- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Will the NBA ever have parity like the NFL?
Posted on 12/10/12 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 12/10/12 at 1:52 pm
Is there anything that can be done to create more parity in the NBA? Something to prevent super teams from forming? I'm against socialism (I know, shitty term), but in sports it's necessary to have an even playing field. It's bullshite to have certain teams spending tens of millions more on talent, simply because their owner is wealthier or their city is bigger (Yankees, Lakers, etc).
Contraction isn't a solution, IMO. Adding 4 or 5 decent players to a handful of crappy teams won't matter at all. It will hurt the league by pissing off a couple cities/states.
It's pretty awesome how literally anyone can win in the NFL. A couple weeks ago the Bears were looking like serious contenders, and now they probably won't make the playoffs. A couple weeks before that some were calling the Cardinals the "best team in the league" (480
) and they might be the worst team in the league right now. Literally anyone can win the Super Bowl, and even crappy teams who won't make the playoffs could beat the eventual SB winner on any given night (ie: Saints).
In the NBA you only have 1 team in the East who is even close to being a threat to the Heat. In the west you have the Thunder and a few more wildcards, but it's basically a 2 team league. Maybe the Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies, or Lakers can do something.....but I highly doubt it. I love the NBA, but it just sucks how there is absolutely no parity in the league. You already know who will win it in December and there are no surprises (what makes the NFL so awesome).
TLDR, I know. It just seems like with all the elite international talent coming from every corner of the planet, there would be more competition in this league.
Contraction isn't a solution, IMO. Adding 4 or 5 decent players to a handful of crappy teams won't matter at all. It will hurt the league by pissing off a couple cities/states.
It's pretty awesome how literally anyone can win in the NFL. A couple weeks ago the Bears were looking like serious contenders, and now they probably won't make the playoffs. A couple weeks before that some were calling the Cardinals the "best team in the league" (480
) and they might be the worst team in the league right now. Literally anyone can win the Super Bowl, and even crappy teams who won't make the playoffs could beat the eventual SB winner on any given night (ie: Saints). In the NBA you only have 1 team in the East who is even close to being a threat to the Heat. In the west you have the Thunder and a few more wildcards, but it's basically a 2 team league. Maybe the Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies, or Lakers can do something.....but I highly doubt it. I love the NBA, but it just sucks how there is absolutely no parity in the league. You already know who will win it in December and there are no surprises (what makes the NFL so awesome).
TLDR, I know. It just seems like with all the elite international talent coming from every corner of the planet, there would be more competition in this league.
10
Posted on 12/10/12 at 1:54 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
Not really. The smaller the team the more impact a super star has on the team. With only 5 people on the court there just isn't much you can do.
The big thing is that since a super star mean so much teams don't worry about sucking because getting a top 3 draft pick is EXTREMELY valuable. Due to this I'd like to see a system that rewards the higher non playoff seeds with the #1 pick. Its easier to shoot for the worst record with ease if you already suck. It is much less likely for a team to suck on purpose at the end of the season if they are in line for a playoff spot. Also if you do try and suck you may end up sucking too much and getting a #5 pick.
The big thing is that since a super star mean so much teams don't worry about sucking because getting a top 3 draft pick is EXTREMELY valuable. Due to this I'd like to see a system that rewards the higher non playoff seeds with the #1 pick. Its easier to shoot for the worst record with ease if you already suck. It is much less likely for a team to suck on purpose at the end of the season if they are in line for a playoff spot. Also if you do try and suck you may end up sucking too much and getting a #5 pick.
This post was edited on 12/10/12 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 12/10/12 at 1:54 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
Very good question. I think part of of the problem is a lot of the players (especially recently) are resistant to playing long-term in small-market cities. In the NFL, players don't care if they are in Green Bay vs. Miami. In the NBA, the me-first mentality of many players means they want to play for the Lakers or Knicks, not Milwaukee Bucks. It doesn't help that the Commissioner's office plays clear favorites with certain teams. There are obviously exceptions with OKC being a powerhouse but if you look at the history of the NBA the lack of parity is astonishing
This post was edited on 12/10/12 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 12/10/12 at 1:55 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
What are you talking about? There is parity. It is called... New York (Both), L.A.(Both), South Beach, and OKC.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 2:00 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
There really isn't as much parity in the NFL as people think. There's just fewer games to separate the teams.
If the NBA season was only 16 games, last year the Sixers would have been a Top 3 seed. And this year the Lakers wouldn't even make the playoffs (they eventually will) Point is when you have small sample sizes weird things happen. 16 games is a small sample size.
It's a one game playoff. As opposed to a 7 game series. There's more variability in a one game playoff.
The Heat just lost to the Wizards. Bad teams beat good teams all the time in the NBA. As above, anything can happen in one game.
It's just not an accurate comparison. If you want "parity" in the NBA, you'd have to change it to a 30 game season with 1 game series in playoffs.
If the NBA season was only 16 games, last year the Sixers would have been a Top 3 seed. And this year the Lakers wouldn't even make the playoffs (they eventually will) Point is when you have small sample sizes weird things happen. 16 games is a small sample size.
quote:
Literally anyone can win the Super Bowl
It's a one game playoff. As opposed to a 7 game series. There's more variability in a one game playoff.
quote:
even crappy teams who won't make the playoffs could beat the eventual SB winner on any given night
The Heat just lost to the Wizards. Bad teams beat good teams all the time in the NBA. As above, anything can happen in one game.
It's just not an accurate comparison. If you want "parity" in the NBA, you'd have to change it to a 30 game season with 1 game series in playoffs.
This post was edited on 12/10/12 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 12/10/12 at 2:03 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
Like the NFL?
No way.
No way.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 2:05 pm to BayouBengals03
No. It's the fact that one player can make you a playoff contender and two great players makes you a title contender. You play so few players in basketball that it makes the impact of a singular talent so much greater.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 2:08 pm to jturn17
Then how do you explain crappy regular season teams winning the SB (NYG)? Cause literally anyone can win in the nfl if you get hot at the end of the year. Also, look at all the SB winners people were picking preseason who won't make the playoffs or are struggling mightily right now (Saints, Ravens, Steelers, Bears, etc).
If the NBA was only 16 games, then teams would actually give a shite & try during the regular season. Too many teams make the postseason in the NBA, and they don't GAF about the regular season for the most part. Yes, home court is nice and all, but these teams don't care, they'd rather be well rested, healthy, and a 3 seed (just ask Pop)
If the NBA was only 16 games, then teams would actually give a shite & try during the regular season. Too many teams make the postseason in the NBA, and they don't GAF about the regular season for the most part. Yes, home court is nice and all, but these teams don't care, they'd rather be well rested, healthy, and a 3 seed (just ask Pop)
Posted on 12/10/12 at 2:16 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
quote:
Then how do you explain crappy regular season teams winning the SB (NYG)?
Because the NFL playoff system is a 1 games series. As opposed to a 7 game series. 7 games takes a lot of variation out.
Maybe the Giants just coast during the regular season like the Celtics have done over the past few seasons.
quote:It's 12 teams vs 16 teams. I don't agree with your point.
Too many teams make the postseason in the NBA,
quote:
a 3 seed (just ask Pop)
You mean the team that's #1 in the West? You're misplacing their motives. They want the #1 seed. They're just going about it a different way.
quote:
they don't GAF about the regular season for the most part.
They care, but it's a really long process. There's no way they could have full intensity for 82 games and then through the playoffs too. They aren't machines.
This post was edited on 12/10/12 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 12/10/12 at 2:26 pm to jturn17
quote:while this is true, are you saying the Giants wouldn't be able to beat the Patriots in a 7 game series?
Because the NFL playoff system is a 1 games series. As opposed to a 7 game series. 7 games takes a lot of variation out.
quote:again, there's no parity in the NBA. 16 teams (half the league) in the postseason is ridiculous when only a handful have even a remote shot at winning it all. I'm fine with 12 in the nfl, cause anyone can win. You get a team who you think doesn't even deserve a spot, and then they beat the Saints. I'm actually ok with 16 in the NBA bc I love playoff basketball. And every once in a while you get a great 1st round series (bulls/celtics from a few years ago)
It's 12 teams vs 16 teams. I don't agree with your point.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 2:28 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
Without major changes to the CBA, it won't happen. And, frankly, every major change to the CBA which has ostensibly been for the benefit of small-market teams has actually fricked them worse.
From the most recent CBA, I'm thinking of the "Carmelo Anthony Rule" and the luxury tax changes.
The Anthony rule was put in place, in theory, to make it harder for a star player to force himself out of a small market to a hand-picked team.
Problem being that the contract changes killed the value of that player to the current team and the extension rules give a major financial incentive for a player to get a completely new contract, even without Bird rights, than to extend their current deal.
The luxury tax changes, with repeat-offenders paying a higher percentage each year they offend, means that big-market teams like the Knicks and Lake Show can afford to eat the taxes in exchange for a super-team.
By contrast, the Thunder have had to move players like Harden to avoid paying millions on guys they drafted and developed for their own team.
If the league imposed a hard-cap and made it much easier for teams to lock up their current players, it would increase parity because you would end up with fewer super-teams like the Garnett-Allen-Pierce Celtics or the LeBron-Wade-Bosh Heat.
From the most recent CBA, I'm thinking of the "Carmelo Anthony Rule" and the luxury tax changes.
The Anthony rule was put in place, in theory, to make it harder for a star player to force himself out of a small market to a hand-picked team.
Problem being that the contract changes killed the value of that player to the current team and the extension rules give a major financial incentive for a player to get a completely new contract, even without Bird rights, than to extend their current deal.
The luxury tax changes, with repeat-offenders paying a higher percentage each year they offend, means that big-market teams like the Knicks and Lake Show can afford to eat the taxes in exchange for a super-team.
By contrast, the Thunder have had to move players like Harden to avoid paying millions on guys they drafted and developed for their own team.
If the league imposed a hard-cap and made it much easier for teams to lock up their current players, it would increase parity because you would end up with fewer super-teams like the Garnett-Allen-Pierce Celtics or the LeBron-Wade-Bosh Heat.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 2:45 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
quote:
while this is true, are you saying the Giants wouldn't be able to beat the Patriots in a 7 game series?
Why are you speaking in such absolutes? Are we talking about '08? It's less likely, yes, but it's even more unlikely the Giants even get to the Super Bowl that season.
My argument isn't that there isn't more parity in the NFL than the NBA. There's just not as much parity in the NFL as people perceive. Generally, the same teams are the good teams every year.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 7:57 pm to jturn17
quote:
There really isn't as much parity in the NFL as people think.
I disagree. But I would like to hear you elaborate.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 8:04 pm to jturn17
quote:
My argument isn't that there isn't more parity in the NFL than the NBA. There's just not as much parity in the NFL as people perceive. Generally, the same teams are the good teams every year.
The overall level of talent is basically the same for every NFL team. This makes sense because the worst teams are getting better draft picks. An organization would have to be just completely incompetent to end up with appreciably worse talent than other teams in the league. What separates the best teams from everybody else is QB play and coaching.
If you don't think the NFL has that much parity, then provide an example of a league with more parity.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 8:05 pm to bobbyray21
Personally, I think parity is overrated. Which is part of the reason why I like CFB more than NFL.
Posted on 12/10/12 at 8:36 pm to UFownstSECsince1950
the thing about the nba is, there is parity, but not much. Its not hard to pick playoff teams. Except for maybe 1 or 2 teams, you know who the top 4 teams from each conference are. From there, it all depends who the best 7 game series teams are, or.....who has the best superstars that take over at that time. Point being....you know who is at the top....and you know who is at the bottom.....Golden State or Charlotte never make a run, unless they have top 5 talent.
Posted on 12/11/12 at 3:08 am to Slingin Pickle
the NBA needs super-teams and superstars like the Heat to draw ratings. Parity would kill them like it has baseball and hockey
Posted on 12/11/12 at 3:54 am to UFownstSECsince1950
The starting point for parity would be a hard cap. Right now players just want to play in a few places. Anywhere not named Chicago, New York, and LA is a second rate destination. After that, if you're not Dallas or Miami, then you're basically small market and Adidas and Nike don't want you there.
Posted on 12/11/12 at 4:32 am to UFownstSECsince1950
The NFL doesn't have nearly as much parity as most people think(MLB has as much if not more parity).
But that said the NBA will never have parity
But that said the NBA will never have parity
Posted on 12/11/12 at 5:06 am to jturn17
quote:
It's just not an accurate comparison. If you want "parity" in the NBA, you'd have to change it to a 30 game season with 1 game series in playoffs.
This wouldn't help anything. Right now teams are about 19 to 21 games into the season. You've got a large enough sample size that most teams are going to finish the season with a similar winning percentage. Playing less games doesn't improve parity, evening the talent does.
In the NBA, elite teams have either been stacked with talent or managed really well. In a case like San Antonio, they have have aging stars but have also been managed really well. OKC got lucky in the draft and lucky to have a superstar that isnt forcing himself to a big market. The Knicks and Heat are destination cities. The Lakers stacked the deck and still stink but they should improve. OKC and San Antonio are the exception to the rule because they found some of the few superstar players that don't need the big market to be happy. Every year Boston, LA, Miami, Dallas, Chicago are up toward the top because stars want to go there. NY should have been better but they've been managed terribly over the last 15 years.
There might be a bit more parity in the NFL but it is also lopsided but instead of being driven by superstars stacking the deck, it is driven by elite QBs most of the time. Teams like Green Bay, New England, Denver, and NYG are Super Bowl Favorites based on their elite QBs.
The big difference to me is that when you look at the elite teams in the NFL, the small markets actually have a chance. Green Bay, Denver, Houston, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Atlanta are in the top 8 in the NFL. Those would not be destination cities in the NBA. If one of those cities did well in the NBA there is a good chance that they would have a short run as their superstars would try to leave for NY, LA, Chicago, Boston, Miami, or Dallas. Teams like NY who have found a way to lose despite their advantages have been pathetic for management reasons.
The deck is so stacked against small markets in the NBA that it gets frustrating to watch as teams like Orlando and New Orleans are not going to keep their stars usually. You get far fewer examples of guys like Eli Manning in the NFL forcing themselves into bigger markets. The NFL sells their product and gets amazing ratings, the NBA depends on big market teams doing well or ratings stink much like baseball.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News