Competitive balance? The NBA has always been dominated by a few teams with the best players. It doesn't matter how they get there, whether the team drafts and develops or signs them through free agency.

 

Wade and Lebron wouldn't be much different than Jordan and Pippen in the '90's.

 

I'm with GT. Compare the interest level when the Lakers and Celtics were dominatin the 80's, when the Bulls controlled the '90's, when LA won 3 straight, the recent run of Celtics and Lakers to the lull in between that was San Antonio, Miami and Detroit.

 

Lebron and D-Wade teaming up would be great for the NBA...it doesn't matter if Bosh is included or not, IMO.

 

I do think the one key difference in this case is that these guys have a much larger window potentially. All are in their prime with some good years left. If it clicks with them and they stay healthy, they could string off quite a string of titles. The trio in Boston was a little older. Still, its good for the league. Individual players have a much more significant impact in basketball, so the NBA has never had "competitive" balance like the NFL has achieved. And, they never will.

There already are two Super Teams now in the league in the Lakers and Celtics IMO. They may not have the star power of a James, Wade, Bosh trio, but both of those teams are more stacked than the Spurs, Pistons, or even the Heat Championship team were.

 

I don't think this power trio would be good for the NBA in the short term. Next season would be big because it would be new, but if they donminated people would get bored. But, I think it could end up being the return of the really popular NBA for good. It will resemble NBA in the 80s with big power teams, and that may have been the best era in NBA history.

 

Could you imagine future trios of:

-Celtics with Rondo, Dwight Howard and Melo.

-Knicks with Amare, Joe Johnson and CP3.

-Thunder adding Brook Lopez with Durant and Westbrook.

-Lakers picking up Deron Williams to pair with a veteran Kobe and Gasol.

 

That would leave for some poor teams, but the playoffs would be awesome.

The thread has nothing to do with NBA revenue and viewers it was about the competitive nature of the league and IMO I don't think there would be any competition, especially in the East..

 

Actually, it has everything to do with revenue and viewers, competetive balance was only mentioned as a potential negative, not the main question at hand. When asked if it is good for the league one can not help but to think solely about $$$ because if we were running the league that is all that would matter. I'm sure league execs and owners would much rather make money hand over fist than have a competetive league.

I do think that a team that has played together for years can beat a team that is thrown together in a year.

 

Hey if Orlando trades or cuts VC then we can talk. No team with Vince Carter playing major minutes will ever be likely to bring home a title IMO.

Actually, it has everything to do with revenue and viewers, competetive balance was only mentioned as a potential negative, not the main question at hand. When asked if it is good for the league one can not help but to think solely about $$$ because if we were running the league that is all that would matter. I'm sure league execs and owners would much rather make money hand over fist than have a competetive league.

 

You must not have read the 2nd part of my post.

You must not have read the 2nd part of my post.

 

I did, just didn't comment on it. You talk about ratings, but that is not the only way to make money. When the Yankees and Socks go on the road to these bottom dwellers, it may not net great tv ratings, but I am sure they fill the seats.

I did, just didn't comment on it. You talk about ratings, but that is not the only way to make money. When the Yankees and Socks go on the road to these bottom dwellers, it may not net great tv ratings, but I am sure they fill the seats.

 

So you'd rather fill the seats and have crappy TV ratings than fill the seats anyways and have good TV ratings?

So you'd rather fill the seats and have crappy TV ratings than fill the seats anyways and have good TV ratings?

 

No, not really saying that. Is the NBA filling the seats along with having good tv ratings now? I'm pretty sure that is not happening. I'm not sure that you will have both either way in most markets, if it is possible then I would be all for it. But IMO, 2 mediocre teams playing is never going to draw the fans or tv rating of a matchup that includes a powerhouse and a cellar dweller, you will not get the casual fan to care about those sort of matchups no matter what.

 

All I am saying is that in the end it is about the all mighty dollar. A more top heavy league will make more money because it will pull more of the casual fan into the sport to watch these great teams. Revert back to the posts regarding the NBA in the 80's and during the Bulls' run(s) in the 90's when the league was at it's best. It wasn't about competition, it was about putting a good product on the floor, no one cared who the Lakers or Bulls were playing because they weren't watching for the other team. Do the Globetrotters ever lose? Are they still the most popular basketball team in the world? Do you ever remember a team or player that they have played against?

 

The NBA is run off of pure star power and nothing else, put a group of stars in one place and people will watch/go to games/buy merchandise, not just people, but people who otherwise wouldn't do those things. How many casual sports fans do you know or interact with that are "fans" of the Lakers, Cowboys, Steelers, Yankees, or Redsox? Is it because they win competetive games or simply because they win?

 

I don't totally disagree with what you are saying because I would much rather see a competetive league, but the NBA already has me hooked so they need not worry about getting my money. It's the chumps that don't know the elbow from their elbow that this will hook and that is where the money is.

Just like Boston in 2008. They were thrown together and got stomped that year. :lol:

 

 

 

As I said in a previous post if the super stars buy into the team concept then it could work. the celtics did that.

A good example of that IMO is the Pistons team that won the title. They had no where close to the talent of that Lakers team with Shaq, Kobe, Payton, Malone, etc.

 

 

:thumb::thumb:

I get so tired of hearing all that "small market" talk. Cleveland is a small market and just spends a lot of money on useless players. Same in baseball, everyone whines about the teams that spend money when David Glass owned the Royals for years and refused to spend his money. I think it is good for the league. If you don't want to reinvest your $$ on your team, either get out of the business or don't whine about it.

 

Its different in baseball than in the NBA or even football. There is no salary cap and no revenue sharing in baseball. That destroys small market teams.

Example, even when Cleveland was awesome in the mid to late 90s, winning the central every year and making two world series appearances... they were LOSING money. And they didnt have a huge payroll.