2016-17 NBA PLAYOFFS THREAD
- Thread starter Elizah Huge
- Start date
The NBA has never had parity. It's just kind of exaggerated right now. The playoffs would have been way better if some key injuries didnt happen.
mellow
Well-Known Member
Probably not. I might catch a few minutes of a game of two. i just don't find a compelling story to draw my attention. I've seen the same story with the same cast the last two seasons.
I realize I am old and too inclined to nostalgia and stories of human triumph. Not even the beautiful ball played by gs nor lebrons unparalleled individual performance is enough to hold my attention.
Perhaps if the story changes dramatically...Lebron goes down when the Cavs are down 3-2 and the cavs force a game 7 or something.
Yeah, you must just not be a basketball fan.
How does the possible greatest player ever vs what might be the greatest team ever assembled not interest you?
Yeah, it'd be cool if their roads to the Finals were tougher, but this is the best Finals matchup possible.
Yeah, it'd be cool if their roads to the Finals were tougher, but this is the best Finals matchup possible.
I wanna watch a League where all 30 teams have equal chance to compete for the Finals not just watching 2 super teams going to the Final year in year out. I'm sick of it.
Trust me, you don't. I want more teams to be competitive, but having a top heavy league is probably best. If all teams were equally talent dispersed, Lebron would just mow through everyone. The nature of the NBA is just counter-intuitive to parity. One player can really control a game, so the best players are always going to dominate. Then some of the really good players who arent the best are going to team up so they can try to beat the best. It's just how it is.
I mean, just appreciate what is going on. It sucks as a hardcore Jazz fan, but I enjoy it as a NBA fan.
This year injuries hurt more than anything. The West is usually a competitive grind to get to the Finals. Injuries hurt the Jazz, Spurs, and Blazers from taking games off the Warriors. Lebron has owned the East for the past 7 years, so nothing has changed there.
I'm not scared of LeBron. The Jazz have had his number for years.
I've been thinking lately about the NBA Draft. I was listening to a podcast w/ Kevin Arnovitz about abolishing the draft and making it all free agency based. Anyone who wanted to enter the NBA could choose their team based on w/e the teams are willing to offer for their services.
At first I balked at the idea, but the more I think about it the more I love it. That would really help to solve the NBA's problem and make more teams really good. Yes, it would probably also make some teams super ****ty, but those teams probably deserve to be super ****ty. Teams like the Kings have been in the lottery for 10 straight years for a reason, the NBA needs to stop trying to help them by giving them top draft picks.
Under a free labor system, that would let the best run teams attract the best possible talent. Of course Utah would be at somewhat a competitive disadvantage since most young NBA prospects probably aren't psyched about living in Utah, but at least the ones who chose Utah there wouldn't have to be this fan paranoia about the player secretly hating Utah since he chose to play here. I also think Utah would have a big competitive advantage since they are a good team who has a reputation at developing talent. Also, it would let Utah have a chance at top talent every year. Is there a chance this year that we could attract Markelle Fultz? Probably unlikely, but maybe he looks at our team being stacked and playoff ready, but just missing a top tier PG and he joins Utah. Maybe Hayward leaves and the Jazz all the sudden have a huge hole at SF. Maybe Utah then can attract someone like Jayson Tatum for the same reason they would be able to attract Fultz.
Rookies would largely go to teams that had open roster minutes and were well run and able to develop talent, as to maximize their earning potential. Some guys might also value that along with a winning culture and veteran team set around them (but not at their position). Imagine all those teams in the NBA were you say "Oh, they have a great team but they are just 1 more all-star talent away at X position". There is no way that team can fill that talent gap unless they get super lucky picking in the draft w/ late picks. This way good teams can become great much more easily if they can present themselves attractively. Sure, some guys would just go to LA/Miami/NYC because of the market size, but only so many young talented players can go to the same team.
I just think this is by far the better system for parity and the current system that rewards ****ty play is terrible. It just incentives losing and it's not really making bad teams good. It just hurts the good-great teams who arent elite. There needs to be major draft reform if we want to fix parity. We can't reward ****ty teams over rewarding good teams. This system would help the well run teams and it would completely eliminate tanking. No one would want to look like a ****ty incompetent team because that wouldn't be a good look to the incoming FA rookie class.
This idea is probably too radical for the NBA to truly accept, but it would be tight if they did. American sports has had drafts as a staple, but are they really necessary, fair, or good for the game?
At first I balked at the idea, but the more I think about it the more I love it. That would really help to solve the NBA's problem and make more teams really good. Yes, it would probably also make some teams super ****ty, but those teams probably deserve to be super ****ty. Teams like the Kings have been in the lottery for 10 straight years for a reason, the NBA needs to stop trying to help them by giving them top draft picks.
Under a free labor system, that would let the best run teams attract the best possible talent. Of course Utah would be at somewhat a competitive disadvantage since most young NBA prospects probably aren't psyched about living in Utah, but at least the ones who chose Utah there wouldn't have to be this fan paranoia about the player secretly hating Utah since he chose to play here. I also think Utah would have a big competitive advantage since they are a good team who has a reputation at developing talent. Also, it would let Utah have a chance at top talent every year. Is there a chance this year that we could attract Markelle Fultz? Probably unlikely, but maybe he looks at our team being stacked and playoff ready, but just missing a top tier PG and he joins Utah. Maybe Hayward leaves and the Jazz all the sudden have a huge hole at SF. Maybe Utah then can attract someone like Jayson Tatum for the same reason they would be able to attract Fultz.
Rookies would largely go to teams that had open roster minutes and were well run and able to develop talent, as to maximize their earning potential. Some guys might also value that along with a winning culture and veteran team set around them (but not at their position). Imagine all those teams in the NBA were you say "Oh, they have a great team but they are just 1 more all-star talent away at X position". There is no way that team can fill that talent gap unless they get super lucky picking in the draft w/ late picks. This way good teams can become great much more easily if they can present themselves attractively. Sure, some guys would just go to LA/Miami/NYC because of the market size, but only so many young talented players can go to the same team.
I just think this is by far the better system for parity and the current system that rewards ****ty play is terrible. It just incentives losing and it's not really making bad teams good. It just hurts the good-great teams who arent elite. There needs to be major draft reform if we want to fix parity. We can't reward ****ty teams over rewarding good teams. This system would help the well run teams and it would completely eliminate tanking. No one would want to look like a ****ty incompetent team because that wouldn't be a good look to the incoming FA rookie class.
This idea is probably too radical for the NBA to truly accept, but it would be tight if they did. American sports has had drafts as a staple, but are they really necessary, fair, or good for the game?
Yeah because the Jazz have two top twenty players rn. If you want true parity, the Jazz would have to give up Hayward or Gobert to a team like Charlotte who doesnt have a top 30 player.
All I'm asking for is a hard cap to achieve more parity than there is now.
Yeah but if that's at the expense of 28 other teams having absolutely no chance at making the Finals then I don't want it.
There is a reason for having 30 teams in the League. It's designed to be more unpredictable and exciting. Like Mellow said - if the Finals are determined in July, then what's the point of watching games in the regular season?
Hard cap is stupid. I dont agree with putting a limit on how much people can make if people are able to pay them.
No, that is no the reason for having 30 teams. They have that many teams people wanted to own NBA teams and the NBA thought they could make that many teams work/be profitable. The NBA is first and foremost a business. People seem to forget that.
The NBA could have cut small market teams and can still be very profitable. Why aren't they doing that? It's because the viewers need variety. Not just the same old teams making the Finals year in year out.
It's a balancing act to keep it interesting & being profitable. That's why they're dragging along these smaller teams.
Because those small market teams want to exist and they are in regions where they need teams I guess? Small market teams are fine. You know Cleveland is a small market team, right? There were X amount of teams at one point then the NBA said "Hey, I think we can add more teams and there are people who want to be owners of teams" so they added more teams.
I outlined a rule change that would make more parity. A hard cap isnt a good move. Less restrictions should be put on teams if anything.
1. Abolish Draft
2. Abolish max contracts
I never said small market teams aren't fine. I love it. I like variety. That's what I've been saying all along. I don't want the same teams making the Finals year in year out.
What I'm saying is if the League is gonna have them in the League, they need to have a system whereby these smaller market teams can compete with the likes of Golden States that don't mind paying the Luxury tax.
Golden State hasnt payed a LT the last 3 years man. A small market team could have done what they did. So far it has nothing to do with there market size. They drafted extremely well, found a great coach, and got lucky their transcendent super-star had some bad ankles and blew up after he signed a bargain contract. They did all that so well it attracted a super-star who was tired of playing in an isolation "my turn/your turn" system who happens to be one of the best scorers of all time. It's just a lot of freak occurrences that will probably never happen again. Enjoy it while it's here and dont cry about it too much. Golden State and Cleveland had been terrible franchises for decades, so you got your wish of seeing different teams at the top of the NBA pecking order.