kingsfan
President of the Todd McLellan fan club by default
scaredsensfan said:Looking over the last 20 years of the NBA:
Chicago Bulls- 6 championships
Los Angeles Lakers - 5 championships
Detroit Pistons- 3 championships
San Antonio Spurs- 3 championships
Houston Rockets - 2 championiships
Boston Celtics - 1 championship
I see one smaller market team on that list. Small market wins in the NBA last 20 years: 3/20 = 15%.
With 85% of the Wins coming from cities at or near the top 10 in population is hardly a coincidence. The NBA gives an illusion of fairness when in fact it is not really fair at all.
Looking over the last 20 years in the NHL, on the other hand:
Tampa Bay
New Jersey
Detroit
Colorado
Dallas
New York Rangers
Montreal
Pittsburgh
Edmonton
Calgary
10 champions in 20 years in the NHL. 6 champions in 20 years in the NBA. Not only that, but champions in the NHL include small market Calgary and Edmonton, small to mid market Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh and Denver (Colorado), Mid to large market Montreal Detroit and Dallas, and "large market" New Jersey (and we all know the reveneus they generate are hardly large market) and New York. Considering Jersey as amid market team is probably more fair, but I'll concede that the area has a large population.
They wont be all exactly the same every season, but this will all but elimintate elite teams (by elite i mean 5 or more seasons at or near the top). The elimination of these elite teams has to transfer over somewhere. All it will do is make the elite teams "good" or "very good" (but only for a short period) which will increase the nujbmer of good teams. This of course, for any one using a brain, means that if their team, seeing as they can only be good and not great, is on par with 12 other teams lets say in teh good category (the top 6 in each conference) then they will have LESS of a chance of winning than if their team was elite. I can understand where the fans come from from teams who are mismanaged and want an easy way out (kinda looking in your direction, Edmonton) but its not what its cracked up to be.
NFL teams can be "good" but they often look good simply because their competition is on avergae quite weak. SImilar to the OIlers of the 80s, although they were a great team, the competition around them is not even close to the level of competition that exists currently in the NHL or in the 90s. NOt coincidentally this coincided with the influx of European talent.
Higher scoring games, for the most part, are a ersult of more disparity, not parity. So any doofuses that believe that more equal teams will increase scoring need to realize that this is counter intuitive. The only way average scoring increases is with kooky rule changes and forced winners in games (shootouts). The parity will not be the reason for the goal scoring to go up.
C'mon man. I'm not familiar with when the NBA went to a cap system, so I won;t dicuss that part of it, but if you are going to go at it about the 10 different champs in 20 years in the NHL, it's like discussing night and day. If the 1985 Edmonton Oilers were actually playing in 2004, that team would be sent flying to all corners of the NHL map because there is no way that the Oilers could have kept even half that team together. Why not discuss Cup champs since the last CBA, the one that caused all the financial ruin, came in? Since 1995, the cup champs are:
NJ (3x)
Det (3x)
Colorado (2x)
Dallas
T-Bay
That's one small market in 10 years. That's what? 10%? Even lower than your NBA model.
As for a run of 5 years 'at or near the top', what do you define as at or near the top? How many championship final appearances/victories does that include?