A rant about parity and superteams

[Trackball]

We had parity in the 1970s, when even Portland, Washington and Seattle were winning titles.
Guess what? The league nearly FOLDED.

Parity doesn't sell. Dominance does.

When did Jeopardy get its highest ratings and was talked about the most in casual conversation?
When Ken Jennings won SEVENTY-FOUR consecutive games, a record that, over a decade later, has not even been APPROACHED, let alone getting even HALFWAY THERE.
People in BARS would turn Jeopardy on so they could watch Ken Jennings dominate.

Dominance is ratings.
Dominance is money.
Superteams MAKE MONEY.

Jordan's six titles? Record ratings. Today? Even better.
In the 1980s, EVERY SINGLE FINALS had either the Lakers, Celtics, or both.
Guess what? That decade is credited with SAVING THE FREAKIN' LEAGUE.

If you've really got a problem with what Kevin Durant did, take it up with the players' union.
Specifically Tom Chambers, who in 1988 became the league's first unrestricted free agent.

Oh, by the way, the salary cap is a SHAM, because it assumes players will chase MONEY over rings.
But no fan ever asks how much money a player made.
All they ask is "How many rings ya got? How many rings ya got? How many rings ya got?"

Even Shaq famously did this to Charles Barkley: "First of all, I know what it's like to be a champion. You don't."
For that matter, so did Barkley. "RINGS, Erneh!"

We, the fans, kept SCREAMING that rings were all that mattered, an attitude perfectly encapsulated in the movie Bad Teacher, specifically in this scene:

"Call me when LeBron has six championships."
"Wha--THAT'S your only argument?!""
"IT'S THE ONLY ARGUMENT I NEED, SHAWN!"

On June 6, 2015, none other than Kobe Bryant got into this ring-counting business by responding to a guy with a legitimate criticism of his play style, saying only three words:
"Count to 5."

So long as we, the fans, keep saying "How many rings ya got?" SUPERTEAMS WILL HAPPEN.
Players will collude to win a ring.
Because that's apparently ALL THAT MATTERS.

We, the fans, are to blame, for repeating the same mantra:
"There is only one stat: Championships."

[debiler]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

While rings absolutely do matter, they are only the icing on the cake. Anybody who discredits Chuck, Karl, Reggie, Patrick just because they have never won a ring is an idiot. Shaq for example only uses this argument as a tongue-in-cheek putdown when he wants to put them in their respective place. He's just like that.
I don't know about you, but to me, the most inspiring championship run in a long time was when the Mavs conquered evil in '11. Or when the Pistons whooped supertam butt in '04. So I agree that a villain (read: superteam) is kinda needed to bring that suspense to finals games. You can root for the little guy. But watching this year's finals, I came to realize something: it's boring as hell when two such teams go at it. I tend to always support the underdog. But this year, even if the odds favored Golden State from the beginning, I just couldn't get behind the Cavs, because watching LeBron frustrates me. Here is a guy who's an unstoppable juggernaut if he wants to be - but for some reason, he just underwhelms. Not statistically. But from a decision-making viewpoint.

[ehh]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

1. Every knowledgeable NBA fan knows there's never been parity in the sport.
2. If people can't see the difference between so-called super teams of the 80s and 90s and what happened with GSW then I don't know what to tell them.
3. I don't know any knowledge basketball fans that believes in the "rings" argument as the be all, end all.

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

The league has never really parity. Yes, a few teams here and there have one championships that weren't super powers, but mostly the same teams always find their way back .

Players have the freedom in Free Agency to go where they choose and that's it. The problem here is not what Durant did, the problem are the other players on the NBA and teams who have this defeatest attitude about it.

The first thing DeMar DeRozan said after the Raptors lost their series "Well if we had LeBron..." No dude, man up and compete. So many teams have players with this mentality. I don't know where that comes from.

Even LeBron and Draymond, in that ESPN barber shop thing, mentioned that there are alot of NBA players who don't know how to play basketball. There so many who like fire and heart. That's not Durant or LeBrons fault.

If teams can't beat the Cavs or Golden State then that is their fault.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[z Revis]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

The league has never really parity. Yes, a few teams here and there have one championships that weren't super powers, but mostly the same teams always find their way back .

Players have the freedom in Free Agency to go where they choose and that's it. The problem here is not what Durant did, the problem are the other players on the NBA and teams who have this defeatest attitude about it.

The first thing DeMar DeRozan said after the Raptors lost their series "Well if we had LeBron..." No dude, man up and compete. So many teams have players with this mentality. I don't know where that comes from.

Even LeBron and Draymond, in that ESPN barber shop thing, mentioned that there are alot of NBA players who don't know how to play basketball. There so many who like fire and heart. That's not Durant or LeBrons fault.

If teams can't beat the Cavs or Golden State then that is their fault.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

This is a weird stance to me. It seems like you're trying to say if DeRozan and the Raps played with more heart and fire they would've beaten the Cavs? Nothing to do with how much more talented the Cavs are?

Should the Cavs have played with more heart or competed harder in the Finals?

The irony of all this is you telling players to man up and compete yet in the same breathe you're basically defending Durant for joining the team he lost to in the WCF. Shouldn't Durant have just taken the man up and compete approach and stayed in OKC?

I'm not saying anything one way or the other btw, I've said many times I don't blame or hate Durant for doing what he did. But I think it sucks for the rest of the league that has to try and catch up to them now. And I don't think just manning up and playing with more fire is the answer lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

I agree with your post, HOWEVA[Screamin A voice]

But I think it sucks for the rest of the league that has to try and catch up to them now.

Yeah, it's a shame that they have to work harder now to get better.

[z Revis]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

I agree with your post, HOWEVA[Screamin A voice]


Yeah, it's a shame that they have to work harder now to get better.

For me it is lol. I mean, GS swept their way through the West playoffs and dropped 1 single game to the defending champs. Give me a team that can beat them. I can't speak too far into the future but at the least I think we're in for more of the same next season. And really it's just not going to be easy for teams to get a team that can compete against one with 4 all NBA players on it. I'll gladly be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Trevytrev11]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

You can say GS hit the jackpot with their draft picks..or maybe they were just smarter (6 other teams could have taken Curry, 10 other teams could have taken Klay and 34 other teams could have taken Draymond). Both the Kings and the T-Wolves had the opportunity to pick ahead of GS in 09,11 and 12 and could have potentially had all three of these guys on their team.

Minnesota took Derrick Williams ahead of Klay and he's on his 5th team in 6 seasons.

So they nail the draft, they go out and get the right pieces for their bench in guys like Iguodola and Livingston among others.

Then they make some smart decisions financially with contracts to give themselves the opportunity to go out and sign one of the top players in the league.

I much prefer this model than several superstars all colluding to join a team. This is the position every franchise in sports wants to be in....build from within, be smart financially and put yourself in a position to go out an grab a key guy...slightly different, but to me, this is the position the Astro's are in right now. They've got one of the youngest and most exciting teams, the best record in baseball and their in the bottom half of the league in salary. If the ownership wants to spend, they are in a position go out and spend big money to bring in a huge free agent or two.

I'm not sure if it's bad for the game or not from a financial or global perspective or what the long term impact will be. From a fan perspective, it make the regular season and early rounds of the playoffs more and more meaningless. Barring huge free agent movement or injuries, there is no doubt in the minds of most that these two teams, at worse, will be playing in their respective conference finals next year.

[wwharton]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

All I know is my man referenced Jeopardy and quoted Bad Teacher... gotta be firsts in a basketball discussion lol.

Spot on though. Tiger Woods creating ratings for the PGA. In tennis, the more dominant players you have, the more fan interest.

I hate the Yankees and Patriots as much as anyone but ratings come when they're dominant.

The NBA's success has been built on dominant players and dominant teams. It's nothing new, and for everyone bored by this year, these playoffs or these finals... there are a million others helping make it possibly the most watched finals ever. After watching the Lakers/Celtics 30 for 30, I was just thinking about the Cavs/Warriors one that'll come out in a decade after they play 4 or 5 championships in a row. It's the league. Everyone in this forum enjoys it. We (myself included) just get mad that our favorite team won't be sniffing that trophy for some time now.

[ojandpizza]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

All I know is my man referenced Jeopardy and quoted Bad Teacher... gotta be firsts in a basketball discussion lol.



Spot on though. Tiger Woods creating ratings for the PGA. In tennis, the more dominant players you have, the more fan interest.



I hate the Yankees and Patriots as much as anyone but ratings come when they're dominant.



The NBA's success has been built on dominant players and dominant teams. It's nothing new, and for everyone bored by this year, these playoffs or these finals... there are a million others helping make it possibly the most watched finals ever. After watching the Lakers/Celtics 30 for 30, I was just thinking about the Cavs/Warriors one that'll come out in a decade after they play 4 or 5 championships in a row. It's the league. Everyone in this forum enjoys it. We (myself included) just get mad that our favorite team won't be sniffing that trophy for some time now.

It's a shame the like feature is gone lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

This is a weird stance to me. It seems like you're trying to say if DeRozan and the Raps played with more heart and fire they would've beaten the Cavs? Nothing to do with how much more talented the Cavs are?

Should the Cavs have played with more heart or competed harder in the Finals?

The irony of all this is you telling players to man up and compete yet in the same breathe you're basically defending Durant for joining the team he lost to in the WCF. Shouldn't Durant have just taken the man up and compete approach and stayed in OKC?

I'm not saying anything one way or the other btw, I've said many times I don't blame or hate Durant for doing what he did. But I think it sucks for the rest of the league that has to try and catch up to them now. And I don't think just manning up and playing with more fire is the answer lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Other teams don't have a choice but to man up. Durant was a free agent and free agents have freedom to choose their team. Do you want to take that away?

[z Revis]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

Other teams don't have a choice but to man up. Durant was a free agent and free agents have freedom to choose their team. Do you want to take that away?

Ok so it's only necessary to man up if you're under contract? If you're a free agent though you have no problem with them not manning up and taking the easy road to team up with established contenders? That just seems hypocritical lol.

Either way, just "manning up" isn't going to beat this Warriors team. If anyone beats them it's likely to be a team that formed via trade or a star player that decided to not "man up" and instead took the easy road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

Ok so it's only necessary to man up if you're under contract? If you're a free agent though you have no problem with them not manning up and taking the easy road to team up with established contenders? That just seems hypocritical lol.

Either way, just "manning up" isn't going to beat this Warriors team. If anyone beats them it's likely to be a team that formed via trade or a star player that decided to not "man up" and instead took the easy road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It's necessary to man up and complain about where other players choose to go. The Raptors were in the playoffs with what they had and they didn't even complete. Instead one of their star players had a defeatest attitude. If teams are going about Golden State and Cleveland , while not even trying to complete, then they deserve to lose.

There is no easy way out. You still have to actually play the games. There's only one basketball and only one player can shoot at a time. Every team can be beat. Golden State didn't go undefeated. The Cavaliers didn't go undefeated. If teams aren't willing to compete as men, then that's on them.

Now would you stop free agents from joining what teams they wanted? Because always it's the "easy way out" and is "ruining the NBA" so would you restrict Free Agency?


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[jmarcguy]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

I'm not as hardcore an NBA fan as I was in the 80's & 90's so I don't know the players in every team as well as I used to. Even though the Lakers, Celtics, & Bulls were in the finals a lot, it never felt as certain as it does now. There were always teams that pushed them. None of those teams were as dominant as the Warriors & Cavs. Who will be in the finals next year? The same two teams unless the Spurs get it in. That doesn't bore me because my team has no chance. It bores me because the regular season is meaningless. Only three teams have a shot at the finals. I agree with the earlier post that the recent finals that I enjoyed the most were when the Mavs & the Pistons won. If my favorite team isn't in it I go with the underdog. There was no real underdog in this year's championship.

My bigger issue is how offense minded the league is now. It was a decent finals to me but when teams are consistently getting over 60 points a game by halftime, it just turns me off. The players shoot better & teams have more firewpower than teams in the 80's & 90's so I'm not a person who thinks old school was better. I just miss a variety of styles. Low post focused teams would have little chance today so everyone is pushing & looking for the three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[23]

Re: A rant about parity and superteams

Remember when everybody wanted Paul Pierce to join the superteam