PDA

View Full Version : Expansion talks after a agreement on new CBA



MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-13-2016, 02:13 PM
Iíve heard that once the CBA is finished, the expansion bidding could be announced as soon as December or as late as the All-Star Game in February. There are going to be numerous other cities competing with Seattle to get the expansion franchises as well.* I do not know if there is just going to be one slot or two.* Other cities Iíve heard that are going to be making a play for expansion are Louisville (they have all their affairs in order and ready to go), Pittsburgh, Omaha, Las Vegas, Vancouver, BC, and Mexico City.* Kansas City and St. Louis have been brought up as well, but I canít confirm the validity of their interest.

http://www.sonicsrising.com/2016/10/13/13264264/multiple-sources-nba-expansion-seattle

Heediot
10-13-2016, 02:45 PM
The product gets watered down with expansion, but more money will be circulating in the nba economy. More chances for people to make their nba dreams a reality.

da ThRONe
10-13-2016, 03:47 PM
I don't think the league is water down at all. You have a lot of people who go undeveloped for lack of court time. The NBA is a worldwide league it certainly can handle two more franchises.

lakerfan85
10-13-2016, 04:09 PM
I hope they don't expand..

ManningToTyree
10-13-2016, 06:40 PM
I don't think expansion is necessarily good for the league but would like to see the Sonics return their fans got a rough break.

Shammyguy3
10-13-2016, 06:42 PM
i hope they do expand, Seattle & Las Vegas. They'll be in the Western Conference, then move two of the following to the Eastern Conference: New Orleans, Memphis, Minnesota, Houston

JasonJohnHorn
10-13-2016, 06:44 PM
They really need to look into getting Detroit a second team. I mean... LA has two.

Seriously... a team in Mexico City would be interesting, but I think they'd have an even harder time getting players to stay than Toronto. Vancouver failed once already.

Seattle is a great option. Obviously. Not sure what else.

What the league should do is open a sister league in Europe/Asia that runs concurrently with the NBA and allows preps-to-pros players, then jack the age of entry into the NBA up to 21. This way kids can get a chance to get paid (fawk colleges who make billions off of these kids and won't even give them a full scholarship if they get a career-ending injury playing for them), European fans get a chance to see the future of the NBA (all they get is a few pre-season games now), NBA guys come over with an understanding of the European game (passing, shooting, fundamentals) and older players who struggle to makes rosters can extend there careers while giving GM a clearer understanding of how European players they are scouting would do in the NBA. Each league champ could play each other in a 7-game series. I think that would be far more interesting than an expansion team, and it wouldn't water the league down.


I'm not sure I would argue that the league is watered down now... but the power imbalance is there. I mean, last season say two of the best records ever, and two of the worst records ever. That says something.

R!kSm!tz
10-13-2016, 07:15 PM
i hope they do expand, Seattle & Las Vegas. They'll be in the Western Conference, then move two of the following to the Eastern Conference: New Orleans, Memphis, Minnesota, Houston

This seems like a good idea and those two cities are probably the front runner. I would like to see Louisville get a team though. Vegas in my opinion is just an accident waiting to happen, too much **** going on there for players to stay as focused as they need to be.

mngopher35
10-13-2016, 07:18 PM
I hope if they do expand Seattle is one of them.

Shammy is onto something with having the wolves move to the east...

da ThRONe
10-13-2016, 09:51 PM
They really need to look into getting Detroit a second team. I mean... LA has two.

Seriously... a team in Mexico City would be interesting, but I think they'd have an even harder time getting players to stay than Toronto. Vancouver failed once already.

Seattle is a great option. Obviously. Not sure what else.

What the league should do is open a sister league in Europe/Asia that runs concurrently with the NBA and allows preps-to-pros players, then jack the age of entry into the NBA up to 21. This way kids can get a chance to get paid (fawk colleges who make billions off of these kids and won't even give them a full scholarship if they get a career-ending injury playing for them), European fans get a chance to see the future of the NBA (all they get is a few pre-season games now), NBA guys come over with an understanding of the European game (passing, shooting, fundamentals) and older players who struggle to makes rosters can extend there careers while giving GM a clearer understanding of how European players they are scouting would do in the NBA. Each league champ could play each other in a 7-game series. I think that would be far more interesting than an expansion team, and it wouldn't water the league down.


I'm not sure I would argue that the league is watered down now... but the power imbalance is there. I mean, last season say two of the best records ever, and two of the worst records ever. That says something.

I like everything except the age limit. That's completely unnecessary.

Jeffy25
10-13-2016, 10:24 PM
St. Louis and Seattle please!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeffy25
10-13-2016, 10:25 PM
i hope they do expand, Seattle & Las Vegas. They'll be in the Western Conference, then move two of the following to the Eastern Conference: New Orleans, Memphis, Minnesota, Houston

Send Memphis to the East, keep the other three, add St. Louis and Seattle.

Done!

I mean, I understand there are multiple good markets to choose from, and the league doesn't have to do two franchises, but St. Louis has the arena, funds, and market capital to do it.

Shammyguy3
10-14-2016, 01:26 AM
I think Vegas would work better honestly; I understand the risk involved with temptations, but these players are all rich- it doesn't mater what city they are in they'll find trouble if they wish to

More-Than-Most
10-14-2016, 02:30 AM
Relocation is better than expansion but from a money standpoint expansion is the route they will go... I would bring in maybe 2 teams while moving a team... I would give Pitt a team definitely considering how recently successful they have been in all sports its becoming a huge sports city... on top of pitt I would relocate the kings to vegas and the bucks to Seattle.

mrblisterdundee
10-14-2016, 02:41 AM
I think Vegas would work better honestly; I understand the risk involved with temptations, but these players are all rich- it doesn't mater what city they are in they'll find trouble if they wish to

They're definitely jockeying for one with that new T-Mobile Arena and an NHL arena. I would rather the NBA come back to Seattle, but a city council vote in May against vacating a street basically torpedoed their stadium idea.
Vancouver is another city I'd rather see the NBA team in. The management wasn't great last time. But "Hollywood North" has the population, massive wealth, a big connection to Asia and celebrity prestige as one of the most star-laden and filmed-in cities in the world.

Pfeifer
10-14-2016, 02:44 AM
Vancouver only failed because the league screwed them coming in. The organization never had a chance, especially with the dollar at rediculous lows. Seattle and Vancouver would be great. Tons of basketball fans here.

rhino17
10-14-2016, 03:13 AM
Seattle and then either Vegas or Vancouver

I think I would be fine with 32 teams, but I would go further than that

Phantom Dreamer
10-14-2016, 03:28 AM
on top of pitt I would relocate the kings to vegas and the bucks to Seattle.Completely realistic... Sacramento has a brand new arena and Milwaukee is getting one. GTFOH.

More-Than-Most
10-14-2016, 04:22 AM
Completely realistic... Sacramento has a brand new arena and Milwaukee is getting one. GTFOH.

yea and the sad part is that they got those arenas and the tax payers fell for the same fraud that the marlins fanbase did... Do you wanna see the attendance for these teams over the past decade? even when they are good they dont draw as well as other teams.

Over the past 10 years the bucks daily attendance is between 14-16k fans a game... they were i think 27th in attendance last year

the bucks attendance this past season was 15166 per game which is 27th in basketball... in 09/10 season when they were like 46 and 36 and in the playoffs and a really good team they drew 15108

Dont give me they got a new stadium as an excuse... its milwaukee... they dont draw... having a new stadium might fix the problem for 1 season but its a band aid on a broken leg infected with gangrene.

Saddletramp
10-14-2016, 05:10 AM
i hope they do expand, Seattle & Las Vegas. They'll be in the Western Conference, then move two of the following to the Eastern Conference: New Orleans, Memphis, Minnesota, Houston

You'd only have to move one.
East would be 15+1=16
West would be 15-1=14. 14+2=16

Houston makes zero sense. I'd probably move Minnesota; way too far from their division mates. All assuming it's two of Seattle/Vegas/Vancouver/St. Louis/KC

----------------------------------
Edit:
I assume Seattle is in (they'll get it done if given the chance) and Louisville if the word is true that they're ready to roll.

Seattle/Portland/Sac/GS
LAC/LAL/PHX/Utah
Minny/OKC/Denver/Memphis
SAS/Mavs/Hou/New Orleans

Bucks/Chi/Pacers/Louisville
Det/Toronto/Cle/Boston
NYK/Nets/Philly/Wash
Charlotte/Hawks/Miami/Orlando

Not a big fan of Memphis/Denver and I hate separating Boston from the NY area but I think that this makes the most sense.

Each division gets a top 4 seed and the the other 4 go on the wildcard system. Win your division and you get first round home court.

Scoots
10-14-2016, 07:46 AM
Go for expansion sure, but first make sure every team has a d-league team in a secondary market for a few years, then the expansion teams will have the largest possible talent pool to draw from. Give the expansion teams the first 2 non-lottery picks for the first 2 years they exist (in addition to the picks they earn through sucking) and let each team protect 12 players from the expansion draft. It's a win all around other than for those people who think we have maxed out our ability to find and train good basketball players with 30 NBA teams and there are not enough to staff 32.

Scoots
10-14-2016, 07:47 AM
Move Cleveland into the western conference. It's an unfair advantage that they traveled half the miles the Warriors did last year. :)

Burkey3472
10-14-2016, 08:09 AM
Why not try to put another team in Canada? I feel if you put a team on the Western side of the country you could capitalize on a lot of people that enjoy basketball put don't have a team anywhere close to them.

warfelg
10-14-2016, 08:41 AM
Don't expand until you find a way to level out the talent level.

Until you can legit grow the year to year contenders list past 3-4 teams, you shouldn't be looking to expand.

But if you must:
Seattle gets a team, move New Orleans to the east, next team in Kansas City, St. Louis, or San Diego.

So I would start 2019:
Introduce Seattle Sonics.
2021:
Move NO to the east.
2023:
SD/KC/STLteam introduced.

Stepping it would give both expansion teams time to really build a good base. In expansion year, each gets #1 and #10 lotto odds.

IndyRealist
10-14-2016, 08:42 AM
You'd only have to move one.
East would be 15+1=16
West would be 15-1=14. 14+2=16

Houston makes zero sense. I'd probably move Minnesota; way too far from their division mates. All assuming it's two of Seattle/Vegas/Vancouver/St. Louis/KC

----------------------------------
Edit:
I assume Seattle is in (they'll get it done if given the chance) and Louisville if the word is true that they're ready to roll.

Seattle/Portland/Sac/GS
LAC/LAL/PHX/Utah
Minny/OKC/Denver/Memphis
SAS/Mavs/Hou/New Orleans

Bucks/Chi/Pacers/Louisville
Det/Toronto/Cle/Boston
NYK/Nets/Philly/Wash
Charlotte/Hawks/Miami/Orlando

Not a big fan of Memphis/Denver and I hate separating Boston from the NY area but I think that this makes the most sense.

Each division gets a top 4 seed and the the other 4 go on the wildcard system. Win your division and you get first round home court.

I lived in Louisville for a couple of years. It's not a good NBA market. Everyone is either a rabid U of L or UK fan, and the transplants are Bulls, Pacers, or Grizzlies fans depending on where they moved from. There isn't enough money there to go around during basketball season.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-14-2016, 09:01 AM
Relocation is better than expansion but from a money standpoint expansion is the route they will go... I would bring in maybe 2 teams while moving a team... I would give Pitt a team definitely considering how recently successful they have been in all sports its becoming a huge sports city... on top of pitt I would relocate the kings to vegas and the bucks to Seattle.

Bucks to Seattle? lol Bucks already breaking ground on new arena. Also 3 new owners which each are billionaires. Seattle needs a team but should have a arena in tact before they get any votes for expansion.

TheDish87
10-14-2016, 09:33 AM
I don't think the league is water down at all. You have a lot of people who go undeveloped for lack of court time. The NBA is a worldwide league it certainly can handle two more franchises.

the league is absolutely watered down. When is the last time there were more than 5 legit contenders? If anything the league should cut 2 teams before adding any but that would never happen.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-14-2016, 09:51 AM
the league is absolutely watered down. When is the last time there were more than 5 legit contenders? If anything the league should cut 2 teams before adding any but that would never happen.

League been diluted way back since 1988. So many teams added since then. Also if 2 teams are added. Seems like most of the cities mentioned not all but most are in the west. So if 2 more west teams are added. League going from 30 to 32. Kinda hard to make it even for east and west. Almost need 34 teams while realignment of some actually east cities moved to new divisions in the east. Pelicans, Grizzlies, Thunder, Wolves. Also they need to get the d league to the point each team has one for their own farming for minor league like baseball. Not sharing teams. Probably need a 3rd round for the draft as well for farming.

Scoots
10-14-2016, 10:05 AM
Don't expand until you find a way to level out the talent level.

Until you can legit grow the year to year contenders list past 3-4 teams, you shouldn't be looking to expand.

Are there any major professional sports where there are 5 or more legit contenders for the title to start a given season? I can't think of any.

R!kSm!tz
10-14-2016, 10:16 AM
Are there any major professional sports where there are 5 or more legit contenders for the title to start a given season? I can't think of any.

Exactly, the NBA is arguably at its peak in both ratings and talent level.

Scoots
10-14-2016, 10:17 AM
League been diluted way back since 1988. So many teams added since then. Also if 2 teams are added. Seems like most of the cities mentioned not all but most are in the west. So if 2 more west teams are added. League going from 30 to 32. Kinda hard to make it even for east and west. Almost need 34 teams while realignment of some actually east cities moved to new divisions in the east. Pelicans, Grizzlies, Thunder, Wolves. Also they need to get the d league to the point each team has one for their own farming for minor league like baseball. Not sharing teams. Probably need a 3rd round for the draft as well for farming.

So, if it's watered down then the number of dominant teams should have gone up right? But the Lakers made the finals 23 times and the Celtics 19 times in the 38 years between the founding of the NBA and 1988, there were also the Warriors making it 5 times, The Knicks 6 times, The 76ers 5 times. It's not like there has ever been a lot of parity in the NBA. Some teams get it right more often than other teams ... it's about a lot more than superstars, and look at Draymond Green, widely considered a top 10 player in the NBA despite having only 1 elite skill, and it's defense which is the least marketable part of basketball ... the team makes the star just as much or more than the star makes the team.

The NBA has plenty of player talent, what it needs is better owner talent ... so let's bring in some new owners the only realistic way to do it ... expansion.

warfelg
10-14-2016, 10:18 AM
Are there any major professional sports where there are 5 or more legit contenders for the title to start a given season? I can't think of any.

You mean other than NFL, NHL, MLB right?

NFL alone, before the season:
Carolina, Seattle, Pittsburgh, New England, Cincinnati, Denver, Arizona.

Saddletramp
10-14-2016, 10:41 AM
I lived in Louisville for a couple of years. It's not a good NBA market. Everyone is either a rabid U of L or UK fan, and the transplants are Bulls, Pacers, or Grizzlies fans depending on where they moved from. There isn't enough money there to go around during basketball season.

I've heard that the desire is there but I figured it was more of a college town. Also, I'm not sure if it's population without looking but I can't imagine it's bigger than STL/KC/Pitt to help sustain long term interest. OKC has done great for being a small market team but I'm wondering what happens if RWB leaves and they stop drafting well.

TheDish87
10-14-2016, 11:01 AM
Are there any major professional sports where there are 5 or more legit contenders for the title to start a given season? I can't think of any.

the difference in the other sports is anything truly can happen once you make the playoffs, thats not the case in the NBA 99% of the time. In hockey 8 seeds take out the 1 all the time, in the NFL an 8-8 wildcard team is still capable of making an SB run, same goes for baseball we just saw the Red Sox and their dominant O get swept by the indians who were without their #1 and #2 SP's

warfelg
10-14-2016, 11:03 AM
I've heard that the desire is there but I figured it was more of a college town. Also, I'm not sure if it's population without looking but I can't imagine it's bigger than STL/KC/Pitt to help sustain long term interest. OKC has done great for being a small market team but I'm wondering what happens if RWB leaves and they stop drafting well.

I think part of OKCs success is lack of other major teams. The Blazers have good turnouts. I bet once things get straight the Kings will too. But when you get an area with no major sports teams and the locals take pride in that team, they can have the support.

JOSKOMANG4
10-14-2016, 11:15 AM
32 teams:

Eastern conference:

Atlantic: Bkn, nyk, phi, bos
south east: Mia, orl, char, atl
midwest: Mil,chi, min, det
north east: Wash, indy, tor, cle


west confernce:

South west: Phx, sa, hou, no
mid west: Okc, dal, stl*, mem
mountain: Sea*, por, utah, den
pacific: Sac, gsw, lac, lal

R!kSm!tz
10-14-2016, 11:41 AM
I think Louisville would do great. They would more than likely sell out every game. Kentucky is a basketball state, they have 2 elite college programs and I think adding a professional basketball team would be great for them. I don't think they have any professional sports teams in the state so they would be loved regardless of the sport or just so happens it is basketball.

Clint Olbrock
10-14-2016, 12:08 PM
I'm surprised that Cincinnati and/or Columbus didn't throw their names in the hat. Louisville would be interesting.

Shammyguy3
10-14-2016, 12:29 PM
the league is absolutely watered down. When is the last time there were more than 5 legit contenders? If anything the league should cut 2 teams before adding any but that would never happen.

That's never happened

TheDish87
10-14-2016, 12:50 PM
That's never happened

i was including fringe contenders but just adds to my point. In recent memory you could say GSW, Cavs, OKC, LAC, Spurs

Vinylman
10-14-2016, 01:21 PM
Are there any major professional sports where there are 5 or more legit contenders for the title to start a given season? I can't think of any.

really?

MLB? I would also argue the NFL which most people dismiss without realizing that a bunch of teams start

Anyway, the NBA is currently watered down and unless there are significant changes to the CBA limiting teams ability to go over the cap and eliminating the max salary it will only get worse...

The Finals are definitely exciting ... the rest of the year is a snooze!!!!

Jeffy25
10-14-2016, 01:54 PM
I wouldn't put a team in Seattle AND Vancouver...personally

They would just be competing with each other immediately.

da ThRONe
10-14-2016, 01:55 PM
really?

MLB? I would also argue the NFL which most people dismiss without realizing that a bunch of teams start

Anyway, the NBA is currently watered down and unless there are significant changes to the CBA limiting teams ability to go over the cap and eliminating the max salary it will only get worse...

The Finals are definitely exciting ... the rest of the year is a snooze!!!!

The quality of the regular season has more to do with the length of the season. Little time for player development, coaching adjustments, and most importantly rest.

Jeffy25
10-14-2016, 01:59 PM
Are there any major professional sports where there are 5 or more legit contenders for the title to start a given season? I can't think of any.

yeah, every sport but basketball lol

The way the sport is constructed, basketball is so focused on star talent, unlike any other sport.

Baseball easily has the best parity, you have 10ish teams every year that have incredibly realistic championship chances, and depending on injuries, that quickly opens up to 15 (half the league). In baseball, they play 162 games, and you build a team to win 90ish on paper in the off-season. That's it. The rest of it is dice rolls. The playoffs are a complete crapshoot where any team can win because of the nature of the sport.

Football, a little less parity than baseball, but more than the NBA that's for sure. A great QB and you can be a playoff team. A great defense, and you can be a playoff team. Have neither, and you'll suck. Have both, and you are a contender, but you don't have to have both to be a contender.

Injuries really affect the NFL every year.

Hockey is similar to the NFL in that sense, you have maybe 6-8 contenders every year. Having a great main line and a great goalie can take you a long way.


No other sport lacks parity the way basketball does. And that won't change based on how many teams or anything like that. It's just the nature of the sport. The top 5 players in the league can carry their teams to title aspirations, and with those top players trying to team up....it's rare to see a team win a chip and not have a top 5 player in the league on that team that year (Detroit?)

kobe4thewinbang
10-14-2016, 09:41 PM
I say why not? Seattle deserves their team back, because Seattle was big time in earlier decades, going up against Jordan and whatnot. Make the west a bit more interesting, and maybe a team out east. Not sure about Vegas, wonder how interested peeps are in going to a ball game. The argument is the freaking Bobcats who are the Hornets now but still not had much success other than making the first round. So, yeah.

Scoots
10-15-2016, 09:24 AM
You mean other than NFL, NHL, MLB right?

NFL alone, before the season:
Carolina, Seattle, Pittsburgh, New England, Cincinnati, Denver, Arizona.

I think your analysis of the NFL teams probabilities are more optimistic than mine :)

mike_noodles
10-15-2016, 10:33 AM
I love expansion. Wouldn't go with Vancouver and Seattle, one or the other. The real problem isn't watering down the league, it's going to be spreading the talent. They have to find a way to fix super teams or it's really just going to be two more teams that can't win a championship to join the other 27 non contenders.

warfelg
10-15-2016, 10:49 AM
I think your analysis of the NFL teams probabilities are more optimistic than mine :)

That wasn't from me. That was from popular preseason SB winner picks.

If you do the same for MLB and NHL you get a wide number of teams.

Do it in the NBA:
I bet they all say GSW/Cle and maybe a SAS here or there.

mike_noodles
10-15-2016, 11:14 AM
yeah, every sport but basketball lol

The way the sport is constructed, basketball is so focused on star talent, unlike any other sport.

Baseball easily has the best parity, you have 10ish teams every year that have incredibly realistic championship chances, and depending on injuries, that quickly opens up to 15 (half the league). In baseball, they play 162 games, and you build a team to win 90ish on paper in the off-season. That's it. The rest of it is dice rolls. The playoffs are a complete crapshoot where any team can win because of the nature of the sport.

Football, a little less parity than baseball, but more than the NBA that's for sure. A great QB and you can be a playoff team. A great defense, and you can be a playoff team. Have neither, and you'll suck. Have both, and you are a contender, but you don't have to have both to be a contender.

Injuries really affect the NFL every year.

Hockey is similar to the NFL in that sense, you have maybe 6-8 contenders every year. Having a great main line and a great goalie can take you a long way.


No other sport lacks parity the way basketball does. And that won't change based on how many teams or anything like that. It's just the nature of the sport. The top 5 players in the league can carry their teams to title aspirations, and with those top players trying to team up....it's rare to see a team win a chip and not have a top 5 player in the league on that team that year (Detroit?)

Well said. And your point about the NBA is bang on. One team since the 80's has one a championship without a top 5ish player on their roster. I think most people could pick at least half of the conference finals before the season starts, each and every year.

I would slightly disagree with your take on the NHL and say that there are more competitors. Maybe not right at the start of the season, but by the playoffs. Because we have already seen the #8 seed get to the finals more than once and even winning the cup, making it plausible that all 16 playoff teams actually have a shot to win the title.

Jeffy25
10-15-2016, 11:33 AM
Well said. And your point about the NBA is bang on. One team since the 80's has one a championship without a top 5ish player on their roster. I think most people could pick at least half of the conference finals before the season starts, each and every year.

I would slightly disagree with your take on the NHL and say that there are more competitors. Maybe not right at the start of the season, but by the playoffs. Because we have already seen the #8 seed get to the finals more than once and even winning the cup, making it plausible that all 16 playoff teams actually have a shot to win the title.

You are correct, for what it's worth, I don't follow hockey closely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stunner
10-15-2016, 03:30 PM
That Expansion draft tho that's what I'll be interested in , some young guys could get the opportunity to grow elsewhere. Some teams even get a chance to get from under one of those regretful contracts .


Each team pick 8 players to lock on their team , the remaining players get entered in the draft . Those players not selected obviously go back to their respected teams .

Big Zo
10-15-2016, 05:42 PM
Great, more crap teams for the 3 or 4 teams that actually have a shot at winning anything to feed on.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-16-2016, 08:04 AM
Players union probably goes for it. Means more jobs. 12 to 15 jobs per new team.

tredigs
10-16-2016, 12:12 PM
yeah, every sport but basketball lol

The way the sport is constructed, basketball is so focused on star talent, unlike any other sport.

Baseball easily has the best parity, you have 10ish teams every year that have incredibly realistic championship chances, and depending on injuries, that quickly opens up to 15 (half the league). In baseball, they play 162 games, and you build a team to win 90ish on paper in the off-season. That's it. The rest of it is dice rolls. The playoffs are a complete crapshoot where any team can win because of the nature of the sport.

Football, a little less parity than baseball, but more than the NBA that's for sure. A great QB and you can be a playoff team. A great defense, and you can be a playoff team. Have neither, and you'll suck. Have both, and you are a contender, but you don't have to have both to be a contender.

Injuries really affect the NFL every year.

Hockey is similar to the NFL in that sense, you have maybe 6-8 contenders every year. Having a great main line and a great goalie can take you a long way.


No other sport lacks parity the way basketball does. And that won't change based on how many teams or anything like that. It's just the nature of the sport. The top 5 players in the league can carry their teams to title aspirations, and with those top players trying to team up....it's rare to see a team win a chip and not have a top 5 player in the league on that team that year (Detroit?)
Correct, and even in Detroit's case I would make a strong argument that Ben Wallace had top-5 level impact in the game. He was the heart of their defense and their defense was their key to victory - specifically against the Lakers in the Finals. I think his RAPM ranked top 2 in the league that year as well (with the highest recorded DRAPM on record iirc).

da ThRONe
10-16-2016, 03:10 PM
The biggest threat to parity in the NBA is the schedule. Since there's so many games played in what is a relatively short time span coaching strategy and player development is very minimal in season. Then the playoffs are best of 7 therefore giving greater odds the better team wins any given series. If the league were to drop to say 60-66 games and made the playoffs a best of 5 the parity would be on par with some of the other sports. The boost would likely yield greater profits as the reduction in games would make the league more assessable to fans.

Scoots
10-16-2016, 09:13 PM
The biggest threat to parity in the NBA is the schedule. Since there's so many games played in what is a relatively short time span coaching strategy and player development is very minimal in season. Then the playoffs are best of 7 therefore giving greater odds the better team wins any given series. If the league were to drop to say 60-66 games and made the playoffs a best of 5 the parity would be on par with some of the other sports. The boost would likely yield greater profits as the reduction in games would make the league more assessable to fans.

Interestingly Utah and Denver complained when the schedulers tried to add more "fairness" to the schedule by reducing the number of times teams would travel to a west coast city for a game, then travel to Utah or Denver for the back end of a back to back. In both cases it's a late arrival then a long drive to a hotel near the venue and a high altitude. Jerry Sloan LOVED that advantage he had in Utah.

There can never be true parity. Florida, Texas, and Oregon teams have a tax advantage in recruiting. LA and NY teams have advantages in other earning potential. LA, NY, Chicago, Boston have advantages in recruiting because of their history. There are far more teams closer to the east coast than the west coast so west coast teams will always be at a travel disadvantage. Teams in good weather cities have an advantage over teams in bad weather cities.

But the biggest thing is that some owners suck, and NOTHING can overcome a bad owner. And it's pretty hard to get rid of a bad owner. If it was easy the Clippers would have had a new owner 20 years ago, the Kings would be in Seattle and Vivek Ranadive would be peddling his crazy somewhere else, and Tom Benson would be dancing down the street just as cheap and crazy but with one fewer team under his control.

NateyB24
10-25-2016, 03:05 PM
BREAKING: Chris Hansen, Investment Group offer to tear up MOU, PRIVATELY finance #SeattleArena: http://ow.ly/fTzv305wxmo #NBA #NHL

http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/seattle-arena-group-offers-to-privately-finance-arena-fix-lander/341564181?platform=hootsuite