The NBA’s popularity has always been at its highest with dynasty’s and dominant teams, never parody. He made the NBA more interesting when joining the Warriors, not ruin it.
I don't care about their ratings, or what the public thinks. I love parody in all sports. Isn't the nfl so fun with the pats in the Superbowl every year?
I think the lack of good front offices, played a role as well. I don't know if he actually ruined the league. Rockets had them beat last year.
I see your point. Yeah they should have won, oh well. I see what Sox means though. They're really totally fine without him. I really don't think the Knicks will get anyone though. Why would anybody want to go there?
I think the Knicks have a small shot to get things right. They have a pretty decent GM and HC right now. But Dolan still there.
As a Nets fan, I can't help but respect the Warriors dominance and hope my team can go on a similar run in a few years. And when has the NBA had parity? Every year, there's about 5 legit title contenders. One superstar makes a bigger impact in a 5 on 5 game than an 11 on 11 game. The Warriors have 4, 3 of them homegrown. And they play team basketball.
There is actually more parity today then there has ever been in the NBA since I've been watching it as far as teams that actually win the title goes. going back to the 80's when I started watching basketball, there was barely any been any parity at all. Only 4 four teams won titles -- Lakers won 5, Celtics 3, 76ers 1 and the Pistons 1. To make matters worse, only one other team even made the finals in the decade -- Houston. Out of 20 possible different teams, only 5 made the finals. That ain't parity. The 90's got a little more parity. Still, only 4 different teams won titles, but 10 different teams made the finals. Bulls won 6, Houston won 2, Spurs won 1 and the Pistons won 1. Knicks and Portland made two Finals and lost; Lakers, Phoenix, Seattle and Orlando made and lost once. 10 different teams made the finals. In the 2000's, it improves -- an amazing 5 teams won championships -- Lakers 4, Spurs 3, and the Heat, Pistons and Celtics won 1. Nets, Pacers, 76ers, Mavs, Cavs and Magic lost finals. 11 different teams made the finals. The 20-teens already has 6 different winners -- Warriors 3, Cavs 1, Spurs 1, Heat 2, Lakers 1, Mavs 1. And if the Bucks pull a major upset, you would have most different winners in the decade since the 70's when 8 different teams won it. Though only two other teams have made the finals -- Celtics and Thunder. So the winners have increased but different teams to make it has decreased. This is par for the course for the NBA. The 70's, with 8 different winners, is the exception.
Pulling for Toronto hard, I just think the Bucks would be a disaster in the finals. I dont think either can beat Golden State, but I do trust Kawhi Leonard and his abilities to take over, and I think they could make it into a series. If the Bucks go I see them getting swept or losing in 5.
Good points, I haven't been watching the NBA as long but we have had some of the better finals in the last decade: 2011 Mavs-Heat, 2013 Heat-Spurs, 2016: Cavs-Warriors..... Specifically the last two, those might be the two best finals in NBA history.
yes the NBA has always been about dynasties and dominant teams. However - what I continue to be amazed with is the fact that the great teams are all small market teams lately.. Oakland, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Portland has been good, Utah, San Antonio of course. that's parity to some degree. In the past teams like that were mostly farm teams for the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, Bulls, 76ers, etc. Golden State/Oakland might go for its 4th title in 5 years against Milwaukee this year. 15 years ago I would've never thought that was possible. I'm not even totally sure its a good thing though. I don't care what anyone says I think the NBA is the best when the teams I mentioned; LA Lakers, Knicks, Celtics, Bulls, Sixers are all good and relevant. ---- If anything though, I don't think its the pairing up that is ruining the NBA, its the tanking and the analytics. Analytics is great for baseball, awful for basketball. People want to watch guys like Allen Iverson drive the ball into the paint. Or big men post up for mid range jumpers/floaters. Nobody wants to watch 7 footers just stand 1 inch behind the 3point line and jack 3s all game
When was the last time a young superstar walked into the finals and won the whole thing, especially against a team like the Warriors? Lebron and KD's first trip to the finals they got run over by much better experienced teams. I don't think the Raptors have a great chance either but I think its better than the Bucks, there is no way the Warriors lose to the Bucks.
Personally I don't think the market sizes matter anymore. Like you said, the Warriors are now the kings of the NBA, expensive tickets, sold out arenas, etc yet just 10 years ago, no one cared about them or thought about them. I think its the players and the success now, if the Bucks or Raptors won a title, people would flock to them. The big markets aren't even that attractive anymore, no one is running to go play in Boston, LA, NY, Chicago, Philly,....the "small market" teams are just as attractive now, but honestly I don't think there are "small" and "large" markets anymore, the players have national audience, national followers, it doesnt matter where you play, your market will be large if you are a superstar that wins.
If I were Adam Silver I would remove the max contract, with the cap growing each year, and the players taking short term deals, the max contract is not needed. If a team wanted to spends its entire cap on one superstar, they should be allowed to, it would lead to more parity, and longer contract. The current setup, where all these guys are on one or two year deals, isn't beneficial.
I know this sounds obvious, but teams that are well run will do better than teams that are poorly run. It's no coincidence that the 2nd fiddle team in the 2 biggest cities are better now than the marquee franchise in those cities. Like, I can be confident that the Nets will become an upper echelon team in a few years because they have ownership that got the right person to build the team after the disastrous trade with the Celtics under the previous GM. Prokhorov realized his blunder and changed his mindset. If I was a Knicks fan, I'd be conditioned to wonder how Dolan and Company would find a way to mess things up again. If I was a Laker fan, I'd be troubled by Jeanie Buss hiring a part time President of Basketball Ops to build that team.
Yep. Unfortunately, the NBA is now marketed more toward the casual fan, which is a far bigger demographic than any local team fanbase. They figure they can get enough of the casuals to tune in each time and the hardcore fans will tune in regardless. Super teams directly affect that. It works for ratings, but sucks for fanbases.
I would accept a warriors finals win only if durant is out the rest of the post season, further cementing his legacy of jumping on the best team. He can make 100 twitter accounts to pump himself up, he wouldn't be able to escape it.
