The Problems With The NBA

[Bartmanhomer]

Yo. What's up everyone. I noticed that tomorrow is going to be the NBA Finals. And two teams are the Cleveland Cavaliers and The Golden State Warriors going to face each other for the fourth time in the NBA Finals. I love both teams and they're really great and all but I feel that this is getting really boring and repetitive and it doesn't seem to be enjoyable to watch. I think the real problem with the NBA that there's a lack of balance of certain teams. Here's why a few overpowered teams wipe out the weaker team and two overpowered teams face each other. Which is definitely the case the reason why the Cavaliers and The Warriors are always in the NBA Finals every year. Also the problem with the NBA that they want to get some cash out of the NBA Finals because this is one of the biggest events in basketball plus using the Cavaliers and The Warriors as the key for making big bucks out of the NBA finals. So what do you think of this NBA problem. :confused:

[tomandtish]

Is it boring? Certainly can be. Is it a problem? Only if enough people find it boring that it hurts viewing.

Sports (especially Basketball and Football) have often been dominated by periods where certain teams are consistently at the top of the pack.

NFL: Patriots have made the playoffs 17 of the last 24 years. They've been to the finals 9 times in that period and the semi-finals 13 times. I still wouldn't take an even money bet on them not making at least the semi-finals.

Not just the teams you named in the NBA. The Spurs have made the playoffs every season for the last 21 seasons.

In baseball, there was a period where the default assumption was that the road to the World Series always went through the Yankees.

Sooner or later the worm turns for all teams. The Lakers made the playoffs every season but two from the 83-84 season until the 12-13 season. Haven't made it since.

[Bartmanhomer]

Is it boring? Certainly can be. Is it a problem? Only if enough people find it boring that it hurts viewing.

Sports (especially Basketball and Football) have often been dominated by periods where certain teams are consistently at the top of the pack.

NFL: Patriots have made the playoffs 17 of the last 24 years. They've been to the finals 9 times in that period and the semi-finals 13 times. I still wouldn't take an even money bet on them not making at least the semi-finals.

Not just the teams you named in the NBA. The Spurs have made the playoffs every season for the last 21 seasons.

In baseball, there was a period where the default assumption was that the road to the World Series always went through the Yankees.

Sooner or later the worm turns for all teams. The Lakers made the playoffs every season but two from the 83-84 season until the 12-13 season. Haven't made it since.
YesI understand that other sports from certain teams have their fair share for being in the playoffs and finals. I do like the Yankees being in the World Series. But for some reason it just feel unbalanced for certain teams.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Dude, I grew up in the era when it was the Lakers, the Celtics, and some other guys. This is not that time. The Cavs matter only as long as Lebron is wearing one of their jerseys. The Warriors are about to get crushed against the salary cap. And neither team looked very dominant in the Conference Finals.

[Malimar]

I don't know much about sports, but don't most team sports have a thing where the better a team does, the worse their options for recruiting for the next season (known in gaming as a "win less mechanic")? If basketball has that thing, then theoretically if dominance is maintained long enough then they'll be fielding a crappier and crappier team and eventually will start losing. If basketball has that thing and it's not working properly, then it needs to be fiddled with and its effect strengthened. If basketball doesn't have that thing, then it should.

[Lethologica]

Your complaint is reasonable, but your timing is suspect.

The NBA has always had a parity issue, but it's never really hurt sales. Dynasties make household names. Household names make fans tune in. Russell, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe...these are the names that bring fans into the fold. (Well, maybe not Duncan.)

But this season? The Pacers were projected to win <30 games at season's beginning and took the Cavs to 7. The Celtics were missing their best two players and took the Cavs to 7...and they have great draft picks. The Warriors were one inopportune hamstring injury away from losing to Houston. (If there's a real issue in basketball, it's the rising rate of injuries due to the league getting bigger, and due to youth sports becoming more specialized. One even wonders if anti-fatigue measures are proving counterproductive because it means everyone plays harder when they're on the court, making the game more punishing for everyone...but I digress.) This is the first year since 1979 that both conference finals went to 7 games. And the road's only gonna get tougher next year. The list of contenders is growing. The current dynasties are growing fragile. Fans who tout parity should be looking forward to next season.

[Cheesegear]

And two teams are the Cleveland Cavaliers and The Golden State Warriors going to face each other for the fourth time in the NBA Finals.

As opposed to the '90s Chicago Bulls going for two three-peats in 8 years, having several of the best players in the Association all on the same team - including two future-Hall of Famers - at the same time?

It goes in cycles.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I don't know much about sports, but don't most team sports have a thing where the better a team does, the worse their options for recruiting for the next season (known in gaming as a "win less mechanic")? If basketball has that thing, then theoretically if dominance is maintained long enough then they'll be fielding a crappier and crappier team and eventually will start losing. If basketball has that thing and it's not working properly, then it needs to be fiddled with and its effect strengthened. If basketball doesn't have that thing, then it should.

Sure they have that. But once you finish your rookie contract (assuming you haven't been traded or released yet), free agency means you can go wherever you want. And high caliber teams with a decent shot at the title are a good place to go, because that gets you the exposure to build your brand.

[Mordar]

I don't know much about sports, but don't most team sports have a thing where the better a team does, the worse their options for recruiting for the next season (known in gaming as a "win less mechanic")? If basketball has that thing, then theoretically if dominance is maintained long enough then they'll be fielding a crappier and crappier team and eventually will start losing. If basketball has that thing and it's not working properly, then it needs to be fiddled with and its effect strengthened. If basketball doesn't have that thing, then it should.


Sure they have that. But once you finish your rookie contract (assuming you haven't been traded or released yet), free agency means you can go wherever you want. And high caliber teams with a decent shot at the title are a good place to go, because that gets you the exposure to build your brand.

In some sports it matters more - key draft picks (and a brutal trade) led the horrible Dallas Cowboys from 1-15 in 1989 to winning 3 Super Bowls in the next 6 years (and losing in the NFC finals in one other year). Their three star players (Irvin, Aikman, Smith) were all draft picks. Their defense was built from some key trades and they were made solid from top (coaching) to bottom.

In basketball, however, free agency has come to rule the roost, and one or two stars with a couple excellent "support" players can create dominance. Rookies entering the league are important, and can sometimes make a significant impact...but not enough to overcome established teams. Most, if not all, the highly touted rookies coming into the NBA are used to being "the man" at all times. They have seldom not been the best player in the gym, if at all...but now these 20-year-olds are in a situation where they are playing the cream of the crop that have had a few years in a fitness system that has made them bigger, faster and stronger, and have spent the last few years playing with and against the best players on the planet. Add in the huge jump in the number of competitive games to be played (college maxes at maybe 39-40 games in a season with a deep tourney run, NBA has 82 *regular season* games, and up to 28 more playoff games), rookies just can't be expected to carry the load.

A rare few rookies can be difference makers (Garnett, James, Bird, Magic, Robinson) but most take a little time to develop (about the time Rogar mentions...that rookie contract), and then if they're big time they can get a major FA deal for huge money, generally somewhere other than where they were drafted, or go to a contender and try to get a ring.

What happens is that if the new star is drafted and happens to be with a very good young team, maybe they get lucky and stick together for a while (the Thunder with Durant and Westbrook, Clippers with CP3 and Blake) and have some success. Maybe they get crazy lucky and be Draymond Green, being the third guy drafted by the Warriors (after Steph in 2010 and Klay Thompson in 2011) and have such a solid nucleus that they become a team that attracts free agents like Iguodala and Durant and forms a dynasty. Far more likely, they end up on what has become an NBA farm system like the Timberwolves that has wasted a horde of high picks...and anyone they get that pans out looks to leave to a contender as soon as possible.

Though it is unfair to "blame" him, LeBron James energized this fabricated superteam trend (where star players actively recruit other star players to jump teams and unite) and players, particularly those who have already made their big money on second contracts, are willing to take a little less to win a little more. And since you only have 5 guys playing at any time, and maybe 3 other players who get any significant playing time, two or three stars and a couple solid players is "all" it takes to be great, and consistently great.

So, that was long winded.

tl;dr: In the NBA, rookies are overmatched, the small number of players on the floor allows stars to dominate, and careers can be long enough that established stars can keep their teams at the top for a long while.

- M

[The Fury]

The real problem with the NBA? Portland is getting stuck with horribly short post-seasons! One series! Twice in a row now!

I kid, but I got to admit that I got a lot more enjoyment out of the regular season than I did the playoffs this year.

[Olinser]

I believe the problems with the NBA can be summed up in 1 picture.

https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/gty_964627194_100278638-e1527808820455.jpg?w=1000&h=600&crop=1

How can you trust somebody that makes decisions like this off the court?

[Algeh]

The real problem with the NBA? Portland is getting stuck with horribly short post-seasons! One series! Twice in a row now!

I kid, but I got to admit that I got a lot more enjoyment out of the regular season than I did the playoffs this year.

Also, Portland has zero other teams within reasonable driving distance thanks to the NBA letting the Sonics leave Seattle (and the Grizzlies leave Vancouver, but that move seemed more reasonable...). In my opinion, the NBA should give Seattle and Las Vegas both teams and move the now-Memphis Grizzlies into the Eastern Conference to re-balance. (We could then have 4 four-team divisions, and I have all kinds of opinions on how to re-divide the teams into them, but I'm already into Crazy Portland-Centric Rant Mode, so...)

Anyway, I gave up on the Blazers when they fired Mike & Mike over the summer a few years back and now I mostly just follow soccer and root for the Thorns (and occasionally Timbers) instead.

[Lemmy]

Aren't the NBA rules different from Olympic basketball in order to make it more TV-friendly or something?

That might have an impact on how enjoyable someone finds NBA games to be.

[The Fury]

Anyway, I gave up on the Blazers when they fired Mike & Mike over the summer a few years back and now I mostly just follow soccer and root for the Thorns (and occasionally Timbers) instead.

Heck yeah! BAON! No Pity! I like both the Timbers and the Thorns too. The supporter culture around soccer is crazy and I love it.

I still like the Blazers though, I'm holding out hope that we'll get a good post season out of them. Of course I'm really hoping that they'll pull off a Western Conference championship or even a League championship. Though small-market franchises being what they are, we don't have a LeBron, Curry, or any similar star power so I feel like a Portland win would just really tick off any NBA fans that aren't specifically Blazers fans. Though the trollish side of my personality finds that really funny too...

[Lethologica]

Dame got kinda clowned this last playoffs, though. Pelicans were the matchup from hell. Maybe OKC would have been better. But the second round is about the latest one can hope to go without a hellish matchup, the way the West is these days.

[The Fury]

Dame got kinda clowned this last playoffs, though. Pelicans were the matchup from hell. Maybe OKC would have been better. But the second round is about the latest one can hope to go without a hellish matchup, the way the West is these days.

There's a few folks that think that Dame recently becoming a dad took his head out of the game. Maaaybe they're right? I mean, The Blazers in general and Dame in particular seem like they played better during the regular season.

[Noldo]

Though it is unfair to "blame" him, LeBron James energized this fabricated superteam trend (where star players actively recruit other star players to jump teams and unite) and players, particularly those who have already made their big money on second contracts, are willing to take a little less to win a little more. And since you only have 5 guys playing at any time, and maybe 3 other players who get any significant playing time, two or three stars and a couple solid players is "all" it takes to be great, and consistently great.

- M

One further thing to note is that due to salary cap and the cap on contract values, the star players' salary is restricted and therefore the value of sponsorship deals and exposure is greater. Since the salaries are capped, a star player can practically receive the same salary from each team so it makes sense to maximize your exposure and join a few other super starts to create a juggernaut.

Golden State was sold for 450 million in 2010 and in 2017 it was valued 2.6 billion. When Curry signed his current deal (200 million over 5 years), his brought in value was estimate to be close to 300 million during the term, making him roughly 100 million underpaid...

[Lethologica]

Not nearly as underpaid as he was before he signed that contract, though. That was one of a few key factors that went into making the Warriors what they are today.