Whenever somebody brings up the West's recent dominance of the East, the argument of "Well, it's cyclical...just a few years ago, the East was winning all of the titles" Even when the Bulls were winning all of the titles, the West still had some great teams and were very competitive. Seattle, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, LA, and Utah all won 60 games during the Bulls title runs. Utah and Phoenix even had home court advantage against the Bulls. Houston had four 50 win seasons and won two titles and played the Bulls very well during the regular season. In five of the six Bulls title runs, the Finals went to six games. The West wasn't dominant, but was very competitive. Right now, the East is just....BLAH! The Nets were the best they offered, and showed NO effort. If this thing is cyclical, it is going to be a LOOOOONG cycle. Shaq has four years left on his contract, then he'll retire. Kobe could get the Lakers 50 wins by himself. The Kings and Mavs are right there in the waiting. The T-Wolves will win 50 games as long as they have KG, and The Spurs are good for 50 wins with Duncan. We HAVE a chance to be competetive if we get our act together, and the Clippers look like a very nice team if Donald Sterling ever sprays some WD-40 on his checkbook hinges. The Bucks are an East team doing a poor impersonation of a West team, The Pacers have 41 and 42 wins, respectively, the past two season, Detroit clinched the Central this year at victory number <b>47</b>, Charlotte is mediocre at best, Philly is a one man team, Orlando can't get Grant Hill for more than 20 games in a season, and Toronto played better with Vince Carter OUT of the lineup. The Celtics look solid, but that's about it. I am DEFINITELY in Favor of lining up the 16 best teams and letting them duke it out for the NBA title. Lakers vs. Kings in the NBA Finals? Are you kidding me? That would be the highest rated finals EVER (pleasing the TV Networks, would cut down on travel (pleasing the teams)....and, oh yeah, it would be fun to watch! Almost forgot about that last part... Let's do it!
You may have the top of the bunch in the West - and that is something that is cyclical (albeit seemingly only in large markets; but more on that in a minute), but historically the East has had a lot of the middle-of-the-pack teams, while the West has the bottom feeders. If you did the "16 best teams" scenario, the playoff teams this year would be unchanged. The 17th team would be Milwaukee, an East team, followed by the Clippers and then Washington and Miami (two more Eastern teams). There's nothing really gained by that scenario except it sets up all of the best teams for upsets in the beginning of the playoffs and further upsets the competative balance of the league with a few "superteams" out west not having to play each other until the end. Over time, though, things have been cyclical at the top. The East dominated the finals for many years, starting with the Pistons and continuing to the Bulls, with two titles by Houston in the middle. Many great teams were in the East during this time, including the Celtics, Pacers, Magic, Knicks, and Heat - all who could've beaten any west team in any given series. Only recently have we seen the West, with SA and then the Lakers, move to the top of the standings in the NBA. Many of the better teams are in the west - Sacramento, Dallas, LA, and San Antonio - but all it takes is an injury, a player switching teams (ex: Shaq in the mid-90s), or a retirement (ex: MJ) to switch the scales again. Many Eastern teams would've been better if not due to injury; you could say the same for many Western teams in the early 90s. While the big city teams - Chicago, Detroit, Houston, New York, LA, Boston - will always have a better opportunity to be at the top of the league, there still exists more balance than people would like to admit between the West and East, and it is something that changes in cycles - seemingly every 8-10 years or so. Don't like the outlook? Just wait a few years. Robinson and Shaq will be gone, Duncan and McDyess may be out of the conference, and Sterling may not open his books.
I always so Coasts vs Middle Coast being the Celtics and Lakers Middle being Detroit, Chicago and Rockets Yeah that is a cycle rocket River
I think the West is going to dominate for a very long time. Historical evidence supports it. The NBA started with teams only in the East in the late 40s, early 50s, so obviously they dominated the expansion teams of the West in the 60s. The Los Angeles Lakers were the first really good team out of the West (unless you count the Warriors). Then in the 70s, I believe the conferences actually split the championships 5-5. The 80s were also fairly even. But the Bulls of the 90s were the last great Eastern team. So just looking at it historically, this may be a very long cycle.
There's not enough evidence to support that notion, even if it turns out to be true. Historically, east teams have been at the top, yes, but there has never been a cycle near as big as you outline. Personally, I doubt there wil be; I can't see the West being dominant for a long period of time. Other than the teams with owners will to spend and spend and spend, there will be cycles of player movement and thus conference power shifts.
Most of the player movement recently has been a shift of quality power forwards moving west to try to gaurd Shaq. Until he retires, the need for a deeper team will be more incentive to a Western team than an Eastern team who knows that just making it to the playoffs makes you an instant Finals contender.
I have a suggestion to make the NBA finals more competitve. Since the West is so dominant to the east and to cut down on those boring finals and sweeps, I suggest a different format. The final 4 teams: East: 1. New Jersey 2. Boston, West: 1. Sacremeto 2. LAL Semi finals: 1 East X 2 West, 2 East X1 West New Jersey X LAL Boston X Sacramento If LAL & Sacramento win in the semifinal, they meet in the finals. Although, more travelling time but the finals should be more exciting and more competitive. That also will give extra incentive to the top team going from each conference to play the second best (not the best) team in the other conference in the semifinal.
