While recently chatting with a German friend who's a life long soccer fan, and telling him about the Rockets upcoming season, he was very annoyed at the fact that I can "predict" the Rockets likelihood of success. How certain I was about Dwight Howard's impact on the team. Basically he was really annoyed at the fact that basketball is so stable in terms of record and championship hopes. So hypothetically, suppose the NBA is more volatile, perhaps less regular season games, more Best-of-3s, Best-of-5s, make a 48minute game only 40 minutes, etc. Things that would allow for more upsets. Would you be in favor of that? Or do you like the current system where the odds are stacked in favor of the more talented.
a german soccer fan is talking about predictability to you? i can predict the bundesliga before the season. either bayern munich or dortmund will win, more like bayern. in spain it's either barca or real madrid, most likely barca. in england it will either be manchester city, chelsea, manchester united or arsenal at a push ... more than likely manchester city. italy it will either be juventus or napoli, most likely juve. in france it will be psg or monaco, most likely psg. sometimes i want more parity, but then when i start thinking about it, parity usually equals mediocrity. it's good to have dominant teams and then other teams strive to get to that level. i don't see how the rockets recent improvement is a sign of the nba's predictability. i would think it's a good thing that rockets made their move to join the elite.
I was thinking the same thing -- isn't soccer predictable? I think there's a right amount of predictability. When you have 1-2 that you know will win in the end, that's too predictable. If you can only say it'll be one of 4-6 teams, I think that's about right. If the field is larger than that, the sport may be too capricious to really invest your time into. That's part of what made the superfriends annoying, what made the Gasol trade annoying, and what made the Rodman trade annoying - it puts one team so out front, it's almost a foregone conclusion, and affects multiple years. The Howard signing does the opposite. Where Miami is almost the surefire champion, with only OKC and the Spurs really challenging their position, it adds another team to the contender mix. Miami is still out in front, but they're falling a bit back towards Earth as Wade wears out, so there's a chance of having some uncertainty among those 4 as to who will win in the end. That's getting back to equilibrium.
The NBA is about the ability of a single player to determine the success of a team moreso than any other sport. If you don't like that fact, then find another sport to root for and quit complaining about an inherent, historical realiity of basketball. Too me, the ability of superstars to win seven game series is what makes the game special. It has qualities of both a team sport and individual destiny and control. Also, any sport that has a one-and-out formula of playoffs and championships will also inherently have more upsets.
I am for preventing super teams and shorter playoff series. I thought soccer had lots of super teams that dominate the leagues. That said, upsets are more likely to happen in soccer than in basketball for two reasons. First, it is single game elimination in most tournaments. Second, superstars do not have as much an impact as in basketball. edit: what heypartner said
Most leagues are predictable in soccer, but the Champions league is never predictable, the most prestigious prize in european football. There has not been a repeat champions league winner in the modern era, while there are countless of repeat title winners in the nba.
As a german soccer fan, I much prefer the system of the NBA - thanks to the draft at least every team has the chance to be really good. Usually a team can only stay competitive for a couple of years, then go into rebuilding (with SA being the exception). And every now and then you get a team like Cleveland, OKC, Indiana or GS that gets a break and gets a chance to compete. In europe the real good soccer teams have been competing for decades and it is real hard for other teams to get into the competition and stay there.
I do think that the best teams in the NBA seem to have the most success. I think that is the way to have a league, whether it is predictable or not. It is a superstar driven league as much as any other sport. The "predictability" of the league does not bother me at all.
Bayern is a ridiculous 2:9 favorite to win the Bundesliga this year. Even the Miami Heat are only 2:1 to win the championship right now, much much lower odds in comparison. But to answer the question, I think more variance creates more excitement for the fans, especially for fans of average to below average teams. Even for fans of very good teams, winning games against bad teams becomes more meaningful, since there are no more gimmes. Less games/shorter games would also benefit the players, allowing for more rest, creating a better product on the court. All in all, it would improve the league tremendously.
Dynasties are popular. But so is parity. What sucks is too many teams and games bringing down quality of play.
The NFL used to be full of dynasties. Teams would control the league. I don't think they'd go back to that now. Parity has been important to the NFL's rise to dominance. But the game of basketball is very different, as was said earlier. It's just amazing to me how many NBA franchises have never won a championship or even been to the Finals.
I think there has been a change in the NBA. Take a look at the past 3 seasons: 1. We had two years where a team was prematurely crowned the champ before coming up short ('11 Miami and '13 Lakers). 2. Even though Miami has won back-to-back titles, they came within mere seconds of losing this past year. 3. The two teams (Mavs and Spurs) that beat/almost beat Miami in the finals were constructed without using the "super-friends" or tank tactic. 4. Take a look at how the Pacers (and us) assembled a true contender without tanking by focusing on smart management and maintaining a winning culture. 5. A combination of luxury tax ramifications, a plethora of marketable stars, limits on contracts and a loaded draft all translate to an extremely competitive climate. Will we ever see an NFL level of unpredictability? Of course not. 82 regular season games and a best of 7 playoffs serve explicitly to eliminate the pretenders.
What were the ratings when the cavs and spurs played? People say they want parity, but when a small market team makes it no one watches.
Which again speaks to how ridiculous the NFL is. No one bats an eye at the Green Bay Packers drawing monster ratings. The Milwaukee Bucks or Brewers however? Who would watch?
If you want parity, you want a hard cap + player mobility. I think the current limitation on contract length is good, but maybe the contract rules and RFA/UFA stuff can be played around with. I don't like such a strong incentivization for a player to stay on a particular team (usually, the one that drafted him) for a while. Hell, maybe just eliminate RFA. As someone who thinks about switching companies and careers daily, it just feels wrong. But of course hard cap will never happen.
In general, the NBA is laughably top heavy. What's worse is that half the league makes the playoffs. Even worse than that is that teams can make it to the playoffs with losing records (looking at you East teams). They need to cut it to 6 teams each conference tops, and never allow losing teams to make it (unless they win a division, although this wouldn't ever happen). Maybe give top two teams bye series? F*** it! Just copy the NFL completely.
I think MLB is really unpredictable. Who knows who is going to make it to the world series? Anything can happen in the MLB.
Exactly. People love the matchups between Durant and Lebron...or can Curry propel his team past the Spurs...etc I like it how it is, and I don't think shortening the season will mean more parity. Only if you shorten the best of 7...even then if you make it best of 5 or 3 I still think you'd get about the same amount of parity. Lebron is still playing, he now only knows that it'll take 3 or 2 games to beat his opponent instead of four. I guess a shortened season will only come to the NBA IF the game grows on such a global scale that instead of the NBA Finals in June we'd be watching a champions league of some sort. Only way I can see the NBA season realistically shortening.
