PDA

View Full Version : Is Parity good for the NBA?



ILUVLA
12-15-2011, 01:44 AM
I will first be honest about my bias as I am a Laker fan. However I wonder what everyone thinks. Is parity really good for the NBA?

My argument is that the NBA, striving for parity, is actually worse off. History has proven that the NBA is better when the big names are in big cities. Hypothetically, if Lebron stays in Cleveland and we have a Cleveland vs. Durant and OKC in the finals that would not be heavily watched. Now, with Melo, stoudemire, and now Chanlder in NY duking it out over the next few years with Wade, Lebron, and Bosh. While I personally did not like how Lebron handled everything, having those three join together in Miami has generated a significant amount of interest in both the Heat and the NBA.

So with all this striving for parity I think the NBA might be shooting itself in the foot. The big stars need to be in big cities and the big markets need to be good. The Lakers and Knicks are really carrying the NBA in terms of revenues. In a year where the league combined to lose over 300 million according to Stern, those two franchices combined to profit almost 100 million. With revenue sharing the small market teams need the big franchises to be over the salary cap and to be generating revenue.

What are your thoughts?

xxcubs22xx
12-15-2011, 01:47 AM
I disagree.

I think that parity has historically been the "life blood" of the NBA.

Furthermore, I feel like parity is actually constantly blooming along with the emerging teams in the league. Which is good for the fans and those small markets.

Raph12
12-15-2011, 01:51 AM
I disagree.

I think that parity has historically been the "life blood" of the NBA.

Furthermore, I feel like parity is actually constantly blooming along with the emerging teams in the league. Which is good for the fans and those small markets.

What kind of kush have you been smoking?... Are you on that Metta World Peace ****?

Dade County
12-15-2011, 01:51 AM
The Illusion of parity is good for the league.

But all the outcomes have already been decided already, just sit back and enjoy the show.

Kyle N.
12-15-2011, 04:17 AM
Striving towards parity is what makes the NBA different than WWE. If the big stars NEED to be in big cities, there's no parity. If the big stars WANT to be in big cities, there's still parity and it's completely fair.

DMasta718
12-15-2011, 04:20 AM
I disagree.

I think that parity has historically been the "life blood" of the NBA.

Furthermore, I feel like parity is actually constantly blooming along with the emerging teams in the league. Which is good for the fans and those small markets.

Life blood as in barely existent then sure.

LakersIn5
12-15-2011, 06:06 AM
yeah parity. tell that to bill russell's celtics.

James Dolan
12-15-2011, 06:47 AM
yeah parity. tell that to bill russell's celtics.


They only won 11 rings, though.

Corey
12-15-2011, 11:56 AM
Parity is good for every sport. That's why hockey fans love the playoffs, and the NFL is fun to watch every week. Any team can get hot at the right time and toss the upset.

king4day
12-15-2011, 12:03 PM
Here's what gets me excited.
OKC having a good team.
Memphis finally being a near elite team
NJ possibly being there
LAC being there now


Lakers in the spotlight year after year and Miami almost being there too. Who cares. If the finals last year was LA/Miami, I would have probably just flipped onto the end of the closeout games.
With Dallas, it gave me a reason to believe that my team could one day do it.
LA/Mia, who cares but the fans of the teams and players.

MassoDio
12-15-2011, 12:08 PM
yeah parity. tell that to bill russell's celtics.

There were like 8-16 teams in the league during Russel's era. Not exactly the same thing.

Parity is good for the league. Having stars in big markets is also good for the league. Having ALL the stars in big markets, hence no parity and chance for smaller markets to compete, is bad for the league.

It is great when the big markets have stars, and are good, because it does generate a lot of revenue. But if the small markets never have a chance to compete, then ticket sales suffer, merchandise sales suffer, and eventually those teams can't afford to continue to operate. That could lead to contraction.

If that happens, that means less markets generating money from live games. Again, merchandise sales sales go down, because fans are disgruntled that their team is gone. (See NBA related product sales in Seattle in the last few years)

I think parity is a necessity, but it is also helpful to have some stars in big markets. Bottom line, big markets will sell out their arenas even if their team is horrible. (See Chicago ticket sales post Jordan, Knicks ticket sales during the entire I. Thomas era) Small market team cannot accomplish that. So there has to be a balance.

D Blue987
12-15-2011, 12:13 PM
I blame the Celtics for all of this. Ever since they formed a big three, every big market team has tried to make one of their own. Lakers,Knicks,Boston,Miami,etc.

Hugbees
12-15-2011, 12:19 PM
What kind of kush have you been smoking?... Are you on that Metta World Peace ****?

That sounds like a dank *** strain.

Anyways.. there has never been parity in the NBA, its sickening. Salary caps don't do **** either.

D Blue987
12-15-2011, 12:24 PM
Here's what gets me excited.
OKC having a good team.
Memphis finally being a near elite team
NJ possibly being there
LAC being there now


Lakers in the spotlight year after year and Miami almost being there too. Who cares. If the finals last year was LA/Miami, I would have probably just flipped onto the end of the closeout games.
With Dallas, it gave me a reason to believe that my team could one day do it.
LA/Mia, who cares but the fans of the teams and players.

Lets be honest here, they are in the spotlight because they go out and spend the dollars to get themselves into the spotlight. PHX was better than LA for quite a while there within the past number of years. They had some very good players on their roster including a back to back mvp. Dont blame LA and Miami for your team not being elite. Blame your organization. Id go far to say that some of these teams are just a cancer to the NBA and contraction is necessary. Clippers are no longer that case with the flurry of moves they have made. Charlotte for sure, Sacramento, Cleveland, even Golden State are teams I could see removed from the league. Big market teams are the largest source of revenue that this league is going to get. They are going to need it with this new CBA. Sorry if your not a fan of any big market team, but its reality. Its a business not a popularity contest.

LanceUpperCut
12-15-2011, 12:29 PM
A certain level of parity is what is needed. The hope that your team can build towards something special is a must for any team. Yes the Lakers, Celtics etc. is always good for the league to be solid teams but the way things are going now is just bad on every level for the future of the league. We just need more Steve Nash types, guys who care for more about their taking a team to a championship than just joining a team that's on route already.

Either way I don't think the super team thing will last,look at guys like Howard, NBA's good guy who now looks like a complete douche bag for all his demands which were all a big smoke screen to try and still look like the good guy. No matter if Bosh wins a title or not his stock has fallen like crazy since leaving TO. LBJ already admitted that he hates being the villain now and regrets the way he handled his FA.

Heatcheck
12-15-2011, 12:37 PM
Here's what gets me excited.
OKC having a good team.
Memphis finally being a near elite team
NJ possibly being there
LAC being there now


Lakers in the spotlight year after year and Miami almost being there too. Who cares. If the finals last year was LA/Miami, I would have probably just flipped onto the end of the closeout games.
With Dallas, it gave me a reason to believe that my team could one day do it.
LA/Mia, who cares but the fans of the teams and players.

you are in the 1%

Considering they got beat down (i cant find an appropriate enough word to describe that *** whooping) by Dallas, it would have probably been a quick series. regardless, it would have probably set records for ratings

Heatcheck
12-15-2011, 12:40 PM
the league thrives when there are great players are on the same team. i.e. The Lakers and Celtics in the 80s, the Bulls of the 90s. and last year the ratings soared, I wonder why?
Yea, small market fans of teams with inept front offices who struggle when they cant force gift wrapped superstars to stay, dont like it but, that doesn't mean its better for the nba.

APerichak83
12-15-2011, 10:28 PM
Had to rejoin since my last account was deleted do to inactivity. Anyways, my view on this is simple, it is good for the league. Why? Because more fans are interested in it. As a Cavs fan, I'm no longer interested in the game anymore. I wouldnt just watch every Cavs game, but all the other games that were on too. Now I just watch Cavs games periodically because I have better things to do than watch them lose night in, night out. Thats how all teams feel. We have a great fanbase here in Cleveland for now, but its dwindling because people dont want to spend their money on watching a team that loses. The NBA cant afford to have only a handful of teams in the running for a championship year in year out because the popularity is at an all time low. Blocking CP3 to the Lakers was a smart decision by David Stern. Take a look at these lists:
Bulls, Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Mavs, Rockets, Pistons, 76ers, and Spurs.
Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Raiders, Broncos, Colts, Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, 49ers, Rams, Packers, Bears, Buccs, Saints.
Orioles, Yankees, RedSox, BlueJays, Tigers, White Sox, Twins, Royals, A's, Angels, Marlins, Mets, Braves, Phillies, Reds, Cardinals, Giants, DBacks, Dodgers.
Islanders, Canadians, Flames, Oilers, Blackhawks, Penguins, Devils, Avalanche, Ducks, Hurricanes, Stars, Red Wings, Lightning, Rangers, Bruins.

Only 9 different NBA Champions since 1980. Thats really sad. No wonder why hockey has passed the NBA and the 3rd most popular sport.....

THE MTL
12-15-2011, 10:52 PM
NBA does better when big cities are doing well. A BIG REASON why NBA lost so much money during the last decade (old CBA) is that the big cities SUCKED!

Celtics: Yes they became contenders in 2008 and had a magical run in 2001 to be stopped by Sixers, but they honestly werent making too much noise

Knicks: Completely sucked the entire decade.

Bulls: Made the second round twice I think and recently conference finals, but majority of the decade was spend still trying to recover from losing Michael Jordan.

ManRam
12-15-2011, 10:54 PM
As much as I want it, it isn't best for the NBA...and that's why once they got their money, the league gave up on it.

As long as the big markets are good, the NBA will be raking in the dough. Without a doubt they'd prefer LA, NY, Chicago, Houston/Dallas etc be successful teams than the small market ones.

Parity is best for the fans, but in terms of making money, and even the popularity of the sport (we're gravitated towards the big market teams as a whole fanbase), parity isn't good.