There needs to be more balance in the NBA. What if each team could only sign 1 max player?

[Jonatton Yeah]

The past four seasons has ended with four different teams winning the championship. Two of which were perennial jokes for quite some time. The league doesn't need to do a thing.

[Alex DeLarge]

30 Mediocre teams would make for far more interesting games and playoffs than the current system. There is a reason I'd bet the vast majority of games from the NCAA Tourny destroy the ratings of almost all NBA playoff series. The NBA has far superior talent, but most the matchups are awful whereas upsets and close games are much more common in the NCAA Tourny.

Close games don't necessarily mean good basketball. On that note, the college game is flat-out unwatchable.

Name me a time in the past when relative parity has been good for the league?

A few points:

1)Close games are not automatically good basketball, but by definition a blowout is not good basketball. At most only the team blowing out the other can be said to be playing good basketball. Both teams playing Good Basketball is more likely in a close game than in a blowout.

2)The NBA has probably never had parity, so hard to use a time from its history as an example that has never happened. Parity has done wonders though for the NFL.

3)The majority of the country disagrees about College basketball being unwatchable since the NCAA Tourny regularly beats the NBA Playoffs in ratings. What most people find unwatchable are 90% of NBA playoff series (and for many people the NBA regular season too).

Here's a simple fix; if you prefer parity and mediocre basketball, watch college and turn the NBA off.

1 all-star on every team means bad play and games decided by the bounce of the ball. It doesn't reward intelligence and excellence.

[vxmike]

The new SuperMax extension will highly discourage super teams and thus improve parity. When teams are paying Paul George and Cousins $40M/yr they won't have the space to sign multiple other stars. Also, many fewer stars will leave their current teams to sacrifice huge $$ to join super teams.

Cavs and GSW are now relics from the previous CBA. They'll likely be dominating the NBA for 3-4 more seasons though. The scary part is both may be able to add $8.4M MLE players this summer depending on their cap situation. That gets you a lot more than a minimum salary ring chaser.

[DJ43]

Parity is another word for mediocrity. Ask NFL fans at how terrible that's made their product. Other than the Patriots, no semblance of any sustainable success. Games are a drag to watch. Competition is poor. Rivalries are almost nonexistent now. Even the ratings are down as well.

It's much more about the level of play on the court/field than it is the outcome. You don't realize it until you see two mediocre teams try to eek out a win against each other. You want that league wide? Terrible idea.

These new CBA changes make it harder for stars to leave the teams they've been drafted by. That's good enough. Too much parity is NOT a good thing.

NFL ratings are dropping because of commercials.

The new SuperMax extension will highly discourage super teams and thus improve parity. When teams are paying Paul George and Cousins $40M/yr they won't have the space to sign multiple other stars. Also, many fewer stars will leave their current teams to sacrifice huge $$ to join super teams.

Cavs and GSW are now relics from the previous CBA. They'll likely be dominating the NBA for 3-4 more seasons though. The scary part is both may be able to add $8.4M MLE players this summer depending on their cap situation. That gets you a lot more than a minimum salary ring chaser.

That 8.5 gets you a backup PG or bench big nowadays.

[Scalabrine]

Having no max contracts, but keeping bird rights and the salary cap would do a better job fixing this...

If a team wanted to give Curry a 60 million dollar deal and then using the remaining 40 million to fill the rest of the lineup out they could. Why should their be a max earning? It defies logic to me...

[alexb618]

there are always good teams and there are always bad teams

sometimes it is the players, sometimes the coaching staff, sometimes the front office, sometimes a combination

someone has to come first and someone has to come last

[Leslie Forman]

2)The NBA has probably never had parity, so hard to use a time from its history as an example that has never happened. Parity has done wonders though for the NFL.

Back in the '70s, eight different franchises won an NBA title.

That also happens to be considered the worst period for the NBA ever.

[MrPerfect1]

Close games don't necessarily mean good basketball. On that note, the college game is flat-out unwatchable.

Name me a time in the past when relative parity has been good for the league?

A few points:

1)Close games are not automatically good basketball, but by definition a blowout is not good basketball. At most only the team blowing out the other can be said to be playing good basketball. Both teams playing Good Basketball is more likely in a close game than in a blowout.

2)The NBA has probably never had parity, so hard to use a time from its history as an example that has never happened. Parity has done wonders though for the NFL.

3)The majority of the country disagrees about College basketball being unwatchable since the NCAA Tourny regularly beats the NBA Playoffs in ratings. What most people find unwatchable are 90% of NBA playoff series (and for many people the NBA regular season too).

Here's a simple fix; if you prefer parity and mediocre basketball, watch college and turn the NBA off.

1 all-star on every team means bad play and games decided by the bounce of the ball. It doesn't reward intelligence and excellence.

That is kind of a silly response. It would be like me saying: If you like watching 1 sided beatdowns where all the stars play for 1 team then Watch the Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals instead of the NBA.

It is amazing though that you think games being so close that 1 random bounce can decide games would be bad. Heck, the NFL has made a killing off of that. Even game 7 of the Finals last year came down to 1 or 2 bounces. I guess you thought Game 3 was better than Game 7. Afterall, Game 7 was kinda sloppy and neither team played that great.

2)The NBA has probably never had parity, so hard to use a time from its history as an example that has never happened. Parity has done wonders though for the NFL.

Back in the '70s, eight different franchises won an NBA title.

That also happens to be considered the worst period for the NBA ever.

That is pretty subjective. I bet most people here would much rather watch Games from the 70s than games from the 40s or 50s. Watching games from the 50s would be like watching High School games today.

Also, if the 70s is not remembered fondly, it is largely due to Widespread drug use among players that crippled many careers and tons of on court violence (like Tomjanovich being punched). It isn't because of a lack of dynasties. Heck, lots of literature for example has been written about the Blazers title winning team. I'd much rather live in the world where Walton won 1 on such a unique team than an alternative world where another team dominated the era instead.

[pwrshft99]

The answer to more balance is fewer teams. Cut the league down to 24-26 teams and shorten the regular season to 60 games.

Those two things would NEVER happen but I think it would create the best basketball for the fan.

[JonFromVA]

Tired of these super teams to be honest. Everybody jumping ship to go ring chase while they are in their prime still. Takes away from the excitement of the game, and is the same 3-4 teams every year out of 30 that has a legitimate shot at the title. Once every 10 years you will have some team get lucky, but the league as it is now, is pretty unbalanced and has been for far too long.

The NBA has the best system out of all the sports leagues. They did make a mistake in the previous CBA. In trying to limit their risk, the owners made it easier for their franchise players to walk away (and team up). The new CBA fixes that somewhat.

But if you can build it, you should be able to keep it together ... not just have a one year run, then have to dismantle the team like the Florida Marlins.

[Alex DeLarge]

Here's a simple fix; if you prefer parity and mediocre basketball, watch college and turn the NBA off.

1 all-star on every team means bad play and games decided by the bounce of the ball. It doesn't reward intelligence and excellence.

That is kind of a silly response. It would be like me saying: If you like watching 1 sided beatdowns where all the stars play for 1 team then Watch the Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals instead of the NBA.

It is amazing though that you think games being so close that 1 random bounce can decide games would be bad. Heck, the NFL has made a killing off of that. Even game 7 of the Finals last year came down to 1 or 2 bounces. I guess you thought Game 3 was better than Game 7. Afterall, Game 7 was kinda sloppy and neither team played that great.

I didn't say that "close games are bad". Great strawman though.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why parity means a better product.

If you genuinely love basketball, you want to see the best players play with each other and against each other. This means that some teams - again, the smart teams that draft well and make good trades - are stacked with talent while other teams are working to get to that point.

Give me a world where Giannis can grow with Jabari and Middleton and other young stars, where Embiid can grow with Simmons etc. This is what excites me - not watching 30 teams that resemble the current OKC Thunder.

In your world, there's no possibility for the Lakers vs Celtics rivalry, which is what turned the NBA into a legitimate sporting league. There's no possibility of Michael Jordan playing alongside another superstar for most of his career. There's essentially no possibility of all the great Western conference teams of the past 10-15 years. The only people who would want that are the handful of fans of incompetent franchises who have given up all hope of building a contender.

[Warriorfan]

I believe there should be no cap at all.

Yes this favors big market teams but those owners paid a premium.

All the owners are billionaires or near billionaires and the market values of the franchises has been growing so let them pay as little or as much as they want like baseball.

The cap is there to save the owners from themselves.

[Jakay]

The union would never agree to that. You realize this would screw players outs of millions of dollars

That's workable. Sign for a percentge of the cap total by year, and adjust the cap total as necessary. Same $ being paid out. I'm not in favour of that, just sayin...

[Dominator83]

Hard caps won't fly because if the cap is too high the smaller market teams wouldn't be able to spend up to it and wouldn't get the benefit of profit sharing and if the cap is too low the players lose money and the big market teams lose the ability to outspend the competition for the superior FA talent. The cap structure as it is, is the best way to accommodate everyone which is why it's what resulted from all the marathon negotiations.

No contract maximums won't work because the best players that want to win the most rings will simply collude with one another(much as they do now) to negotiate contracts that allow superteams to form(see: Miami Heatles). In fact that Heat team is really the only time that's happened so egregiously so I don't understand why people are complaining. Current Warriors are a totally different phenomenon, as has been explained over and over.

No contract limitations would exacerbate the problem because people like Melo would sign $50 mil per year deals only allowing supporting casts of the most marginal players OR better players would have to settle for contracts less than good value just to find a place on a team. Imagine if every team had one guy making that big $50 mil salary under a hard cap. That trickles down and forces players beneath him to take smaller deals. Eventually it gets to the layer of role-players currently getting paid under $10 million per year, they would be forced to take minimum deals or head to Europe. Who wants a league of a handful of superstars and a bunch of scrubs while all the mid-level players are making better money in Europe and making those leagues really competitive? European fans, that's who.

Mainly this thread is a forum for fans of crappy FOs to complain, in a back-handed way, about their crappy FOs. All this talk of hard caps and no maxes is coming from fans that haven't thought through the implications of what they're advocating.

The last paragraph explains most of it. The confusing part is that how is it that even the most common NBA fans knew immediately that the Crabbe, Turner, Parsons, Solomon Hill, Mozgov, Deng, Noah, etc contracts were going to be awful trainwrecks, but these highly paid GM's that do this for a living didn't?

[Danny11]

Hard caps won't fly because if the cap is too high the smaller market teams wouldn't be able to spend up to it and wouldn't get the benefit of profit sharing and if the cap is too low the players lose money and the big market teams lose the ability to outspend the competition for the superior FA talent. The cap structure as it is, is the best way to accommodate everyone which is why it's what resulted from all the marathon negotiations.

No contract maximums won't work because the best players that want to win the most rings will simply collude with one another(much as they do now) to negotiate contracts that allow superteams to form(see: Miami Heatles). In fact that Heat team is really the only time that's happened so egregiously so I don't understand why people are complaining. Current Warriors are a totally different phenomenon, as has been explained over and over.

No contract limitations would exacerbate the problem because people like Melo would sign $50 mil per year deals only allowing supporting casts of the most marginal players OR better players would have to settle for contracts less than good value just to find a place on a team. Imagine if every team had one guy making that big $50 mil salary under a hard cap. That trickles down and forces players beneath him to take smaller deals. Eventually it gets to the layer of role-players currently getting paid under $10 million per year, they would be forced to take minimum deals or head to Europe. Who wants a league of a handful of superstars and a bunch of scrubs while all the mid-level players are making better money in Europe and making those leagues really competitive? European fans, that's who.

Mainly this thread is a forum for fans of crappy FOs to complain, in a back-handed way, about their crappy FOs. All this talk of hard caps and no maxes is coming from fans that haven't thought through the implications of what they're advocating.

I disagree, teams would self regulate. Big markets would still have an advantage due to the possibility of endorsements. The way it currently stands, there is no way to financially distinguish between Melo and LeBron. Remove the max and teams can make bolder moves and sign players for more. The supporting casts get worse? Yeah, marginally but TBH the talent discrepancy is so great that it almost doesn't matter who's guarding a guy like Durant.

If a small market team won't spend, that is their prerogative however that team is unlikely to produce a good basketball product even as things stand now. I'd like to see those franchises fail, we don't need owners who are just here to make a buck and don't care about winning.

[TheDavinciCHODE]

When has the NBA ever been balanced?

It isn't the nature of the league that creates this, it's the nature of the sport. Each team only plays 5 guys at once and players play both sides of the ball. it's not like baseball or football.

We need to stop saying things like "make it like the NFL!"

Honestly, aside from the W's, the league is pretty balanced, IMO.

If the Warriors weren't in the league, there'd be a big group of title contenders who we'd all consider in close contention with each other.

Say KD was still on OKC, too....

CAVS
OKC
LAC
HOU
SAS

and some teams would be knocking right on the door...

BOS
UTA
TOR

I don't think I've ever seen the league so close together honestly. The difference between 2-20 isn't nearly as wide as it used to be.

Yes, the W's are kinda screwing things, but the league has more parity now outside of that one team than it's had in a long time.

Basketball is a sport where the best teams almost always win, and the best teams are those with generational talent(s). That's just the nature of the sport. That's how it's always gonna be.

The only way to make some more parity would be to make 1 game playoff formats where team can advance with just a single victory. That's never gonna happen, though,.

[Soupman]

You balance a sport by better amateur player development.

There is not enough talent to go around.

[Johnny Bball]

The NBA might be more popular than ever, but the lack of parity and the predictability of the outcomes hold it back.

OPs solution isn't a workable solution, but obviously Silver and the governors think the a lack of parity is a problem since they tried to address the creation of these teams by adding the extra year/designated player. Silver talked about it enough that you know he doesn't think it's an ideal solution. Even adding the extra year to the draft age is partly about creating more parity.

[Soupman]

What do you think about the minimum salary increase in the DL?

[Danny11]

What do you think about the minimum salary increase in the DL?

This would be great for non-American bball. I think a lot of owners may dissolve the D league teams in this case.