So we here it all the time: "If you're not first, your last." "It's been x amount of years since teams last championship." "It's a trap to get stuck in the NBA's middle ground."
Consider this since the merger in '76 only 12 NBA franchises have won it all. Also a fact: only 1 team can win every year.
So are all of those teams and seasons failures? Were they not fulfilling the entertainment value that they are meant to provide?
The important question to address is: Is it more important to do everything possible to win a championship, or is a consistently competitive team a better option?We see it all the time, teams rebuilding. Blowing up their rosters to get high draft picks, build a young nucleus and hopefully make all the right moves to snag the trophy. But is it better or any less enjoyable to always have a competitive team making the playoffs, even if they are not championship contenders? Look at the Atlanta Hawks as example. This season they finally did some rebuilding to shift from the consistently good team they have had for the last few years. They were never winning a championship, but they were in the playoffs ever year. Both Denver and Utah are also in that "consistently in the playoffs but not great mode."
Is it more enjoyable to have a team whose seasons are up and down like a roller coaster? Or is it more enjoyable to be a consistent, above average, playoff franchise?
*Note: The L@kers live outside of this dilemma.
Win it all or Consistent?
Go for the Ring! (89 votes)
Consistency! (47 votes)
136 total votes