The future for the NBA?

[23]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Im not sure if you're comparing the Knicks to the entire league but the Knicks were fouling things up before Zeke became the GM. Oh how we forget the chants of fire layden and the website.

Anyhow, say what you will about the Blazers but they dont suck, they've had some unfortunate injuries the past couple of years but the point was they were a dead team full of druggies and trouble makers, headcases who started over and built their current team up right.

Come on man, dont get crazy... you know they did a phenomenal job in Oregon. Thats how you do it.

[ehh]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Im not sure if you're comparing the Knicks to the entire league but the Knicks were fouling things up before Zeke became the GM. Oh how we forget the chants of fire layden and the website.

Layden blew as a GM (got fired for a reason) but Zeke was out this world. He came in and compounded things tenfold.

[23]

Re: The future for the NBA?

It doesnt matter the Knicks were screwed before Isaiah got there.

Point is, there is a way to build a team and a pretty good one at that.

Saying the sky is falling because LeBron and Wade are on the same team is ridiculous.

[Dice]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Layden blew as a GM (got fired for a reason) but Zeke was out this world. He came in and compounded things tenfold.

And I don't understand how Zeke got so bad when he came to New York because he was actually a decent GM for the Raptors back in the mid-to-late 90's

[23]

Re: The future for the NBA?

He drafted pretty well in NY too, but it was the trades and giving away the picks that caused the problems.

They can never blame him for drafting a bunch of slugs which is exactly how you build up, doing it the right way, picking good players... Its the trading thing that he had a problem getting right mostly

[jbrew2411]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I think the furture of the NBA changed a few years ago when Boston went out and landed 2 really good players and won a title. It sent a message to other teams and their owners that all you need is 3 top flight players and a bunch of role players and you can win. That was something most teams had forgot about. The Celtics, Lakers and Bulls of the 80's and 90's did the same thing and won all those titles. I have read people acting like this loading a team with 3 great players is something new. Been around for years just a lot of GM's forgot. I have always thought a few players should get together and join forces to win a ring. It happens with high school kids going to college. You see guys who play AAU together going to the same school to team up for a chance to win it all. The Knicks will get thier other 2 next season. You know Melo sees this go down and will say I could do the same thing next summer. The future is here and has been for a few years now. Time for your teams owners and GM's to wake up and play the game or keep doing it the old way and watch teams like Boston, LA, Miami(??) rase the trophy.

[phenom1990]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Lebron signing anywhere but Miami, I think would have been better overall for the NBA. Maybe Finals ratings will be higher because of the Miami 3 but just in terms of how many big markets and small markets would have been relevant if he signed anywhere outside of Miami, I think it was a mistake. Now we have a league imo in which casual fans might get the feeling, " I don't need to watch anyone outside of the Heat or Lakers because they don't have a chance to win", whether that is true or not. Whereas I feel if Lebron signed elsewhere you potentially could have had a better competitive balance at least in perception. So I am just more disappointed that Lebron signed with the Heat and took away part of what I loved about the NBA and how he handled it in the process.

[ehh]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Saying the sky is falling because LeBron and Wade are on the same team is ridiculous.

Who said it was?

He drafted pretty well in NY too, but it was the trades and giving away the picks that caused the problems.

Outside of Lee, how did he draft well?

[coogrfan]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Something to consider: In the last thirty years 8 franchises have won an NBA title. In that same period 15 teams have won a Super Bowl, and an astonishing 19 teams have won a World Series. When you consider the implications of those numbers, it does not come as much of a surprise that the NBA remains a distant third in popularity in this country.

The biggest problem I see with pro hoops is the predictable nature of the sport. The plain fact of the matter is that in any given year there are at most 2-3 teams that have a realistic shot at winning a NBA title. In most cases it is possible to identify which teams have a legit shot before the season even begins. If you don't have one of the two or three best players in the league on your roster, you might as well forget about winning a championship.

How exactly is a league supposed to generate increased interest when it's apparent from the get go that the majority of the teams are in effect playing for third or fourth place? <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Rocky]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Something to consider: In the last thirty years 8 franchises have won an NBA title. In that same period 15 teams have won a Super Bowl, and an astonishing 19 teams have won a World Series. When you consider the implications of those numbers, it does not come as much of a surprise that the NBA remains a distant third in popularity in this country.

The biggest problem I see with pro hoops is the predictable nature of the sport. The plain fact of the matter is that in any given year there are at most 2-3 teams that have a realistic shot at winning a NBA title. In most cases it is possible to identify which teams have a legit shot before the season even begins. If you don't have one of the two or three best players in the league on your roster, you might as well forget about winning a championship.

How exactly is a league supposed to generate increased interest when it's apparent from the get go that the majority of the teams are in effect playing for third or fourth place? <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

But what about when the NBA was ruling the 80's and 90's? You had Magic, Bird, and MJ winning titles for the most part. Nobody complained then.

Then when MJ retired you had two arrogant, self-absorbed stars (Shaq and Kobe) and a star that was too uncharasmatic (Tim Duncan). This league, going back to when it started, has always been about chasing that dominant team. Whether it was the Sixers, Pistons, Rockets of the 80's, the Blazers, Knicks, Jazz, Sonics of the 90's, or the Kings, Suns, Nets, Mavs of the 00's. This generation's team is the Heat.

[ehh]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Is the NBA actually a distant third behind MLB?

[phenom1990]

Re: The future for the NBA?

The biggest problem I see with pro hoops is the predictable nature of the sport. The plain fact of the matter is that in any given year there are at most 2-3 teams that have a realistic shot at winning a NBA title. In most cases it is possible to identify which teams have a legit shot before the season even begins. If you don't have one of the two or three best players in the league on your roster, you might as well forget about winning a championship.

How exactly is a league supposed to generate increased interest when it's apparent from the get go that the majority of the teams are in effect playing for third or fourth place? <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I just think part of it is the way basketball is structured, one guy influence over the game is greater than any of the other 2 you said with the exception of a pitcher in basball but even then he only pitches every 5th day. But also in the NBA since there isn't so much turmoil, certain teams just understand how they play and if THAT guys is in his prime; his prime isn't just for one year.

To respond to your last part, the idea of we might be building on something special and the potential of guys joining that discussion is what ropes people in. OKC knows they are not going to win a title in 2011, but they know they have the pieces for a very promising future; so their fans go out and support them. In baseball for example, the Phillies have been building on those young pieces until now and even in a year like 2007 when we knew we didn't have the pitching necessary we still supported the team.

[coogrfan]

Re: The future for the NBA?

But what about when the NBA was ruling the 80's and 90's? You had Magic, Bird, and MJ winning titles for the most part. Nobody complained then.

The NBA has never "ruled". It has seen it's popularity wax and wane in recent years, but pro hoops has never come close to unseating the NFL or MLB at the top of the food chain.

Then when MJ retired you had two arrogant, self-absorbed stars (Shaq and Kobe) and a star that was too uncharasmatic (Tim Duncan). This league, going back to when it started, has always been about chasing that dominant team. Whether it was the Sixers, Pistons, Rockets of the 80's, the Blazers, Knicks, Jazz, Sonics of the 90's, or the Kings, Suns, Nets, Mavs of the 00's. This generation's team is the Heat.

None of that can been seen as a particularly good sign for the long term health of the NBA as a whole.

[Cebby]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Is the NBA actually a distant third behind MLB?

I would think it's something like:

NFL











Yankees/Red Sox






Cubs/Braves/Angles

NBA



Every other MLB team

[phenom1990]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Is the NBA actually a distant third behind MLB?

Yeah I was wondering where people thought a distant third. I could see it being third but I don't see there being any type of a gap that makes people believe it isn't a discussion for 2nd. Sometimes I just think the impression people can get depends on the demographics of their area. I would tend to believe the NBA is more popular in urban areas.