Adam Silver Can’t Fix the Biggest Thing Holding Back the NBA

[dhsilv2]

Adam Silver is a bafoon. He has no idea what he's doing. He thinks that super teams cannot be avoided, and aren't a problem. Off course they can be avoided.

Depends what you consider a super team. The Warriors were built from within. They were a superteam before they signed Durant. Even the KD signing was a rare circumstance of Steph's value being low due to injuries and the surplus caused by the cable deal.

On the other hand, Lebron is a one-off superstar like we've never seen before. Players reach his level of greatness usually by having supreme competitive drive, which he lacks. We won't see the best player in the game cheating the system like that again. So I think this issue with "superteams" isn't as big as people like to make it seem. It still takes a really good front office to build one.

Silver is right. Both cases, these are circumstances that can't be avoided. I wish they raised the cap gradually after the cable deal instead of all at once, but I'm guessing the owners wouldn't go for that. It still wouldn't have prevented the Warriors from being a "superteam".

The players wanted all the money that was available to them. And I agree with them. Owners would have been able to line their pockets with INSANE amount of money if the cap was gradually raised.

How would the owners have lined their pockets? The players their their share of total revenue either way. The cost of players is fixed...it's just which players get the money.

[dhsilv2]

These artificial conference and divisional alignments need to die a quick death. They're completely arbitrary and irrelevant now.

There is an argument for getting rid of them. But you can't call them arbitrary. It's literally based on geography. Ironically if you are trying to bolster teams in the East you should absolutely keep conferences because their teams benefit from easier schedules and far easier travel. And we can talk all we want about private jets and it being superior to 30 years ago and that's true, but travel is still far easier on Eastern teams than Western teams . A competitive advantage and a major financial one with far cheaper travel costs and far fewer road games in a bad time slot. Teams on the West coach playing teams in the central market hurt the local TV ratings for both sides when games are either too early or too late.


I think keeping the conferences and divisions is fine and certainly only serves to help serve those large, important East markets that the league is incentivized to want to keep strong. If you want to say only the top 4 teams from each conference automatically get playoff berths and then take the next best 8 teams regardless of conference, fine. But its silly to just open it wide open for many reasons including killing off some natural rivalries or reducing the number of times those teams face.

How many natural rivalries are there really anymore? I feel like with 4 regular season games unless teams play constantly in the playoffs the idea of a rivalry is just dead. There might be some "fan narrative" driven ones, but I just don't see it on the court.

[Texas Chuck]

How many natural rivalries are there really anymore? I feel like with 4 regular season games unless teams play constantly in the playoffs the idea of a rivalry is just dead. There might be some "fan narrative" driven ones, but I just don't see it on the court.

the fan narrative is what matters tho right? Doesn't matter in Dallas that we aren't really rivals of the Spurs, we feel like we are and so those games feel special. Or for years Houston saw us as a rival when we didn't, but again it made those games bigger in the Houston market. Then you have teams with bad blood for their fans like the Thunder/Warriors, the Pacers/Pistons, etc...

I think we have to be careful as passionate basketball fans about wanting basketball nirvana while ignoring some business realities in a for-profit entity like the NBA. I'm all for continuing to explore ways to improve the basketball but if they cost owners(and thus also players) money its just not going to happen.

[LAKESHOW]

I believe it was Cuban who said, as soon as his team is eliminated from playoffs. All starters sit, and tanking begins. Heck , my LAKERS were winning late in the year, because everyone was racing to the bottom. Tanking is a problem, I don't think they can fix. Because owners do not have the will power to vote and push for it, since most of em are in the tanking business, come playoff time.

[dhsilv2]

How many natural rivalries are there really anymore? I feel like with 4 regular season games unless teams play constantly in the playoffs the idea of a rivalry is just dead. There might be some "fan narrative" driven ones, but I just don't see it on the court.

the fan narrative is what matters tho right? Doesn't matter in Dallas that we aren't really rivals of the Spurs, we feel like we are and so those games feel special. Or for years Houston saw us as a rival when we didn't, but again it made those games bigger in the Houston market. Then you have teams with bad blood for their fans like the Thunder/Warriors, the Pacers/Pistons, etc...

I think we have to be careful as passionate basketball fans about wanting basketball nirvana while ignoring some business realities in a for-profit entity like the NBA. I'm all for continuing to explore ways to improve the basketball but if they cost owners(and thus also players) money its just not going to happen.

I guess I don't think local fans matter? Their business model is all about driving up national ratings, not the locals. If those rivalries were so big, they'd want more than 4 games a year between the two, instead they did their best to get 2 non conference games with as many other conference teams as possible so the stars travel to each city.

I might be crazy here, but I just don't think a tiny minority of games are driving any meaningful profit. Meanwhile having better playoff series on average and making the finals seem like the actual two best teams should dramatically improve the perception of the product and thus ratings and profits.

The alternative is to go to division and 1 team makes the playoffs like in football and bias the schedules for that narrative. I think that's an awful idea in a star driven league though.

[dhsilv2]

I believe it was Cuban who said, as soon as his team is eliminated from playoffs. All starters sit, and tanking begins. Heck , my LAKERS were winning late in the year, because everyone was racing to the bottom. Tanking is a problem, I don't think they can fix. Because owners do not have the will power to vote and push for it, since most of em are in the tanking business, come playoff time.

Do baseball or NFL fans care about teams once they're eliminated from the playoffs? I feel like this is just sports.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

I guess I don't think local fans matter? Their business model is all about driving up national ratings, not the locals. If those rivalries were so big, they'd want more than 4 games a year between the two, instead they did their best to get 2 non conference games with as many other conference teams as possible so the stars travel to each city.

I might be crazy here, but I just don't think a tiny minority of games are driving any meaningful profit. Meanwhile having better playoff series on average and making the finals seem like the actual two best teams should dramatically improve the perception of the product and thus ratings and profits.

The alternative is to go to division and 1 team makes the playoffs like in football and bias the schedules for that narrative. I think that's an awful idea in a star driven league though.

You make good points. Enjoying the discussion with you on this topic.

[JellosJigglin]

Adam Silver is a bafoon. He has no idea what he's doing. He thinks that super teams cannot be avoided, and aren't a problem. Off course they can be avoided.

Depends what you consider a super team. The Warriors were built from within. They were a superteam before they signed Durant. Even the KD signing was a rare circumstance of Steph's value being low due to injuries and the surplus caused by the cable deal.

On the other hand, Lebron is a one-off superstar like we've never seen before. Players reach his level of greatness usually by having supreme competitive drive, which he lacks. We won't see the best player in the game cheating the system like that again. So I think this issue with "superteams" isn't as big as people like to make it seem. It still takes a really good front office to build one.

Silver is right. Both cases, these are circumstances that can't be avoided. I wish they raised the cap gradually after the cable deal instead of all at once, but I'm guessing the owners wouldn't go for that. It still wouldn't have prevented the Warriors from being a "superteam".

The players wanted all the money that was available to them. And I agree with them. Owners would have been able to line their pockets with INSANE amount of money if the cap was gradually raised.

I was under the assumption that the players would still get their share from the cable deal in the form of a bonus. Such a large spike in the cap gave competitive teams like GS an advantage and completely changed the landscape of the NBA. I believe bonuses are taxed more heavily than salary so maybe that had something to do with it. No idea.

[JellosJigglin]

Adam Silver is a bafoon. He has no idea what he's doing. He thinks that super teams cannot be avoided, and aren't a problem. Off course they can be avoided.

Depends what you consider a super team. The Warriors were built from within. They were a superteam before they signed Durant. Even the KD signing was a rare circumstance of Steph's value being low due to injuries and the surplus caused by the cable deal.

On the other hand, Lebron is a one-off superstar like we've never seen before. Players reach his level of greatness usually by having supreme competitive drive, which he lacks. We won't see the best player in the game cheating the system like that again. So I think this issue with "superteams" isn't as big as people like to make it seem. It still takes a really good front office to build one.

Silver is right. Both cases, these are circumstances that can't be avoided. I wish they raised the cap gradually after the cable deal instead of all at once, but I'm guessing the owners wouldn't go for that. It still wouldn't have prevented the Warriors from being a "superteam".

Come on you can't be serious.

Name one "best player in the game" before Lebron in NBA history who gamed the system like he did. There isn't one. That's the point. Silver couldn't have prevented that from happening. He's right.

[dhsilv2]

Depends what you consider a super team. The Warriors were built from within. They were a superteam before they signed Durant. Even the KD signing was a rare circumstance of Steph's value being low due to injuries and the surplus caused by the cable deal.

On the other hand, Lebron is a one-off superstar like we've never seen before. Players reach his level of greatness usually by having supreme competitive drive, which he lacks. We won't see the best player in the game cheating the system like that again. So I think this issue with "superteams" isn't as big as people like to make it seem. It still takes a really good front office to build one.

Silver is right. Both cases, these are circumstances that can't be avoided. I wish they raised the cap gradually after the cable deal instead of all at once, but I'm guessing the owners wouldn't go for that. It still wouldn't have prevented the Warriors from being a "superteam".

The players wanted all the money that was available to them. And I agree with them. Owners would have been able to line their pockets with INSANE amount of money if the cap was gradually raised.

I was under the assumption that the players would still get their share from the cable deal in the form of a bonus. Such a large spike in the cap gave competitive teams like GS an advantage and completely changed the landscape of the NBA. I believe bonuses are taxed more heavily than salary so maybe that had something to do with it. No idea.

Bonuses are not taxed any different than salary. Your company's payroll department however *might* make it feel differently when you get the check. For an NBA player however, it should all be taxed at the highest marginal tax rate.

[Mik317]

Bad Ownership plays a major role in the East's ...uh struggles. Many of them are cheap, have other vetures that they care about more (often other sports teams), stupid or incompetent...or worse...satisfied with the status quo. I mean the best team in the conference's owner has often meddled and alienated folks...and is allegedly doing it again. hell, I am pretty pro process but Josh Harris is a spineless wimp regardless of where you stand on that debate (either he allowed Hinkie to do as he pleased or he was too much of a pussy that the NBA had to get involved and was able to basically take over...or both). Wizards fans often complain about their FO's being satisfied with just hanging around. The Bulls fans have complained about their own caring more about the White Sox. And the Knicks....have Dolan. Ever since Sterling got the boot, many of the peeps who could vie for worst owner probably reside in the East sadly. The good owners/FO are the Heat, The Celtics (fu Ainge doe..../salt), and until this offseason, the Cavs. With the Raptors sneaking in there (they have other issues to overcome). Out west its easier to name the "bad" ones and thats mainly due to age and the game passing them by more than anything (Sarver's cheapness isn't the reason for the Suns slide).

So it plays a role...BUT its not the whole picture. Location is also key...New York and Miami are pretty much the only destination cities (off the top of my head) in the Eastern Conference...the Nets are stuck in purgatory and the Knicks....are the Knicks. Philly isn't a destination IMO despite its size..and the rep of the fans probably hurts too. Same goes for Boston but for racial reasons. The West has LA, Houston, Dallas, San Fran. Even their small markets are in rather nice ass places (if not cold as **** or barren outside of that lol) like Salt Lake City, Portland, and Minneapolis. As a young millionaire, that plays a role in where one would want to spend a large chunk of their lives at.

This is why the draft is so important tho...these teams can't be messing up the chance to at least have a "see we can win" selling chip to hold against other suitors come FA time...so it does eventually come back to good ownership/FO.

What is the reason for Suns' slide?
What're your thoughts on their owner Sarver?

I think they just were due... sometimes a step back is going to happen. Now they are crazy young...probably will get even younger if they move Bledsoe...its going to take time especially in the West now. As for Sarver, the cheap rep mainly is a meme from another board I frequent as he used to sell first round picks on the regular...but other than that he seems to stay out of the way for the most part...which is fine if not ideal for an owner. I do think their GM is on the hot seat tho as he , Hennigan, and Hinkie were all supposed to be the new genius' on the block...and two of them have been canned already.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

"but Josh Harris is a spineless wimp regardless of where you stand on that debate (either he allowed Hinkie to do as he pleased)"

This guy sounds pretty awesome to me!

[awillquik]

Top 16 is not just about getting the weak west teams into the 15 and 16 spots... it's about exposing the top east teams by forcing them to play real competition earlier in the playoffs, as they will be seeded according to their records (which will probably be even worse than they already are, since the schedule would need to reflect the no-conference/top 16 playoff format change) in comparison to all of the teams in the league, not just the east.

Just based off of the (possibly inaccurate) records this past season... the Celtics would have been the 4th seed this year. The Cavs would have been somewhere between the 5th and 8th seed this year.

That should be the main goal of the Top 16 format.

[Mik317]

I've warmed up to the top 16 idea over the years....even if it doesn't exactly benefit my team much. As it does curtail the worst aspect of NBA...mediocrity being rewarded with playoff money. Ideally this will prevent teams from tripping into the playoffs only to get sent to the dead zone by true contenders and allow them to be in the lottery more (lower pick or not), it will be an actual challenge to make the playoffs again....in theory.

now of course the Warriors will still probably style on everyone but the race to see whose coming in 2nd would be pretty neat at least.

[XxIronChainzxX]

Cubans argument is silly. Since the East is so weak we should be seeing more marginal contenders go "all in" for a Finals or ECF run they'd never sniff out West.

The East sucks due to bad owners and management exacerbating a down trend in the natural cycle.

"'California Girls Syndrome', The West ... Has The Sunshine & The Girls All Get So Tan"
I don't think any legitimate argument can be made about supposed "bad owners and management" in the East - NOT for a TWENTY YEAR PERIOD. (It seems to me that they SEEM worse NOT because they ARE worse; but because players, generally, would rather be somewhere else.)

Same for "down trend in the natural cycle". There's nothing "natural" about the Leastern down trend.

What does that leave as the #1 factor in the West being so much stronger than the Least for so long?
I'd guess it comes down to the WEATHER. Why would millionaire-players want to live / hang out in cold climes when there's the "California Girls" enticement, " (on both the West Coast & in Texas): highly hormonized young guys seeing girls that get so tan (and more scantily clad).

I just can't see anything else being so influential. After all, with cities (decidedly) further apart in the West, there's extra travel time constantly (for INTRA-Conference games) - a discomfort that's a competitive disadvantage too.

This would only be true if the East teams repeatedly changed hands in terms of ownership. But I don't think that's true. And the perennial dishrag of the West, the Clippers, were garbage for decades next to the Lakers because of being comically mismanaged. Miami's awesome weather didn't make it a powerhouse.

[LAKESHOW]

I was fine with everything as is, until this year. I was gearing up for an epic final. 2 undefeateds, or close to it. 2 powerhouses. But that finals blowout, just showed me it ain't even close. These 2 teams decimated the playoffs. But then in the finals, there is a grand canyon between west and east.

[Pablo Novi]

Cubans argument is silly. Since the East is so weak we should be seeing more marginal contenders go "all in" for a Finals or ECF run they'd never sniff out West.

The East sucks due to bad owners and management exacerbating a down trend in the natural cycle.

"'California Girls Syndrome', The West ... Has The Sunshine & The Girls All Get So Tan"
I don't think any legitimate argument can be made about supposed "bad owners and management" in the East - NOT for a TWENTY YEAR PERIOD. (It seems to me that they SEEM worse NOT because they ARE worse; but because players, generally, would rather be somewhere else.)

Same for "down trend in the natural cycle". There's nothing "natural" about the Leastern down trend.

What does that leave as the #1 factor in the West being so much stronger than the Least for so long?
I'd guess it comes down to the WEATHER. Why would millionaire-players want to live / hang out in cold climes when there's the "California Girls" enticement, " (on both the West Coast & in Texas): highly hormonized young guys seeing girls that get so tan (and more scantily clad).

I just can't see anything else being so influential. After all, with cities (decidedly) further apart in the West, there's extra travel time constantly (for INTRA-Conference games) - a discomfort that's a competitive disadvantage too.

This would only be true if the East teams repeatedly changed hands in terms of ownership. But I don't think that's true. And the perennial dishrag of the West, the Clippers, were garbage for decades next to the Lakers because of being comically mismanaged. Miami's awesome weather didn't make it a powerhouse.

Forgive me but I just don't follow your point about "This would only be true if the East teams repeatedly changed hands in terms of ownership." I have no idea how "repeated changing of ownership" would validate or invalidate my point about the weather probably being a KEY factor in the Least-West inbalance over the last 20 years.

Conversely, are you claiming that 15 teams (half the League) has had generally decidedly worse management than the other 15 (in the West) - and that THAT is the main reason that half of the League has been so bad? Does that seem reasonable to you? That almost all the bad management (except for the Clippers until recently) somehow existed in one half and not in the other half?

I haven't made the claim that the WEATHER ALONE makes the Western Conf. teams (or a team like Miami) better. But, speaking of Miami, they HAVE had better teams than the average in the Least (including getting a number of very-good players: DWade, Shaq, LBJ, Bosh). Might PART of the reason they went there or stayed there was because of South Beach weather? Haven't you heard that great weather being referred to as making Miami a better-than-average destination? Don't California & Texas have sunnier-weather cities than the average East Conf. team?

Please keep in mind that I was responding to vxmike where he said, "The East sucks due to bad owners and management exacerbating a down trend in the natural cycle" Again, do YOU agree with this; that SOMEHOW one half of the League is worse simply or mostly because almost all the bad owners and management are in THAT half of the League. Odds are super-heavily against such a phenomenon being both so one-sided AND long-lasting. In other words, that's probably NOT the main reason for the imbalance. If then it isn't management/owners nor the weather; what do YOU suggest IS the main cause?

I'm not insisting there isn't some other and better explanation; and if you have one - I'm certainly "convinceable" but better data and/or analysis. Please be my guest.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

There is nothing permanent about the West being up and the East being down. Weather doesn't matter that much. The West has more longer flights. East has some large markets.

I the 1980s The East was up and the West other than the Lakers was down.
It is just coincidence. The 16 best teams will gravitate back towards 8 teams from each conference on it's own.

That still does not mean that a two conference system makes sense. The division are not creating intense rivalries. It would be better if the best 2 teams never met in the playoffs prior to the finals.

[DreamTeam09]

If baseball is the only summer sport, might as well change the nba season to capitalize with the summer months and give them the winter off. If the west biggest factor is weather, well playing in the summer eliminates that. They can all fly out to cali or texas or miami in the winter time. Attendance will draw heavy during the summer months. You could give away tickets to whole bunch of summer camps and fill the upper bowls that way.