I realize there is a middle ground, but between these polar opposites, which of the two generates the most interest amongst all NBA fans, especially casual ones (the bulk of fans)?
nobody wants to see a bunch of .500 teams... The NBA would be a lot better if the Warriors and Cavs weren't so much better than every other team in their conference. Last year when GS also had a 67 win Spurs team and OKC to battle in the West, it was fine. Now that they've added KD, it's just not fair.
Exactly! That's why the whole idea of trying to maximize parity is foolish. If all the posters got their wish and we spread the talent around as much as possible, you'd literally get more or less 30 teams around 0.500. And yet these posters think that this would cause the NBA to skyrocket in popularity. To the casual fans (vast majority of sports fans), watching super-teams is way more exciting than watching NBA talent spread out as much as possible. And the reason is simple. It is more fun to see multiple superstars at once on one team than to see lots of teams with just one star and surrounded by a bunch of scrubs. People who champion "parity" just have to accept that fact. A league of a few superteams is far more popular and profitable than a league with maximum parity.
parity in basketball is just unreachable because of the nature of the sport. when you have a sport where there is only 5 players on the court per team and 1 of those players can scored up to a 3rd of his teams points while contributing in so many other positives stats like rebounds, assist, steals, blocks, and defense, the team with the best player on the court will win the game more often then not, especially in a 7 game series. sports with more players usually have more parity because it's more chances that something can go wrong and individual players impact is morel imited.
I don't think anyones asking for all 32 teams to be equal. I think people want to have at least 4-8 teams be in the talk for a championship. Say 3 teams from each conference. Did we even have that this year? Nope. So stop with this every team must be equal thing. We just don't want to be have 2 teams soooooo far above the other 30 that the rest of the fans have no hope.
The Warriors and Cavs were a combined 24-1 heading into the Finals. What most fans want as parity is competition in the playoffs for the Warriors and Cavs so we don't have to sit through round after round of blowouts and series sweeps only to get to the supposed "epic matchup" and watch more blowouts and potentially another sweep. Is that too much to ask for?
I can safely say a bunch of .500 teams with genuine competition and unpredictability would intrigue me more than what we're going to see over the course of the next 5 years. Can very safely say that.
You want tiers of competition to show greatness. Tennis is a good comparison. Watching Federer's greatness was enhanced because of Nadal and Djokovic. You need true challengers but you also need the cream rising to the top. Ideally, you want about 4 true championship contenders. Which if Durant had stayed with OKC we would have had. 3-4 dark horse teams like this years Rockets, one of the East teams, the Clippers. 2-3 fun playoff teams like the Blazers, Jazz, Wizards. We watch for competition but we also watch for excellence.
People don't want min-maxed parity. That's dumb. There should be tiers consisting of: defending champ + last year's runner up, close contenders, dark horses, miracle Cinderella teams, mediocre 1st round fodder, mediocre lottery fodder, and then the rest. Right now it's Warriors 1st place, Cavs 2nd place, and the rest of the league hopeless to take more than a single game from either team all playoffs. Lmfao. I still disagree that adjustments to the CBA need to be made. The circumstances that put Durant in GSW won't ever be repeated again. It was a freak coincidence for GSW.
I would rather see 30 .500 teams. At least then it could be entertaining. This is boring. Where is the entertainment when you know who's going to win. I'd rather watch a bunch of average teams where I don't know what's going to happen, but I'm afraid we are stuck with this style of play.
There's always college basketball if you want to see 64 mediocre and undisciplined teams play one off elimination games.
90's model was best.. 2-3 great teams next 4-10 are good teams but the good teams are good enough to potentially upset the great teams. Rest are meh ..
The latter actually sounds really interesting to me (though it might get old/weird after a while)... but I voted for the first, because people are stupid.
Having a few, or even one, super team isn't bad. Jordan's Bulls, LeBron/Wade/Bosh's Heat drew viewers, both those rooting for them and those rooting against them. The danger for the Warriors is they actually repeat what they do this year-- 4-0 blowouts every series-- over and over. This would become boring. Even Jordan's Bulls had to tough out some playoff series on their way to 6 titles. But then again thing can change in a hurry in the NBA. The Warriors have had remarkable health this playoffs-- pretty much everyone (except Iguodala) not only available but also 100%. It may not happen next year. Or maybe Leonard doesn't get injured next year. Aging, formation of other super teams, etc. can also change things. Even if they still win, there may be more drama on the road to the title than there is this time around.
