What happened to parity?

[Mr Charisma 0]

Sorry, but I attempted to reply to my 1st post in creating this thread, and it replaced the original instead of creating it as a 2nd post.

 

My purpose of this thread is to question why parity does not exist in the NBA. Only 3 teams are within 4 games of .500 (Portland, Washington and Sacramento).

 

Yet the NFL is the gold standard of parity, with seemingly half the teams each year having records in the 9-7 to 7-9 range.

 

So my questions are:

 

 

1) Isn't one of the goals of the salary cap to create a balanced playing field?

 

Yes, but the cap is too soft to have that intended impact.

 

2) Does the NBA prefer the polarization to parity?

 

No, simply because they have way too many teams eliminated from playoff contention at the all-star break, or soon after. That results in loss of ticket sales, and accompanying revenue streams. And, worst of all, it creates fan apathy in those markets, which is the kiss of death for a sports franchise. Our market is still trying to recover the fans that have been lost over this long stretch of sub-par performances year after year.

 

3) And, finally, why is this happening?

 

The obvious answer would be that the NBA seems to have more than it's share of owners and GMs with, shall we say, questionable abilities relevant to team management and building.

 

But from a league perspective, I believe it stems from the fact that, unlike a sport like football, a single player can take you from a Nobody to a Someone in a flash. Thus, once teams get about halfway through the season, you have a significant percentage of teams that simply are coached to lose games. Not in the sense of "Let's go out and lose against Indiana tonight", but more "Let's play to develop our players, and not overly concern ourselves with winning each and every game." Basically, the system rewards teams for being bad.

 

The solution? Hey, I'm here to present problems, not solve them (just in case you were wondering why I am here).

 

I would look into doing two things:

 

1) Harden the salary cap. It's simply way too easy for teams to get around the salary cap rules. Obviously, this is easier said than done, and would be tough to get the union to accept it, unless you raise the salary cap numbers to such a level that the trade-off is worth it to the players overall.

 

2) Get rid of the weighted lottery picks. Any team that does not make the playoffs have equal opportunity to get the 1st (or 14th) draft pick. This should discourage teams from just throwing an entire season like the Celtics of last year and the Heat of this year. Also, I expect that this change would not require a renegotiation of the CBA, which is not the case with my 1st suggestion.

 

I realize that neither of these suggestions are new ideas, but either of them could lead to more parity.

 

And I'll leave you with one final question:

 

Do YOU want parity?

[Mr Charisma 0]

Sorry, but I attempted to reply to my 1st post in creating this thread, and it replaced the original instead of creating it as a 2nd post.

 

My purpose of this thread is to question why parity does not exist in the NBA. Only 3 teams are within 4 games of .500 (Portland, Washington and Sacramento).

 

Yet the NFL is the gold standard of parity, with seemingly half the teams each year having records in the 9-7 to 7-9 range.

 

So my questions are:

 

 

1) Isn't one of the goals of the salary cap to create a balanced playing field?

 

Yes, but the cap is too soft to have that intended impact.

 

2) Does the NBA prefer the polarization to parity?

 

No, simply because they have way too many teams eliminated from playoff contention at the all-star break, or soon after. That results in loss of ticket sales, and accompanying revenue streams. And, worst of all, it creates fan apathy in those markets, which is the kiss of death for a sports franchise. Our market is still trying to recover the fans that have been lost over this long stretch of sub-par performances year after year.

 

3) And, finally, why is this happening?

 

The obvious answer would be that the NBA seems to have more than it's share of owners and GMs with, shall we say, questionable abilities relevant to team management and building.

 

But from a league perspective, I believe it stems from the fact that, unlike a sport like football, a single player can take you from a Nobody to a Someone in a flash. Thus, once teams get about halfway through the season, you have a significant percentage of teams that simply are coached to lose games. Not in the sense of "Let's go out and lose against Indiana tonight", but more "Let's play to develop our players, and not overly concern ourselves with winning each and every game." Basically, the system rewards teams for being bad.

 

The solution? Hey, I'm here to present problems, not solve them (just in case you were wondering why I am here).

 

I would look into doing two things:

 

1) Harden the salary cap. It's simply way too easy for teams to get around the salary cap rules. Obviously, this is easier said than done, and would be tough to get the union to accept it, unless you raise the salary cap numbers to such a level that the trade-off is worth it to the players overall.

 

2) Get rid of the weighted lottery picks. Any team that does not make the playoffs have equal opportunity to get the 1st (or 14th) draft pick. This should discourage teams from just throwing an entire season like the Celtics of last year and the Heat of this year. Also, I expect that this change would not require a renegotiation of the CBA, which is not the case with my 1st suggestion.

 

I realize that neither of these suggestions are new ideas, but either of them could lead to more parity.

 

And I'll leave you with one final question:

 

Do YOU want parity?

[Mat 4]

I want it. And i agree on this, but sadly this isnot only sport, this is half bussiness and sometimes seems all bussiness. i don