 straight wins
- Dallas Mavericks with 12 straight wins

Furthermore, think about the NBA Champs (since 1980), it has either been the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, or Spurs 23 out of 31 times.


that is just unbeleivable. and kinda makes me sick to think about...

ManOnFire
12-23-2010, 05:05 PM
yea...the last exciting, and unexpected winning streak was the Rockets 22 game streak. The Nets streak of last year was also interesting lol.

el_primo_nano
12-24-2010, 12:50 PM
There is no lack of parity at all, and i will go back to Lebron James and the Cavs.. They were crap before he got there and all it took was bombing a season and the luck of the lottery to get their high pick and three years later they were in the finals... There is parity, its just a matter of GM's analyzing talent and spending wisely.