Can't be a good GM without developing a talented roster. In the NBA, the bench is where you tell a good GM. A good GM can have a tough time getting the star(s) as it is usually easy for even a bad GM to spot them.
On one hand, what you're describing - taken to the extreme - is March Madness, and that's extraordinarily popular and unpredictable. But on the other, part of the parity differences between the two leagues are driven by the nature of the game rather than the "luck" factor of March Madness. With a 12 man roster and 5 starters, one player makes a huge impact in basketball that you just don't see in football. So having a few good players in the NBA makes you good - that creates the stability you see in the NBA but not in the NFL. What makes NFL parity exciting is not that a bad team upsets a good team - it's that a bad team can legtimately become good really fast. In the NBA, that wouldn't be the case even if you shortened the season and the playoffs.
I'm not sure you really need to meet in the middle, particularly in the NBA. Take the Celtics for example. Doc Rivers was generally considered a mediocre at best coach and the GM was considered a pretty bad GM. All of a sudden two hall of famers fall in their laps and they win a title. In the MLB you can look at Joe Torre. Basically a bad manager his entire career until he winds up managing a team full of studs and he wins 4 rings. After leaving he ends up being pretty mediocre again. Talent is the single most important aspect of success when it comes to professional sports teams.
Danny Ainge was considered a bad GM. He ended up lucking into a talented roster and now has a ring. Mitch Kupchack was doing NOTHING as the GM in LA until he got gifted Pau Gasol.
I think that's more true in football than basketball. In basketball, you can be a great GM, but if the opportunity never presents itself to get one of the top 3-4 players in the league, you'll probably still never win a championship, no matter how good moves you make otherwise.
I agree completely! The NFL is the one league where I think the importance of a GM is heightened. It's still not more important than talent though, it's just the means to get the talent you need.
I'm not suggesting shortening it drastically, or going to single elimination playoffs though. I think that reigning it in some would help the league's popularity, that's all. You can't change the nature of the game, but you can change the parameters that guide it on a macro level. 51 game regular season. (play each division opponent 4 times, each conf opponent twice, and each non-conf once) Best of 5 for each playoff series? (maybe best of 3 for round one, especially if they keep the 8 team playoff format) Edit* ok nevermind, maybe that is a big overhaul, heh
Oh I agree - the NBA regular season is just silly. It doesn't take 82 games to figure out who's a legitimate playoff contender. I think 5 game playoff series would really enhance the excitement (along with less days between games in the playoffs). Unfortunately, short term $$ drives those decisions, and you can sell more tickets to 82 games than to 50.
