Can the NBA's Competitiveness Problem be Fixed?
by PDXBuckeye on Jul 5, 2010 9:40 PM PDT
Email
PrintI am glad I live in Portland. Best pro sports fans in the universe. It really works for me as I come from a similar environment for college sports as a central Ohioan dominated by the Ohio State Buckeyes. The Blazers do not test my college allegiance while enabling me to share in the local sports obsession. Awesome for me.
While it is great to be a Blazers fan, I have to wonder does the overall lack of competitiveness in the NBA speak well of the league? Is this model sustainable? At the very least, I wonder if there is anyhting the league can do to really improve it's competitiveness?
AtlBlzr's post post found here:
http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/7/5/1553986/will-the-blazers-win-a-championship#41331930
brought these questions to the fore of my mind.
I stopped watching the NBA because I was not a particular fan of any particular team. I watched the Celtics as a kid as they were on the tube a lot, but I lost my affinity for them over time. Then the Bulls came along and it got boring. Every year was a repeat of the last, all of the new players just wanted to be Jordan, which they were not and I felt the quality of the game suffered as a result. After moving to Portland I got the bug, I am now a full on fan of the team.
What AltBlzrs post made me realize is my initial problem when I stopped watching still exists, fortunately in Portland that does not impact the fan base much. I just think that the lack of competitiveness is a problem. Let me illustrate my point:
Only 9 teams have won a title in the last 27 years (David Stern's reign).
Compare that to 10 teams in the 14 seasons prior to Stern taking over.
When you look at the last 41 years in total only 16 teams have managed a title.
Now I am not saying that all 30 teams deserve a title or anything like that, but when the same teams keep winning titles year after year it does tend to get boring. Let's look at it a different way:
the 00's saw 5 franchises win 11 titles.
The 90's saw 4 teams win 10 titles.
The 80's saw 4 teams win 10 titles.
The 70's saw 7 teams win 10 titles.
Is there a reason this is happening?
What can be done to fix it (assuming we had the power, which we don't really, but for conversation sake)?
Is it even a problem?
Is it Stern?
Is it the Collective Bargaining Agreement?
Is it something else altogether?
What are your thoughts?
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
they do this on purpose
they wanna see guys like mj, magic, kobe, lebron win multiple titles. thats the reason they allow for bird rights.
"There was a time when this blog was for intelligent BASKETBALL fans. It has unfortunately become O-Live 2…" ~Ilikeemall
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
"At first glance, I saw a fairly unremarkable penis." ~Sophia on Greg Oden
so it is player driven
the player that captures pop culture is catered to?
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
stern
i think it has a lot more to do with stern and his evil henchmen, i.e. the unacceptable refereeing year in year out
by crookie monster on Jul 5, 2010 10:04 PM PDT reply actions
I would not disagree on this
I have long thought the league needs new leadership.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
that's all well and good
And I agree, but the fact is money talks and BS walks. You think Stern or whoever is in charge of the NBA is more likely to listen to the Bucks or the Lakers? The rich teams with huge fanbases will always get the treatment, unless they’re hapless like the Knicks.
Nobody cares if the Blazers win a title except us. If the L@kers win a title, a million Kobe jerseys are sold across the fruited plain. Stern is a rotten little weasel, but nobody can say he hasn’t done what’s best for business.
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
well yeah
but is Kobe only desirable so far above and beyond others because he is kobe alone or is it the way the NBA promotes it.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
he's desirable because he's really really good and he plays in Los Angeles
Whcih was a travesty to begin with. He was drafted by the freaking Hornets and should have played with them. No 18 year old kid should get to take any basektball club hostage like that.
The NBA (rightly) promotes what can make them money. Remember ESPN’s opening game a few years ago was Blazers-Spurs, because it would have been Oden vs. Duncan. Oden’s injury messed that up, nobody can say the league wasn’t trying to promote Oden and the Blazers. If Oden had stayed healthy this whole time, we would be a premier team just because of him, believe that.
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
Part of it is that, unless Stern tried to manipulate trading, the better and luckier organizations would amass the better valued players
So to some degree you are not going to get rid of, nor do I think we should try and get rid of, dynasties.
Several franchises kind of take themselves out of contention by not being as willing to spend and take financial risks as others.
I honestly don’t see how to make the lottery and cap situation significantly more fair, as it is already kind of set up to protect smaller markets (and prevent Yankee type teams). I am sure it could be tweaked, but the basic ideas are there already.
The Refs could use a bit of work, there is definitely a “star” treatment, and I think it prevent new stars from rising and old stars from falling.
Honestly, the only way to ensure competitiveness is to ensure star players do not remain in one place very long, but that would be contrary to everyone’s wishes to build dynasties and championships and brand names.
I think something that might tweak it a little bit would be to pay players by performance (some sort of mixture of team/individual accomplishments?) rather than previously agreed to and guaranteed amounts. That isn’t in the players interests, but it would prevent flailing teams from huge debt as well as overly successful teams from too good to be true deals [cough]gasolandartest[/cough]
The ref "star treatment" thing is probably the number one fix I can see
In terms of Dynasties, I have no problem there, i think it odd there are so many though and it could be related to league structure.
I think the league needs to keep an eye on low value teams trading off assets like Memphis gave away Pau Gasol a few years back.
Does the current free agency structure serve or hinder competitiveness?
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Competitiveness
I like how you conveniently forgot to list the 60’s along with the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s. Compared to those 10 years, every other decade has been remarkably competitive.
The new CBA may have a hand in making the following years more competitive, for one, a hard cap, which has been proposed, would prevent teams from overspending for talent and would eventually lead to a talent dissipation throughout the league, as teams could no longer afford multiple superstars.
Also, shorter contract lengths means that potentially players would switch teams more often, which would be a fatal blow to long term dynasties. With players entering free agency more often, you would see a lot of turnover between franchises.
There will always be have’s and have-not’s in the league, there simply aren’t enough great players to have it any other way. However, the changes put in place by the 2010-2011 CBA agreement could go a long way towards making the league more competitive
did not forget
i just aggragated the data posted by AtlBlzr, but anyway the next question would be is increased player movement desirable even if it leads to more competitiveness?
Why is it that in other sports when dominant players or teams rise up, other teams and players ratchet up to their level. That does not seem to be happening so much in the NBA. What is the difference?
I mean Tiger came on the scene as was winning huge whenever he won. Over about 3 years, even though he still won a lot his competitors were much closer to him over that time. Instead of winning by 8 strokes he was winning by much more normal margins. The Patriots team game dominated for a few years but other NFL teams have developed to match their game. In the NBA this process happens but only 1 or two teams close the gap really and few sustain it.
Is the NBA somehow different?
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
The Patriots team game dominated for a few years but other NFL teams have developed to match their game. In the NBA this process happens but only 1 or two teams close the gap really and few sustain it.
Is the NBA somehow different?
There are two major differences. First, the NFL teams are so much larger, you aren’t going to hold the same roster together for nearly as long and success is going to be determined by your top-to-bottom roster, not having 2 or 3 of the best players in the league. Second, there’s much more ambiguity in NBA rules than NFL rules. Sure, you have bad calls, but for the most part the refs in the NFL are accountable. In the NBA the definition of a foul can change night to night, and what a foul is for Kobe can be completely different than a foul for Batum, even as they play in the same game!
I don’t know if it would change the end result and allow more teams a real chance at winning a ring, but I think the NBA would be much more interesting and fair if the fouls (and flopping rules) were called evenly regardless of a player’s status or fame.
I forgot to add, the other difference is that the NBA rules can actually remove players from the game. Even if Tom Brady gets ten delay of game penalties, or Jared Allen gets two facemask calls in a row, they are allowed to compete. The ref has no power to simply take Randy Moss out of a close game, or decide that Drew Brees, for whatever reason, has to sit on the bench for the final drive of the first half. But this happens in the NBA every night, and with the refs giving better calls to stars on established teams plus those calls changing the talent on the floor, it’s going to swing the final result to some extent.
this is a good point
except that refs CAN remove players from NFL games for personal fouls at their discretion. but for the most part I agree with you, the concept of “fouling out” is probably my least favorite aspect of the NBA. How is it beneficial for the league or the game when you have perfectly healthy, viable starters sitting on the bench because they got two cheap fouls early on?
"So I said, 'Supercollider?! I just met her!'" - Humorbot 5.0
That’s true, but NFL refs rarely remove players from the game. Even a brutal (cheap) hit usually results in a penalty without removal of the player. I’ve never seen an NFL game decided because the refs changed the matchups on the field.
I know the NBA is afraid big guys will just hack guards apart or that guys like Kobe and LeBron won’t put up flashy numbers if defenders are allowed to touch them, but it’s become a real problem. Your big guy gets two fouls early and the entire game changes. There are a lot of great ideas out there, like giving technical foul shots for each foul beyond the 5th (without ejecting the player), or giving more total fouls, and I think any change would be an improvement. Pretty soon it will be a no-contact game and in 20 years it’ll just be a 5-on-5 game of HORSE because David Stern didn’t want anybody to get hurt. :)
escalating penalties
To keep from a lineup of hockey enforcement players fouling guards every time, the penalty should just increase with every subsequent foul after 5. Technical at 6. Technical w/3 free throws at 7. Technical w/4 free throws at 8 etc…
Foul trouble remains an issue, but game-changing players don’t have to sit because of fouls.
Not needed.
When fouls result in points every time, there will be no “hockey enforcement”. Follow my thinking:
Basketball needs to adopt the soccer philosophy when it comes to fouls (and adapt it to basketball). You can commit as many ticky tack fouls a game as you want. So you get called for 12 hand check fouls a game? Big deal. You don’t need to get disqualified, you just need to pay the consequences (FTs when your team is in the penalty).
Flagrants are the equivalent of yellow card, 2 and you’re out. And a Flagrant II is the equivalent of a red card. Ejection and automatic 1 game suspension. And how do you prevent the Hack-A-Shaq/Howard???? Any player on the floor can shoot the free throw. If you intentionally foul to stop a Shaq dunk, fine. But you’re putting Mo Williams on the line to shoot two and he’s a 90% FT shooter.
These are simple changes. Would improve the game by a TON. I mean why should Greg spend the first half on the bench just because he gets isolated against PGs at the 3-point line and is to slow to stay infront of them without fouling? Does that make him a malicious player out to do mean things??? NO. It means he has slow feet and Nate has a dumb defensive scheme.
"I don't feel like I'm going to be happy or complete until I'm an All-Star. My favorite example is that it took Chauncey six, seven years. And Chauncey's been a mentor for me, and I've learned a lot from him in these last couple years. So, people can say what they want, but I'll get the last laugh. " - Bayless
Great points, but you are missing a huge one
the revenue sharing models. The NFL’s model spreads the wealth much more, which when coupled with the hard cap, allows the small market teams to compete on an almost level playing field (the regional TV schedule helps with this as well). The NBA doesn’t share nearly as much wealth around, allowing teams like NY and LA to spend twice as much and still make a profit while the teams who spend half as much are losing money to boot.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
Barcelona and Real Madrid have always dominated both basketball and soccer in Spain.
In soccer Real Madrid has won 31 leagues, FC Barcelona 20 leagues, and all the other teams together only 28 (23 of them by only three teams). Do you wonder whether soccer is successful in Spain?
Forbidden to forbid!
I would say that Real Madrid and FC Barcelona follow the 1960's NBA mode.
There are two dominant teams and not that many teams other than those two with great players. The majority of talent will select one of those 2 teams (less competition and significant talent disparity from top to bottow symbolizes the NBA in the 1960’s).
Go back to the 60s and it was all Celtics all the time
As much as I would like to blame Stern, I don’t think the record shows much except that it takes a great coach with great players to win a title.
Okay, I will blame Stern. Statistics be damned! Donnie boy has his refs calling it so that the league will have superstars to promote. His efforts have hurt this beautiful game we love.
In KP I trusted!
The Celtics are the real outlier aren't they?
So I was going to include them but two things kept me.
First, it was a real pain cut,copy,pasting names and I wanted it to end.
Second the Celtics won the majority under a Commissioner (Maurice Podoloff (1946–63) that predated two before David Stern (Walter Kennedy (1963–75) and Larry O’Brien (1975–1984), also going back that far just seems to get into a different NBA of fundamentals over sizzle, far less teams, and less players of significant talent to go around. I figured that would skew the data so I ommited it.
Hard Cap
is the only way to somewhat level the playing field (which is why the NFL is so successful, any team besides the lions and raiders have a chance to win in any given year). Stern wouldn’t have it, since his whole marketing scheme for the NBA revolves around 1-2 star players (currently Kobe/Lebron). Football teams sell team jerseys, basketball sells individual players jerseys because rather than marketing the product (ie the league), stern is marketing the player. This is why there are more diehard football fans of crappy teams than you see for decent teams in basketball (think the cleveland browns fans vs fans of the atlanta hawks). Football fans know that every year all teams have a level playing field, which keeps them interested. Basketball fans know that their teams are fighting an uphill battle every year (unless they’re fans of stern’s teams) and know that the rules of the game are not the same for their players as they are for stern’s superstars.
With a hard salary cap in place, individual players have to actually decide between taking the all the money (thus putting their team into a bind), or taking less money to play with better guys around them. With the current setup, you get teams like the lakers and celtics who spend more than the rest of the league, get put on tv more (thus earning more $), get all the calls (well the officiating would still probably be bad, since stern can still manipulate officials), and thus win championships.
Summation:
1- Hard Salary Cap
2- No more superstar calls (a foul is a foul, traveling is traveling)
3- Fire David Stern.
4- Go Blazers
hard cap
would make it even worse for non big market cities. the only way that small market teams can compete is with their $. take that away, and what player wouldnt want to live in NYC, LA, Miami, Orlando….
"There was a time when this blog was for intelligent BASKETBALL fans. It has unfortunately become O-Live 2…" ~Ilikeemall
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
"At first glance, I saw a fairly unremarkable penis." ~Sophia on Greg Oden
by Philthyanimal on Jul 6, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
hard cap has to go hand and hand with far more equal revenue sharing
like the NFL. Even then, the “glam” cities would still have a pretty big advantage. I’m actually in favor of a two-tier cap myself. Current soft-cap would still apply, as would exceptions (though maybe fewer of them), taxes would kick in at the soft cap, and instead of the current tax line, there would be a hard cap line (maybe slightly higher than now).
Of course all of this again requires more revenue sharing, which will be a hard pill for the big market owners to swallow. The difference between football and baseball has a lot more to do (or at least as much) with haves and have nots than it does with a hard cap or no cap. The NBA is broken. The Knicks and Lakers can spend $100 million on payroll and still be raking in profits – even when they are terrible (Knicks). Meanwhile, the Hornets of a couple years ago, Atlanta now (2 bad examples, since neither can draw fans, but the point stands), and many other team who actually win games and do well are losing money hand over fist. Something has to give. the NFL, much to the chagrin of the Jerry Jones’ of the world, does a good job of subsidizing the smaller market teams revenue-wise, which, when coupled with the cap rules, allows all 30 teams to have the resources to compete. The NBA has the cap portion down close enough to allow the competition, but the revenue sharing is busted. Taken on the aggregate, the 30 teams make money. But 18 of them lose, and the other 12 profit big. if that all got spread around, every team could make money and afford to compete under the current cap rules. Don’t get me started on baseball, which has neither a decent cap situation or revenue sharing, which is why it’s so broken.’
I’m not a fan of a hard cap in the NBA in and of itself, as it would actually hurt smaller teams like Portland more than help them. When you have to watch your franchise player walk away because you can’t afford to pay him, and some other team emptied out their contracts and can, that’s bad for the league. Stars leaving their teams in general is bad for any league. The NBA currently highly favors stars staying with their current teams, and that is how it should be.
The only possible way a hard cap could work and not be devastating would be to couple it (like the NFL does) with non-guaranteed salaries. Somehow, I don’t see any way the players agree to either of those things, let alone both. And I don’t think the owners would want the hard cap without the non-guaranteed contracts, for the reasons stated above.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
Atlant is not exactly a small market
but I see your point here.
I don’t have a problem with much of what goes on in the league, but this free agency bonanza concerns me. I mean players are abondoning teams at will, hard to buuild committed fan bases when the draw can book every 5 seasons or so, particularly since the have teams are likely to win the title. People happily follow their college team even with all of the turnover, because all teams face the same challenge, pro ball should be more stable than it is.
All that said, how do you make sure the players get paid in a system that keeps them in cities. I know the salaries are obscene, but if they get the profit thing fixed, the players should get paid, they are what sells after all.
What really got me thinking about this whole thing was the way Boston bought a championship a few years back, that just seems bad for business. Sure Boston fans were happy, but really, it does not help build the reputation of the league as a competitive enterprise.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
From looking at the Super Bowl winning NFL teams over the last several years
I would suggest there is very little correlation between market size and football success with a hard cap in place.
Do you expect this would play out differently with basketball? Why?
Holding out for Hedo
several reasons
1) football has non-guaranteed contracts to go with a hard cap. You would need both to make the hard cap work.
2) winning in the NFL requires a top to bottom roster. you can’t throw 70% of your cap at 3 or 4 guys and then fill in with role players.
3) the revenue sharing model in football has at least as much (or in my opinion more) of an impact on evening out the small vs. big market descrepancies that the hard cap does.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
2) is what stand out to me about basketball and the issue of parity
The teams are just so darn small. If you get just a couple top-level players, you are way ahead of 2/3 of the league. That advantage can persist for as long as their careers, too, which is a relatively long time for professional sports teams.
Holding out for Hedo
yep
this is the #1 reason basketball is the easiest sport to repeat in or make several deep playoff runs within a few year span. Once you lockup those 2 or 3 top players, i’ts relatively easy to keep re-tooling the rest of the roster around them. Baseball is much more prone to chance and player ups and downs year to year (not to mention a pitcher or two who get “hot” in the playoffs can tip the scales disproportionally). Football, being a single elimination sport, just makes the “any given Sunday” cliche all too true. But the NBA’s 7-game series really make playoff major upsets very difficult, and the top players produce year in an year out (unless injured), so it’s just a matter of getting those guys to begin with.
Some teams have been smart and lucky (Bulls, Spurs), others went all in with a gamble (2005ish Pistions, 2008-2010 Celtics), others are blessed by the fact that everyone wants to play there (Lakers). Teams like LA can overcome a bad decision or aging (think mid-90s Lakers) much easier than others, because there will always be the next big name FA or draftee who will engineer his way there (Shaq, Kobe). But the long-term guaranteed contracts will cripple a franchise who drafts poorly or makes bad signings.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
I agree with your take on player engineering and glamour markets.
If I were on the board of owners I would want a punative stance on player manipulation (unless I were in LA or NY of course). I would make a rule that states that any player traded out of protest will receive the league minimum for the remainder of their contract until expiration, at which point they and their team could negotiate with full “Bird rights” any contract of their choosing.
yes
in basketball…there are less players and it puts more emphasis on the star player. it is much easier in the nba to have 1 player carry a team than it is in the nfl. hard cap or soft cap or whatever…any team with MJ or LBJ will do well in any type. also the reason there is less parity in the nba is bc there are series in the playoffs…you cant just advance with one game but need to win multiple games against multiple opponents. in the nfl, anything can happen in just 1 game…so being hot at the right time can get you far.
"There was a time when this blog was for intelligent BASKETBALL fans. It has unfortunately become O-Live 2…" ~Ilikeemall
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
"At first glance, I saw a fairly unremarkable penis." ~Sophia on Greg Oden
by Philthyanimal on Jul 6, 2010 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions
series may have something to do with it
I am not sure 7 games is the most marketable format. I like the NBA but lose interest after my team is out, tough to attract new fans. There is also a loss of urgency an awful lot, which adds to the drama. But really 2 almost 3 months a playoffs is a long long run unless your team is in the hunt for the long haul.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
agreed
first and 2nd round should be best of 5, conf finals and finals best of 7
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
Take away free agency.
Don’t give players a choice of where to play. Then you eliminate the advantages that desirable cities have.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
oh we can dream...
but that Genie got out of the bottle along time ago.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
if you take away FA
than players who get drafted by poor teams get screwed bc they wont get paid as much as the market would have paid them.
"There was a time when this blog was for intelligent BASKETBALL fans. It has unfortunately become O-Live 2…" ~Ilikeemall
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
"At first glance, I saw a fairly unremarkable penis." ~Sophia on Greg Oden
by Philthyanimal on Jul 6, 2010 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions
right
you do need to address that, but that is why stronger revenue sharing might be considered a good thing for building the competitiveness of the league. The trick is implementing a policy where players get paid their due, but at the very least heavily discourages massive roster reshuffles and roster jumping.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Who cares? They'll still get payed plenty.
But maybe a better idea is to make all free agents restricted. Then movement would be rare but possible, and other teams would still have some say in their salaries.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
i hate to break it to you
only superstars get paid plenty….rookies, and mle guys are the ones that often get screwed in the nba. in an ideal world tho…athletes shouldnt be paid as much as they currently are. if guys like charles barkley and antoine walker can blow all their cash…rookies and MLE guys can certainly do the same.
"There was a time when this blog was for intelligent BASKETBALL fans. It has unfortunately become O-Live 2…" ~Ilikeemall
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
"At first glance, I saw a fairly unremarkable penis." ~Sophia on Greg Oden
by Philthyanimal on Jul 6, 2010 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah if they're idiots.
Smart people who get payed a minimum rookie salary for two years can retire if they want.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
well if you haven't had money all your life
and finally stumble across a large sum of cash…a lot of people just aren’t ready to handle it and go broke again. there should be no way for a person that wins any powerball jackpot to go broke again…but surprisingly a lot of them do.
besides…once you are an NBA player, and hang out with other players and high profile people, you are kinda expected to live that lifestyle. you need to eat at nice places, have nice cars, have large homes etc…i dont think you will find a player who is projected to go into the lottery, living in a modest home for the duration of his contract.
"There was a time when this blog was for intelligent BASKETBALL fans. It has unfortunately become O-Live 2…" ~Ilikeemall
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
"At first glance, I saw a fairly unremarkable penis." ~Sophia on Greg Oden
by Philthyanimal on Jul 7, 2010 5:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Guaranteed Contracts and Constriction
I think guaranteed contracts really hinder the potential product the league puts out. I think players should earn their money based on their current performance, rather than what they have already done. Even someone like Brandon Roy, who I love as a player, is going to get paid based on the reputation he created while on his rookie contract. I would to see the fear of getting cut or released from a team (hence forfeiting your contract) come into play as a motivator. It would keep the atheletes working hard, staying in shape, and hopefully out of trouble as well. Perhaps severence packages could be implemented if a player gets released, but ownership should not have to be on the hook for the Shawn Kemps and Eddie Currys of this world.
Another way to improve competitiveness (Though I’m not necessarily in favor of this) would be to disband or disolve a few teams. Then the players who no longer have a team could become part of a supplemental draft, which would redistribute talent through the remaining teams.
Can I buy you a fish sandwich?
by silkybrown on Jul 6, 2010 1:19 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think the NBA should eliminate fouling out & Flagrant fouls.
Then put in a penalty box like in Hockey! Power play! Yeehaw…..
Somebody step up! - Mike Rice
Conspiracy talk is for losers
There is ZERO evidence that the league does anything to make certain (big-market) teams win championships. It takes two things for an NBA organization to succeed: luck and smarts.
The Bulls were good because they drafted Jordan and traded for Pippen. There’s no magic to it. They got lucky and made smart moves. The Spurs, Rockets, Celtics and Lakers – ditto.
If anybody would stand to benefit from a league conspiracy, it would be the Clippers and Knicks, and they haven’t even come close.
If you ask me, the Blazers have not won a title lately because they have a mixed bag history of decisions and have been REALLY unlucky.
Holding out for Hedo
not sure the post is about conspiracy talk
I mean pointing out the lack of competitiveness does not support or discredit any notion of a conspiracy.
in fact most of the responses are focused on cap issues and foul out rules.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Thank you for the rec PDXBuckeye.
I think it’s an interesting topic too. I feel that there is a bit of a club feel to the NBA. Think about this:
Of all the Major Professional Sports Leagues, which one would surprise you least if you found out the fix was in?
Normally where there is smoke there’s fire and the only league that has consistant complaints about fixes and favoritism from with the league is the NBA.
*shrug* I don't have a problem with competitiveness in basketball.
It’s much better than MLB, and I actually prefer the sustainability of dynasties in NBA over NFL. It’s cool to have a few powerhouses in the league that everyone targets, and it changes decade by decade.
It’s easy to complain about Celts/Lakers now, but no one was complaining four years ago when the Lakers looked mired in mediocrity and the Celts were stumbling through a 60 loss season.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
