"Only way to avoid 'super teams' is to impose a hard cap."

[LateRoundFlyer]

I can't imagine a fan who lived in any market outside of LA or NY who would actually go for a capless system.

Ethnocentrist bullsh*t. The most popular sports league on the planet in terms of worldwide viewership is the EPL, followed by Bundesliga. The NBA, for all the inroads it's made as a global game, is way behind many elite soccer leagues, and for the record, none of those systems employ any semblance of price controls whatsoever. Your argument for "parity" is as worthless (and miniscule) as the droppings of a tsetse fly.

Who would watch the NBA if there were 31 teams with the 10 best basketball players on the Knicks and Lakers?

Who would even care to pay to watch the Bucks or Hornets then?

And, people think there would be more parity? This is not baseball or soccer as the playing field is much smaller and there are more intagibles in this fast paced sport with athletic superstars.

I think Rasho had it best, so I'll let him do the honors:

If you are only interested in a team if they are winning... that is cool... but you are a bandwagon fan.

Funnily enough, disparity never hurt fan loyalty in the euroleagues. I wonder why. Maybe because all the bandwagoners and gloryhunters latched onto the Champions League clubs and left the diehards alone? Well now, that's a novel theory, isn't it?

By the way, assuming that a capless system would just be tacked onto what we have now is not the most compelling way to make your point. No one that I know in support of a capless system doesn't also support contraction as well, at least on some level. Therefore, your claims of a "31-team" league (current NBA has only 30 teams, btw) with "4-6" real contenders is disingenuous, bordering on willful deception.

I hear this refrain from those crying for parity all the time. "Basketball isn't like soccer! The talent pool isn't there!" Oh, but football and hockey are?

To the point, however, neither talent nor distribution of said talent are fixed constants. Perhaps if we reduced the league to 22-24 teams, competition would immediately benefit regardless of whether the league had a cap. If it disenfranchises "fans" like you, then that's an added bonus.

You ask why would any fan outside NY or LA entertain such a system? Why would ANYONE outside ORL give you the time of day? It isn't like your team has been lacking for talent the past 20 years. They simply pissed it all away, again and again. No amount of "parity" measures can save stupid management from itself.

[smith2373]

NFL: 9 Different teams in the last 10 years won the NFL title. That is called parity. Thus, any team has a competitive advantage in competing for a championship.

Stopped reading after you posted this.

Are you really comparing the parity of a 16 game regular season w/ a single elimination playoffs to an 82 game season with 7 game series?

NFL: 9 Different teams in the last 10 years won the NFL title.

FYI. Some people are NOT fans of New York or Los Angeles

Since 2000, 23 out of the 32 NFL teams have played in a conference championship game.

Since 2000, 21 out of the 30 NBA teams have played in a conference finals series.

Oh and by the way in the last 10 years, 7 different teams have won an NFL title.
As far as the NBA goes, in the last 10 years, 6 different teams have won the NBA title.

[DMVleGeND]

NFL: 9 Different teams in the last 10 years won the NFL title. That is called parity. Thus, any team has a competitive advantage in competing for a championship.

Stopped reading after you posted this.

Are you really comparing the parity of a 16 game regular season w/ a single elimination playoffs to an 82 game season with 7 game series?

NFL: 9 Different teams in the last 10 years won the NFL title.

FYI. Some people are NOT fans of New York or Los Angeles

Can people PLEASE stop comparing the NBA to the NFL? Even if the NBA had the NFL’s CBA down to a tee, the NBA still wouldn't have the NFL’s parity. It’s a totally different sport with a completely different amount of players. I mean the NBA has 5 guys on the court and they play both Offense & Defense. The NFL has 11 guys on O, another 11 guys on D, and then you still have special teams.

A great player is much more capable of dominating & carrying his team in basketball because its less guys to deal with and you play both ways. The only position even close to any NBA position is QB. Any other position has a very slght chance of single handily carrying your team to a title. Even a great QB doesnt guarantee it.

And all of that is just talking about 1 great player. Now days teams are trying to get 3 great players out of 5 on the floor. Its going to pretty much guarantee you being better than most teams.

[clevceltics]

Wait let me get this straight. The Magic have the top pick in the draft 3 times in a twenty year stretch. They get lucky and get 3 superstars with their picks yet they don't win a title? Oh wait they also picked up the most dominant center in the game with two of those picks yet no ring. I am supposed to feel sorry for you cus those players left? Really? You are going to complain that you won't or haven't had a chance to win it all? I say bull. You have had a much better chance of winning it all in the last twenty years than say the Warriors or Sac. Why can't you accept that your management has a huge flaw? You want every team to make the same stupid mistakes that Orlando has. Dwight played there 8 years. Players always move on. Thats the history of the league. Stop tryin to drag every team down to your teams incompetent level

[Ditchweed]

Why does Lebron have to be boxed into those two choices? I don't get why you guys want to tie stars down to the teams that drafted them for an indefinite period time for an idea that may or may not benefit the league. Why would anyone give a cartel even more power over labor? Makes very little sense.

The CBA's existence already establishes that players choices can be limited for the betterment of the league. Debating over whether limitations should be imposed is moot, since (unless you think the entire CBA should be thrown out) they clearly should be. The only debate is what balance of limitations results in the most money for a majority of owners as well as the most money for the majority of players (the role players, not your superstars). I believe that long-term growth for both sides requires a system where good management is rewarded and star players have less power, and that's the point of view I'm making suggestions from. Conversely, you believe (as far as I can tell, feel free to correct me) that super teams are better for the league - and there are definitely some compelling arguments to be made for this. That's ultimately where the debate lies: what balance of limitations makes the most money for both sides.

The system now rewards teams in desirable markets and divas, and I think that will ultimately be less profitable for the league than a system that rewards balanced teams built well on an even playing field. By limiting James to those two choices in the manner I've proposed you enable more teams to potentially compete, which broadens the fan base and gets communities more engaged without costing the average NBAPU member their average salary. Sure the stars might lose out on some endorsement dollars (somewhat offset in the increase in salary), but they aren't the major voting bloc of the union. On the other side, small market teams make up a bigger voting bloc than the big markets do. There are two ways to increase revenue for small market teams: allow them to compete for big names on a more even playing field or introduce heavy revenue-sharing. Some teams will prefer the former (the entrepreneurial bunch who think they can do better than the average small market team) and others who will want the latter (those who think they are better off taking an equal slice of a big pie than going at it alone).

The league isn't a single entity, it's a collection of 30 companies of varying size who all - ultimately - want to make as much money for their single business as they can. Similarly, the Player's Union is 450 people of varying size pushing for the same thing. Any system that at least 16 owners and 226 players don't think can be improved upon will ultimately result in a new system.

This says it fairly well except that it is the owners who will have a far stronger influence on the direction of the league than the players.

The new CBA was what the owners wanted far more so than the players. The effects of the new CBA are not in effect yet but when they start being felt, it will affect player movement and the easy building of superteams. One thing it does is move the league in the direction most of the owners want and the present CBA is probably just the first step of what may be one of many.

The NBA is a business, a business to make profits. It is not a right of choice or a charity for fans nor a cashcow for players, and the owners are the ones who will move the league to where they want it to be. If keeping teams like the Lakers who got its lucrative TV contract profits which can then be siphoned off via revenue sharing and heavy luxury taxes is what they want, so be it. If instead they decide they want to increase their revenues by increasing the fanbase in small markets by instituting a hardcap, it will come about. Maybe it will be something in the middle.

At this point, the only thing to do is wait till next year when the new CBA rules come into effect. That the rules didn't apply for the first two years was merely a bone thrown to the short sighted players for ease of acceptance, but the time is coming soon. Next year we will see if the Buss family, Dolan, Cuban, Arison, and the likes will make those horrific luxury tax payments. If they won't, the building of superteams and the movement of stars will be somewhat curtailed, or be very expensive. (It would be at least some compensation for the small market teams that the suffering is now spread around.) As well, if it doesn't, then the owners will realize they can syphon off more from the superteams in the form of more revenue sharing and luxury taxes until it does stop.

The thing is, it's the owners who will decide the direction of the league, not the fans, nor the players. The players may object to some changes but they will again eventually be worn down and be forced to accept. It s what the majority of the owners want is what will eventually come about and what we all have to accept.

[PetroNet]

no matter what you do, the top teams are always going to be in the biggest markets. obviously there will always be exceptions. but no matter the rules, the big markets will always have more money and more draw.

the best players will still want to play in NY or LA. maybe they can afford fewer of them with a cap, but they would likely adjust and still end up with the big fish in free agency.

money still matters. there is more to having big money then team payroll. when you can afford the best scouts, the most scouts, the best coaches, the best marketing teams, the best arenas and amenities, the best training staffs, etc... these things all create advantages.

[clevceltics]

Oh I forgot to mention that Orlando got TMac and G Hill to sign with them so please save me the drama of Orlando being a poor small market team. Orlando has had more superstar level players come to their team more than any team other than the Lakers

[PetroNet]

There is no such thing as all teams having the most flexibility in a capless system. The NFL is the best sport in all professional sports worldwide. Because, every team has a chance to compete year in, year out. That is what makes it a true sport. The NBA is closer to WWE (wrestling) than the NFL. A true sport is not who has the most money wins. Maybe in your world.

footballs parity has alot more to do with its natural structure, sudden death playoff system, and enormous roster size then it does its salary structure.

- When you have a sport where in the playoffs its a sudden death "lose and you go home" scenario, thats going to give an advantage to underdogs. imagine how many upsets we'd see in the NBA if the playoffs werent series, but 1 game. hell the usa team almost lost to lithuania!

- When you have 52 men on a team instead of 12, alot more can go wrong and alot more has to come together. you also can make up for not having a star by having a better sum of parts. for instance in the NFL you can have a game manager at qb and go very far because off a solid d and running game. hell look at the jets beating the pats 2 years ago when the pats were 14-2 or something and the jets had mark sanchez at qb and not tom brady. on the flip side, all the team work in the world isnt going to help a scrubby bobcats team beat a lebron led heat team

also, for fun, the last 15 NFL champs

NFL: New York, New Orleans, GreenBay, Pittsburg, New York, Indy, New England, New England, Tampa, New England, pittsburg, St. louis, Denver, Denver

new york twice, pitt twice, New england(basically boston) 3 times, Denver twice. thats four teams combining for 9 of the last 15 championships

meanwhile, cleveland has won in a billion years. hell the jets, a NY team, havent won(or even been to a superbowl) in over 30 years!

[PetroNet]

NFL: 9 Different teams in the last 10 years won the NFL title. That is called parity. Thus, any team has a competitive advantage in competing for a championship.

1. this is completely false. as the giants, steelers, and patriots have all won multiple superbowls in the past 10 years:

Giants
Saints
Packers
Steelers
Giants
Colts
Steelers
Pats
Pats

Who else wants to watch some other team compete for a title besides: NY, LA, Boston, Dallas or Miami. Because, after OKC breaks up in a year or two, that is all you are going to see from now on unless there are changes.

the same Knicks team that hasnt won a title since the 70's and went a decade without a playoff win? the same celtics that went 20 years between titles before the new big 3? the same mavericks with exactly 1 title in 33 years of exsistance?

[PetroNet]

I believe the idea of NFL comparisons is that in the NFL any team with proper management could potentially compete regardless of market size/location. Some teams will choose to go cheap on management and stay terrible, but in the NFL you succeed by being good at management, not being in a good location or having an owner with deep pockets.

that sounds fun.... but its just not reality.

NFL titles:

Pittsburg 6
Dallas 5
New York 4
San Fran 5
LA/Oakland 4
New England 3
Miami 2

Total: 29

Everyone Else: 17

and of that "everyone else" the packers have 4, most came with lombardi, the greatest coach ever, in the very early stages of the league when there were just a handful of teams.

29 of 46 titles by big markets

[taii1234]

I voted no. Sooner or later, your going to have a baller who realizes he makes so many in endorsements that the extra 20million is not as significant as the 20 million from Nike, 10 million from Sprite, and 5 million a year by making celebrity scheduled appearances. Not only that, but they would probably be raking in more from other business ventures like restaurants, co ownership in a corporation, etc. With that being said, they may decide to take a significant pay cut.

Also there is a chance that you get extremely lucky with your draft picks and just draft superstar talent along with the talent you already have.

[PetroNet]

I voted no. Sooner or later, your going to have a baller who realizes he makes so many in endorsements that the extra 20million is not as significant as the 20 million from Nike, 10 million from Sprite, and 5 million a year by making celebrity scheduled appearances. Not only that, but they would probably be raking in more from other business ventures like restaurants, co ownership in a corporation, etc. With that being said, they may decide to take a significant pay cut.

Also there is a chance that you get extremely lucky with your draft picks and just draft superstar talent along with the talent you already have.

yup... and that happens in every sport cap or not. i.e. eli manning refusing to go to the chargers and forcing his way to the giants.

there also have been more champions in baseball the past 10, 20, and 30 years then in the NFL. MLB, with a capless system and a team like the yankees spending bajillions. so yea.

What the NFL really gives you is the ILLUSION of parity. but in the end, its usually the big markets with the best teams and the ones winning. they get the best free agents, still, and have the edge in scouting, training, and coaching because they can invest more there.

[nykballa2k4]

I voted no. Sooner or later, your going to have a baller who realizes he makes so many in endorsements that the extra 20million is not as significant as the 20 million from Nike, 10 million from Sprite, and 5 million a year by making celebrity scheduled appearances. Not only that, but they would probably be raking in more from other business ventures like restaurants, co ownership in a corporation, etc. With that being said, they may decide to take a significant pay cut.

Also there is a chance that you get extremely lucky with your draft picks and just draft superstar talent along with the talent you already have.

yup... and that happens in every sport cap or not. i.e. eli manning refusing to go to the chargers and forcing his way to the giants.

there also have been more champions in baseball the past 10, 20, and 30 years then in the NFL. MLB, with a capless system and a team like the yankees spending bajillions. so yea.

What the NFL really gives you is the ILLUSION of parity. but in the end, its usually the big markets with the best teams and the ones winning. they get the best free agents, still, and have the edge in scouting, training, and coaching because they can invest more there.

Capless with revenue sharing is perfect because you have to pay those superstars what they are worth. If Arod, CC etc were locked in at a "max" contract, Yankees could spend more money more stars and those stars would be playing so far above their salary that the team is at an unfair advantage

[Shot Clock]

Oh I forgot to mention that Orlando got TMac and G Hill to sign with them so please save me the drama of Orlando being a poor small market team. Orlando has had more superstar level players come to their team more than any team other than the Lakers

Tmac was from the area. Hill signed and they were close to signimg Duncan as well. It fell through but it was a similar situation to Miami without the collusion.

Who else came there? Other then through the draft?

[smith2373]

Oh I forgot to mention that Orlando got TMac and G Hill to sign with them so please save me the drama of Orlando being a poor small market team. Orlando has had more superstar level players come to their team more than any team other than the Lakers

Tmac was from the area. Hill signed and they were close to signimg Duncan as well. It fell through but it was a similar situation to Miami without the collusion.

Who else came there? Other then through the draft?

Rashard Lewis. Sure he was overpaid but he was still a very good player and a top 5 SF when he signed with Orlando.

[clevceltics]

Oh I forgot to mention that Orlando got TMac and G Hill to sign with them so please save me the drama of Orlando being a poor small market team. Orlando has had more superstar level players come to their team more than any team other than the Lakers

Tmac was from the area. Hill signed and they were close to signimg Duncan as well. It fell through but it was a similar situation to Miami without the collusion.

Who else came there? Other then through the draft?

What difference does it make that he is from the area? That doesn't mean he would sign there. What do you mean who else signed there? Are you kidding me? They almost had Duncan. They settled for TMac and GHill. They have had more prime superstar players than any team in the league in the last 20 years. Shaq and Howard in the draft. TMac and Hill via FA. Made a trade for Carter just after his prime but still a very good player. Signed Lewis in FA. Let's just compare them to say Chicago post Jordan. The Bulls have signed Boozer and Ben Wallace. They haven't signed a player as good as Hill or TMac. So please spare me the poor Orlando bit cus it's not true

[RutgersBJJ]

None of this matters if management in ownership in Cleveland, Orlando, Denver, Utah, and New Orleans showed that they were either incompetent (Cleveland, Orlando, and New Orleans) or cheap (Denver, Utah, and New Orleans).

There is no point in putting in institutional controls to prevent the obvious repercussions in response to moronic or cheap moves by ownership. Sports is a microcosm of real-life, there are consequences for every action. You want to solve superteams?

Allow the NBA's league office to be a centralized power with complete control over authorizing all hirings in NBA front offices and use annual performance evaluations to guarantee that no one as incompetent as Otis Smith ever ruins a franchise and kills the hopes of a fan-base ever again.

[LateRoundFlyer]

None of this matters if management in ownership in Cleveland, Orlando, Denver, Utah, and New Orleans showed that they were either incompetent (Cleveland, Orlando, and New Orleans) or cheap (Denver, Utah, and New Orleans).

There is no point in putting in institutional controls to prevent the obvious repercussions in response to moronic or cheap moves by ownership. Sports is a microcosm of real-life, there are consequences for every action. You want to solve superteams?

Allow the NBA's league office to be a centralized power with complete control over authorizing all hirings in NBA front offices and use annual performance evaluations to guarantee that no one as incompetent as Otis Smith ever ruins a franchise and kills the hopes of a fan-base ever again.

That's really the only other choice, besides a complete laissez-faire reinvention, isn't it? These mixed systems, as in real life, simply do not work. You sacrifice the unique benefits and consistency of one system in exchange for whatever is left and pray everything will compliment each other somehow... but since when did that become any better a strategy than leaving it all to chance?

Reactionary economic models will always be doomed to fail, without the benefit of either total freedom or total control. You pick your poison; both have their flaws. It's the same way in government as well. But sports management is not a complete microcosm. Most of us would probably feel a lot differently about a purely state-run economy or unfettered capitalist one were it applied to every facet of our lives. Government and social policy don't have the same tolerance for error that sports leagues do. Millions of lives depend on the stability of such systems.

In the NBA, NFL, or any other sports league that acts as a self-contained economy? If you're not optimizing allocation of resources, whether it's personnel or finances, you're just being wasteful.

[Agenda42]

I believe the idea of NFL comparisons is that in the NFL any team with proper management could potentially compete regardless of market size/location. Some teams will choose to go cheap on management and stay terrible, but in the NFL you succeed by being good at management, not being in a good location or having an owner with deep pockets.

that sounds fun.... but its just not reality.

NFL titles:

Pittsburg 6
Dallas 5
New York 4
San Fran 5
LA/Oakland 4
New England 3
Miami 2

Total: 29

Everyone Else: 17

and of that "everyone else" the packers have 4, most came with lombardi, the greatest coach ever, in the very early stages of the league when there were just a handful of teams.

29 of 46 titles by big markets

Neilsen rankings of NFL media markets with multiple Super Bowl titles:

#23 Pittsburgh 6 titles
#5 Dallas 5 titles
#6 San Francisco / Oakland / San Jose, 49ers 5 titles, Raiders 3 titles
#71 Green Bay 4 titles
#1 New York Giants 4 titles, Jets 1 title
#9 Washington 3 titles
#7 Boston 3 titles
#27 Indianapolis 2 titles
#17 Denver 2 titles
#16 Miami 2 titles

You have to torture this data pretty intensely to come to the conclusion that big markets are dominating the Super Bowl.

[Agenda42]

None of this matters if management in ownership in Cleveland, Orlando, Denver, Utah, and New Orleans showed that they were either incompetent (Cleveland, Orlando, and New Orleans) or cheap (Denver, Utah, and New Orleans).

In what way did Denver and Utah show that they were cheap?