Boston, LA, New York, and Miami all have teams that are relevant, and those are arguably 4 of the more important franchises to the NBA. Having those huge markets (and their fan bases) be into the NBA can't be a bad thing. Most of your stars are now playing for a major market team. The NBA landscape has changed so much over the past 3-4 years that it's hard to get a handle on.
Players run this league, there is just no way to argue it. Lebron, Wade, and Bosh decided long ago that they would play together. Melo, Amare, and Paul made a wedding toast that they would all play together, and 2/3 of that is already true. Paul Pierce and Ray Allen begged KG to come to Boston to the first "Super Team". You could actually look back to Boston and say they are the one's that started all of this.
So, if the major markets are happy, and we are getting to see some of the best teams ever created (assuming things keep going on this way), what is the problem?
The problem is that the NBA isn't just major markets. Toronto, Cleveland, Utah, Minnesota, and Denver have had their teams ripped apart because their star player has decided that he wants to play for a certain (sometimes predetermined) team. This has been pointed out by a number of sites, and is valid, but there seems to be a point that everyone is missing.
If no one wants to play in these cities, and fan bases come and go like the tides, then why do they have a team in the first place? You know why the NBA ratings are at their highest in years? Because teams are loaded. In the 80's people wanted to watch the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, and the other loaded team play each other, because you knew you were getting the best of the best. Those teams were "Super Teams", and when you watch two "Super Teams" play each other you know you are getting the best of the best.
Don't believe me?
"At midseason, its ratings are up 26% on TNT and 15% on ESPN and, albeit in a smaller sample, up 32% on ABC (USA Today)."
To me this shows what the NBA (and a lot of other sports) should consider... Here comes that scary word "contraction".
Every time I say that, I know I am just in my fantasy world, but to me it makes too much sense. People want to see "Super Teams", players want to play for "Super Teams", so why shouldn't people/players get what they want? If no one wants to play in Minnesota, Toronto, Utah, ect then why bother having a team?
Look what is happening to New Orleans right now, and they haven't even lost their star yet (but we all know is coming). Right now they are owned by the NBA. They just pulled off a trade and took on more money, which is over the cap, making other teams pay for their player. Kind of bullshit right? Mark Cuban certainly thinks so. My point here is if this team doesn't have a buyer, their star player doesn't want to play there, then why is the NBA putting themselves through this? Contract the team, and move on. That leaves the other teams with more players, which makes more "Super Teams", which makes the players happy because they don't waste years in shitty markets on shitty teams.
The sad reality is that no matter how much this makes sense it will never happen. The owners are going to fight back. They know they can't let these players keep running things, and going wherever they want and leaving teams high and dry. In a way they are correct. If you are going to have 30 teams you can't have just 5 of them have all the best players, because they are in the best markets. It just doesn't work. What will end up happening is something like a franchise tag, and it will be more like the NFL. That is all well and good, but basketball will never be as popular (or better) then when they have "Super Teams" playing each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment