It seems to me that the talent is spread to thin, and as a result, the league is full of mediocre teams.
Back when it was a 24 team league, before it grew to 30, it seemed like the overall quality of play was better. I think expansion has had a negative effect on the game.
Your thoughts??
Other then having more teams, which is good for the leagues revenue, I think it hurts the caliber of basketball on the court.
Yes, it does. The best number of teams is around 22 to 24, the way it was during the early- to mid-80′s. Right now with so many teams, a lot of undeserving players are starters, when some of the mare better off suited as 8th to 10th men. Plus a lot of substitutes today won’t even have a job if the league shrunk to 24 teams. And with less number of teams, players will work harder to keep their jobs, thereby producing better basketball on the court.
no, it actually enhances NBA
References :
You know what dilutes it more than overcrowding? The star system with the refs, too many games, arena crowds having to be told what to do ("OK everybody, let’s make some noooooiiiiiiiise!"), and on and on ad nauseum. I used to love the NBA when Magic played and later with Michael. These days it just is too bloated and is always making the same dumb mistakes time and again.
I feel the NBA insults my intelligence too, in several ways: telling me that I only want to watch Kobe Bryant vs. the Knicks every Sunday during the season, telling me I don’t want superstars to be slowed down by having fouls called on them, presuming I want to watch a three month playoff season…need I go on?
I want to like the NBA, but sometimes these days it is just impossible.
BTW guy under me? You don’t make much sense…moving to New Orleans was a pretty dumb idea seeing as the city doesn’t really support them (pre-Katrina of course) and OKC had monster support–they adopted the team as their own knowing the possibilities of the team leaving anyway. Even when they found out this season was the last in OKC they still supported the team. OKC can play a big role in making the NBA exciting again–just look at how insane the crowds are in Golden State’s arena. I heard from more than one source that the crowd played a big role in them upsetting the Mavericks.
References :
No it makes the nba better..because then if you took out a few then who would you go for..For example take out the hornets..Which team would new orleans like now?
References :
Yes, it does. The best number of teams is around 22 to 24, the way it was during the early- to mid-80′s. Right now with so many teams, a lot of undeserving players are starters, when some of the mare better off suited as 8th to 10th men. Plus a lot of substitutes today won’t even have a job if the league shrunk to 24 teams. And with less number of teams, players will work harder to keep their jobs, thereby producing better basketball on the court.
References :
i agree, since there are so many teams in the NBA that makes more players which makes it possible for players that aren’t as good to make it in the draft, if there were less teams the NBA would be more fun to watch, and more competitive.
References :
i disagree. i think it enhances the game. the problem isnt the amount of talent thats out there for teams its the management of those teams. thats why some teams are good every year and some are bad. overall though i think there is alot of parity in the league. you can see that in the warriors upset. there are also plenty of good and great players.
References :
Why do you say that? There really aren’t that many teams. There are 30 teams in Baseball and 32 in Football. 16 teams out of 30 make the playoffs in the NBA. huh? Only 8 play postseason ball in the MLB and the same # of teams.
Face it, as the NBA becomes more popular worldwide (and it is) we need more teams because there are more players worthy to play at that level. Look at all the players in the NBA from overseas now. Proof that the # of players and quality is going up. Also, There are more cities that could support an NBA team since the arenas and overall payrolls/overhead are smaller.
Let’s see…. Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Tampa, Baltimore, Kansas City and Buffalo all have MLB, NHL and/or NFL teams in town yet no NBA team.
References :
Expansion in every sport has diluted the talent base and lowered the level of play on the court/field/rink/etc. But it is inevitable in order for the leagues to increase their fan bases. But what is truly sad is how badly some of the original teams have crashed: the Celtics in basketball, the Blackhawks in hockey. This is what is starting to hurt some of the leagues, because by the traditional powers becoming nobodies the league loses a major fan base.
The NBA is clearly at the limit talentwise. The great teams of the 80′s, the Celtics and Lakers, had multiple star lineups. Magic, Kareem, Worthy, & Co. versus Bird, McHale, Chief, & Co. were great matchups. Nowadays, a team with two stars is almost immediately a finals favorite – Shaq/Kobe/Wade, Yao/T-Mac, Duncan/Parker, Nash/Stoudamire. The benefit of only needing two stars is that power teams can change from year to year; but the dynasties of the past are done. Player turnover is enough to keep the dynasties from returning.
That said, some teams in the league are destined to stay low. Free agents are not likely to be attracted to Oklahoma City like they are to New York or Chicago; they may make a bigger salary, but lose on the endorsement revenue. Shoe contracts and other endorsements are as important to players today as the actual contract. It’s unlikely that we will ever see the Bulls of the 90′s ever again – Jordan allowing a great team to be built around him simply because his endorsement income allowed him to be underpaid, so everyone else was underpaid (since it was a little difficult to argue who was better). But we could, if a team was built on championship players driven by endorsements rather than salary, see another dynasty built. A three star team might win titles forever in the watered down NBA.
References :