Reply With Quote
No, nobody cares about the Washington Generals of the league.
I know NBA ratings and revenue is higher with super teams like Boston 08, Miami 11, LA 13, etc. but is it really worth watching the league being decided between maybe 3 teams?
I thought of the era between Shaq leaving LA and West rigging Gasol to LA; Pretty much any team could win the le between Miami, San Antonio, Detroit, Phoenix, Dallas, Cleveland and NJ/Utah as wild cards
Now? It's going to be between LA and Miami for the next 5 years.
No, nobody cares about the Washington Generals of the league.
Which teams do you consider to be the Generals son?
I can only think of about 5-10 teams that "nobody cares about"
Raptors,
Wizards,
Bobcats,
Nets (could be changing),
New Orleans (could be changing),
Bucks
And maybe a few others.
I really prefer parity over super teams....I just take what I've been blessed with...no questions asked...but I'm still not sure how to fully answer your question....
When I look at the Spurs teams between 2004 and 2008...they had a real super team of all-stars...
Duncan (All-star)
Manu (All-star)
Parker (All-star)
Bowen - Best defensive stopper post Rodman....
So while some parity is good maybe super teams are not so bad anymore...
Sup Spurfan
Sup Spurfan
The only negative side to the implication is that you're considering me a
It's much more gratifying seeing a franchise bring a unit together for an extended period of time. Any "super" team assembled back then was the by-product of a good organization and the players executing their roles. "Super" teams are now bought over an off-season. It's a big-market perk and it benefits the pockets of the owners.
The parity was much better. It's appalling looking back on it all and remembering how big of a deal it was to see T-Mac go to Houston to play with Yao... and now I see the 2013 roster for LA and Miami and I feel like I'm looking at some 8 year old's team on NBA 2K.
I find myself wondering how the league would look if setting up the Lakers/Celtics teams with Gasol and the Boston trio hadn't happened.
This league has never had parity.
Unless you lile the Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, Heat, or Celtics, you probably don't care much for the NBA.
No parity
Yes it did... in the 1970s, and also in the mid-2000s...
I'm a Clippers fan and I like the NBA... if there was parity, it would be an even more entertaining product....Unless you lile the Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, Heat, or Celtics, you probably don't care much for the NBA.
Aside from the Clipps, the teams I've enjoyed watching the most were the early-2000's Kings (the greatest team in the world at the time), the dynasty Spurs, and the SSOL Suns... market size doesn't matter to me, I just want to see great basketball....
Then how the are you a Clippers fan? Up until last year there wasn't great basketball coming from the other resident @ Staples.
The 2011 playoffs had plenty of upsets and surprises, even Mavs fans were surprised that they won the le..
The 2012 playoffs had many question marks and surprises as well, especially with Bosh'e injury..Indiana and Boston took Miami to the edge, and the Spurs and Lakers could have defeated the Thunder..
Yeah, there were some great series last year even if they weren't going the distance sans the Celts vs. Heat series.
The 2011 playoffs had plenty of upsets and surprises, even Mavs fans were surprised that they won the le..
The 2012 playoffs had many question marks and surprises as well, especially with Bosh'e injury..Indiana and Boston took Miami to the edge, and the Spurs and Lakers could have defeated the Thunder..
Better for who? Spurs won 2 ships during that time, can't complain, tbh
I can confidently say that either the Thunder, Lakers, or Heat will win the le next year. Can't confidently whittle it down to 3 teams like that in any other sport.
Baseball?
You can say Yankees, Rangers, and one team from the NL and you'll probably be right. The assurance that either of those three teams is bolstered by the 'superteam' notion. However in basketball there has been 8 teams to have won the chip since 2000. Football, for all the supposed parity, has had the same amount of winners in that span too I believe. It just seems the NBA is relegated to the same teams winning it all the time.
Really don't think the Lakers have 5 years...Kobe Nash Ron & Gasol wont be in the NBA then...
The league is better with 50-60 games instead of 82. Such a long ass season.
The Larry Brown team hooked me in, Odom, Miles, and QRich kept me interested, and Sam I Am cemented my fandom for life...
The Yankees, Rangers, Nationals, Dodgers, Angels, and Braves all have a pretty legitimate shot, tbh.... even Tampa Bay, Oakland, Pittsburgh, or Baltimore could make a good run at it....
true but by that time another elite player or superstar player might come to the NBA and will want to play with the Lakers or Heat
Nope. The Cards beat the Rangers last year and the Giants before that. In fact, since 2000, 9 teams have won the WS.
In the NBA, since 2000, 6 teams have won the le, and only 2 of them(Mavs/Pistons) weren't multiple time champs.
I'm not crying rigged or anything either. I think that the skillset for NBA level basketball is the rarest in all of sports. Combine that with playoffs being 7 game series(the best team will ALWAYS win these) and you have very little parity.
No doubt
Ehh, I'm not sure I buy the skillset argument against parity.... that just addresses the players, not the teams they go to... although the Clippers are finally starting to benefit from this, you can't have a functioning league for long if LA, Miami, and New York are the only acceptable markets from the players' point of view, tbh...
It's impossible for NBA fans to be content with the level of parity, tbh..
It's a superstar's league, it won't change..if your team doesn't have a superstar, you won't win a le..basketball is the only sport that can be impacted by one individual at such a high level..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
