Reply With Quote
that there are only 5 players on the court at once so one or two great players affect the outcome more than other sports
When you look at other leagues like the NFL you see different teams win championships all the time. You could attribute it to the one and done fashion of the NFL, but even the MLB has more parity than the NBA and they have series as well.
What is it about the NBA that causes the same franchises to win over and over, and others to lose over and over?
that there are only 5 players on the court at once so one or two great players affect the outcome more than other sports
Reduce # of teams. Reduce # of games. Research robot refereeing, ban PEDs
"Parity" in the NFL is the biggest crock of bull . The AFC is nearly always won by the Patriots, Steelers, Ravens or Colts.
Lose the Wolves, Bucks, Magic, Kings, Hornets, and one more
Change the weather in Cleveland, Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc.
Seriously, though, the NFL's marketing is God-tier. This is a league where the NFC once won 13 straight Super Bowls and 16 out of 20, often in blowout fashion, but they've managed to convince everyone that they somehow have any more parity than the NBA or MLB.
Hockey is a sport with actual parity, tbh. Ever since the salary cap was implemented, you never see repeats anymore (until the Kangs stop coasting and get it done this year, of course) and an 8th seed has won the le, which will never happen in the NBA. , the Canadian teams have no business not dominating that league, but none of them have won a Cup since the Habs cheated in '93.
True. Tim Duncan in his prime was the equivalent of a 20 game winner with a 2.20 ERA and a Gold Glove first baseman with 40 home runs and a .340 BA combined.
I'm actually enjoying the parity this season... teams like Atlanta and Golden State are playing for the #1 seeds, and teams like Milwaukee, Detroit, & New Orleans are looking to make the playoffs. Meanwhile the Knicks and Lakers are completely out of the playoff picture. In one or two years, Duncan, Kobe, & Garnett will retire and the entire NBA landscape might change.
I'll enjoy NBA parity once the Spurs are done with their dynasty.
Great players matter more.
Playoff series instead of single matches mean rarely does a lesser team, i.e one without the great players, tend to upset the more favourite team.
The rule changes makes a huge difference in moving towards increased team involvement than individual domination.
The problem now is that there aren't too many bright managers and leaders in the game. There are no visionaries and people who are great leaders.
The current form of rule rewards smart managers and great coaching, which is fantastic.
Parity doesn't mean a different winner every year, it means that franchises, regardless of market size and revenue potential, has the same chances of winning it all. The onus is now on the franchises to find the right people to run their teams.
Big markets will always have the upper hand though. Players like to play in those markets more as there will always be more endorsement opportunities, not to mention more desirable lifestyle, and managers and support staff would prefer living in big cities than smaller ones. I mean, given the choice, most people would rather live in LA and NY than SA and Memphis. it's just the way it is.
Games maybe, but reducing the amount of teams yes. Unfortunately I see games getting reduced before teams fold.
Wow, all these responses and nobody has actually posted the real reason for the parity. Increased scoring opportunities allows averages to become closer to the mean. Better shooters and players simply have more opportunities to score. The reason there can not be parity is because of the number of scoring chances. The solution: Lengthen the shot clock extensively. Bad choice, not worth it, but the only solution.
Hope Timmy retires after this season tbh.
I think disparity is a nature of sports leagues. Great teams have great players who'll carry on the glory generation after generation. Take a look at the premiere league you'll find the championship hasn't gone to no team not named United, Arsenal, Chelsea or City since early 90s, and 's even more insane in Bundesliga. Of course the league may try such methods as draft lottery or salary cap to screw up the long-term dominance of any specific team, but still players prefer to join winning teams, or teams that are based in big markets.
Too many ty business men don't know what they're doing and that's a huge problem. The problem with the world of business is you pretty much have to suck up in order to move up, thus you get unqualified individuals that don't know wtf they're doing. We see terribly constructed teams, terrible contracts, bad drafting, player development etc.
Merge the conferences and take the best 16 teams. Seed 1-16.
1) Warriors vs 16) OKC
9) SPURS vs 8) Mavs
4) Rockets vs 13) Suns
12) Cavs vs 5) Blazers
** Bracket Splits
2) Hawks vs 15) Hornets
10) Wizards vs 7) Raptors
3)Grizzles vs 14) Bucks
6) Clippers vs 11) Bulls
That would be ing nuts....That would be terrible bracket for the Spurs.... But it really makes things interesting. Thoughts?
Have 2 NBAs, have one play the other. Each will have the exact same players but from a parallel universe.
The worst thing about it is that much more people who are qualified don't get the job nowadays because of "references" prioritized before the diversely talented. That's how many younger players who are offspring of previous players got to the NBA. Reference.
GMs and F.O.'s need to stop being dumb s.
Plenty of other teams could've drafted Manu, Parker, and scouted Euros more closely, but instead they opt to draft AAU monkeyball stars based on "potential." Tyrus Thomas and Stromile Swift were both top 5 picks. Think about that.
Not just about drafting imho. I doubt that every coach/team would've developed Manu and guys alike into what they are. They're talented guys but we've seen many of such young players being left rotten on the bench. Spurs have developed a number of system players imho, most of whom would've been playing in chinese league now but for Pop.
Okkkkk
Since 1996, the Red Sox or Yankees have won the American League 10 times/18 seasons. (55.5%)
Since 1998, the Lakers or Spurs have won the Western Conference 12 times/16 seasons. (75%)
From 1988 to 1998, the 49ers, Cowboys or Packers won the NFC 8 times/10 seasons (80%)
Since 2000,
11 different NFC teams have played in the Super Bowl
6 different AFC teams have played in the Super Bowl
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
