OT - Charles Barkley slams agents and predicts Superteams will lead to NBA lockout

[HairyCanary]

it’s difficult for some markets even with a foundation Milwaukee has a new arena and a top 5 player and most nba players don’t want to go there because of snow

So they're the NBA's Oilers then? What's the solution, though? Just move? Or would the Bucks fans be like soccer fans watching the Premier League's clubs like Bournemouth and Southampton, basically watching their teams be the equivalent of the "that's nice, dearie, but the grown-ups are talking" while the real teams like the Lakers and Celtics suck up all the prime talent?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

The maximum AAV contract allowed is too low for what the elite players bring to an NBA team.

There's a simple solution: raise the max contract so teams can't have 3 max players, and it hurts to have 2.

But that's assuming the NBA wants to fix the lack of parity.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

So they're the NBA's Oilers then? What's the solution, though? Just move? Or would the Bucks fans be like soccer fans watching the Premier League's clubs like Bournemouth and Southampton, basically watching their teams be the equivalent of the "that's nice, dearie, but the grown-ups are talking" while the real teams like the Lakers and Celtics suck up all the prime talent?

In the nhl you can trade one of the best players of all time and still win a cup two years later the bucks have won nothing since Kareem and Oscar left

 

[HairyCanary]

In the nhl you can trade one of the best players of all time and still win a cup two years later the bucks have won nothing since Kareem and Oscar left

That's why I asked what is to be done? Is Milwaukee destined to just be like Southampton is for Liverpool, a feeder club that basically does nothing but provide talent to the big market teams? I recall Utah fans thought much the same of their Jazz when Hayward left for Boston.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

That's why I asked what is to be done? Is Milwaukee destined to just be like Southampton is for Liverpool, a feeder club that basically does nothing but provide talent to the big market teams? I recall Utah fans thought much the same of their Jazz when Hayward left for Boston.

For things to change The owners have to take back power from the players. Fans hate roger godelll but he is great in Cba talks for the owners of the nfl. Adam silver is great for the players but He is supposed to work for the 30 owners not the players

 

[HairyCanary]

For things to change The owners have to take back power from the players. Fans hate roger godelll but he is great in Cba talks for the owners of the nfl. Adam silver is great for the players but He is supposed to work for the 30 owners not the players

But you can't force the players to pick small over big - I mean, if you were in their shoes, would you want to play in Milwaukee with all that snow? Or would you prefer Los Angeles or, if you don't mind the snow, New York? Most players want the glitz and the glamour, and cities like those provide so much of both.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

But you can't force the players to pick small over big - I mean, if you were in their shoes, would you want to play in Milwaukee with all that snow? Or would you prefer Los Angeles or, if you don't mind the snow, New York? Most players want the glitz and the glamour, and cities like those provide so much of both.

Every star player whould choose to go to a big market but A hard cap whould take those teams off the board if they where allready caped out. Or they could fold or regulate teams to a different league that way every team whould be competitive if there was a 15-20 team league

 

[HairyCanary]

A hard cap whould take those teams off the board if they where allready caped out. Or they could fold or regulate teams to a different league that way every team whould be competitive if there was a 15-20 team league

Fold teams? Might as well just fold everybody except the big cities then. Regulate? That also wouldn't work, because then nobody would get a chance in the big leagues because the big markets will flex their financial muscle to ensure the best talent sticks with them and not with some potential upstart.

 

[BigZ65]

The maximum AAV contract allowed is too low for what the elite players bring to an NBA team.

There's a simple solution: raise the max contract so teams can't have 3 max players, and it hurts to have 2.

But that's assuming the NBA wants to fix the lack of parity.

I think they need to have a NFL style cap with more restriction on "Bird Rights"/franchise tag kind of thing. NFL teams can go over the cap but they have to average out to be compliant over 3 seasons. It's not a hard cap like the NHL and allows teams to build and keep their stars but within reason.

The fact that one team could acquire the "Bird Rights" to a half-dozen superstars and just have to contend with the luxury tax is kind of stupid in a "cap" system.

 

[Deleted member 93465]

Some people on here will never understand this, such is their misconception about what drives fan interest, but super teams are vital to the growth of sports.

The most popular sports leagues around the world - the Euro soccer leagues and NBA - are dominated by super teams. People dont follow them because of parity. They want to see the best of the best play with and against one another. They follow their favorite players more than teams. Look at the NBA media this season. 60% of the stories and dialogue was about getting another star to play with Lebron. This is what millions of LBJ fans around the world tune into the nba for, not for the pelicans to be competitive.

If anything, NBAs popularity was built on dominant teams, even if they didnt classify as super teams. Lakers/Celtics...Bulls...Lakers/Spurs...GSW. Nothing new under the sun.

People taking a moral high ground about NHL or NFL having more parity simply dont realize how irrelevant this is to the future of sports.

Again, the most popular sports league around the world dont prioritize parity, so why is it so important?

Barkley may be a legend, but he’s also pretty thick.

 

[Dogewow]

Some people on here will never understand this, such is their misconception about what drives fan interest, but super teams are vital to the growth of sports.

The most popular sports leagues around the world - the Euro soccer leagues and NBA - are dominated by super teams. People dont follow them because of parity. They want to see the best of the best play with and against one another. They follow their favorite players more than teams. Look at the NBA media this season. 60% of the stories and dialogue was about getting another star to play with Lebron. This is what millions of LBJ fans around the world tune into the nba for, not for the pelicans to be competitive.

If anything, NBAs popularity was built on dominant teams, even if they didnt classify as super teams. Lakers/Celtics...Bulls...Lakers/Spurs...GSW. Nothing new under the sun.

People taking a moral high ground about NHL or NFL having more parity simply dont realize how irrelevant this is to the future of sports.

Again, the most popular sports league around the world dont prioritize parity, so why is it so important?

Barkley may be a legend, but he’s also pretty thick.

In leagues like the NBA, where the popularity of the sport and the league itself are driven by star players, parity may not be as important, but I still wouldn't say that it's irrelevant. If it gets totally out of control, and the legitimate star players of the league only go to 5-8 select markets across the league, then you have a problem. If I'm a Pelicans fan right now and have a full grasp on the situation at hand, then I'd be sick to my stomach of the NBA and would be turning it off for the foreseeable future.

I'd also argue that parity is much more important for a league like the NHL, where star players don't quite drive the popularity of the sport the way they would in a league like the NBA, and the game is much more team oriented.

 

[S E P H]

In leagues like the NBA, where the popularity of the sport and the league itself are driven by star players, parity may not be as important, but I still wouldn't say that it's irrelevant. If it gets totally out of control, and the legitimate star players of the league only go to 5-8 select markets across the league, then you have a problem. If I'm a Pelicans fan right now and have a full grasp on the situation at hand, then I'd be sick to my stomach of the NBA and would be turning it off for the foreseeable future.

I'd also argue that parity is much more important for a league like the NHL, where star players don't quite drive the popularity of the sport the way they would in a league like the NBA, and the game is much more team oriented.

Hockey is similar to Futball where the team is more important than the actual players out there. That's why you get many more comments from hardcore hockey fans screaming that they "bleed their teams colour" compared to the hardcore basketball fans who say they either "love or hate Lebron". Compared to futball and hockey, futball has a huge tradition in Europe and why it is so popular where hockey is still fairly regional-ized. The NBA model might be the only sport where it could work, but personally speaking I would hate knowing that my favourite team wouldn't have a chance of ever winning. I was talking to one of my friends who was Nuggets fan a couple years ago and he said he's a fan even knowing that they probably won't ever win a championship (that must be heartbreaking even though they've been good this season).

 

[DrMartinVanNostrand]

Some people on here will never understand this, such is their misconception about what drives fan interest, but super teams are vital to the growth of sports.

The most popular sports leagues around the world - the Euro soccer leagues and NBA - are dominated by super teams. People dont follow them because of parity. They want to see the best of the best play with and against one another. They follow their favorite players more than teams. Look at the NBA media this season. 60% of the stories and dialogue was about getting another star to play with Lebron. This is what millions of LBJ fans around the world tune into the nba for, not for the pelicans to be competitive.

If anything, NBAs popularity was built on dominant teams, even if they didnt classify as super teams. Lakers/Celtics...Bulls...Lakers/Spurs...GSW. Nothing new under the sun.

People taking a moral high ground about NHL or NFL having more parity simply dont realize how irrelevant this is to the future of sports.

Again, the most popular sports league around the world dont prioritize parity, so why is it so important?

Barkley may be a legend, but he’s also pretty thick.

I can't speak for the average person, but I used to be a bigger basketball fan a few years ago and my interest eventually waned simply because I thought "well, these teams play an 82-game season, and what does it accomplish?".

Lemme explain - Lebron's team has gone to the Finals eight straight years. If his team, whether it was Miami or Cleveland, lost a regular season game, who cares? Meant nothing. Indicated nothing. Would have zero bearing on how their season eventually turned out. The regular season basically means nothing which, well, you could argue "NHL regular season doesn't mean anything either", and I kinda agree with that - as a Lightning fan, nobody cares about what we do this season, and nobody should - but the NHL regular season still has a bit more inherent chaos, which can affect playoff positioning, which can affect matchups, which can affect potential upsets. How many genuine upsets do you ever see in the NBA postseason, honestly? I think there's been maybe 3-4 #1/#8 upsets in the entire history of the NBA playoffs, and at least one of those was thanks to Derrick Rose blowing out his ACL in Game 1 when he was at his very peak. We see #1/#8 upsets in the NHL all the time. If the Lightning face the Penguins, g-d forbid, we may well see another one this year.

It's not the biggest reason my interest in basketball died out. NHL and NBA compete directly and I only have time to really follow one of them. I like hockey better, and so that won out. But it didn't help, either; if I feel like there's nothing useful I'm going to get out of watching a given sporting event, then why am I watching it? And that's not even touching on the media attention that the NBA gets on a national level which I would describas nothing more than useless, reactionary nonsense. The #HotTaek phenomenom is one of the worst diseases that has plagued sporting conversation in a long time, and since hockey doesn't get as much attention, thankfully, it's not as big a problem in this sport as it is in basketball and football; goodness is it awful in those sports.

 

[HisIceness]

I would say that somewhere Bettman is watching the tire fire that is the NBA and laughing but the NHL is probably going to be headed for a lockout too so probably not.

That said the NBA is becoming more and more of a hilarious mess.

 

[BigZ65]

Some people on here will never understand this, such is their misconception about what drives fan interest, but super teams are vital to the growth of sports.

The most popular sports leagues around the world - the Euro soccer leagues and NBA - are dominated by super teams. People dont follow them because of parity. They want to see the best of the best play with and against one another. They follow their favorite players more than teams. Look at the NBA media this season. 60% of the stories and dialogue was about getting another star to play with Lebron. This is what millions of LBJ fans around the world tune into the nba for, not for the pelicans to be competitive.

If anything, NBAs popularity was built on dominant teams, even if they didnt classify as super teams. Lakers/Celtics...Bulls...Lakers/Spurs...GSW. Nothing new under the sun.

People taking a moral high ground about NHL or NFL having more parity simply dont realize how irrelevant this is to the future of sports.

Again, the most popular sports league around the world dont prioritize parity, so why is it so important?

Barkley may be a legend, but he’s also pretty thick.

Euro soccer is a pretty difficult comparison. I mean if there was a Champions League where the Warriors actually had competition the lack of domestic parity would be less troublesome. At some point there has to be competition. Chances are the Warriors go through the playoffs 16-2 or something stupid. Superteams aren't bad, but you still need to have 4-5 of them for it to be entertaining.

 

[Deleted member 93465]

Euro soccer is a pretty difficult comparison. I mean if there was a Champions League where the Warriors actually had competition the lack of domestic parity would be less troublesome. At some point there has to be competition. Chances are the Warriors go through the playoffs 16-2 or something stupid. Superteams aren't bad, but you still need to have 4-5 of them for it to be entertaining.

And yet Real Madrid has won 4 of the last 5 Champions Leagues, and no one is questioning the integrity of the competition like they are with the NBA.

You're right about needing more than 1 superteam (I'd argue you only need 2), and that's exactly what the NBA should be striving towards. Instead of sticking every top 20 player on 20 different teams, which seems to be the fascination among the parity-loving brigade, they're far better off having 4 of the top 20 on 5 different teams.

Just look at the media's coverage of the NBA. It's all about stars, it's all about the prospect of one star playing with another. It generates so much interest for the sport. And yet people turn around and rant about parity? What?

The NBA leaves the NFL and NHL in the dust in global popularity. People screaming about parity need to keep that in focus when they get on their high horse to lecture basketball on why it should focus on parity. You can look towards the NBA and see what makes it so popular, and try to learn and emulate that. Or you can hold on for dear life to parity and watch the NBA continue to hog headlines year round.

The NFL isn't popular because of parity. It's popular because football is popular. Parity won't help the NHL because hockey as a whole doesn't have widespread popularity in the States. But I guarantee you there'd be broader interest in the sport n the mainstream if there were more bonafide superteams.

 

[LeHab]

The NFL isn't popular because of parity. It's popular because football is popular. Parity won't help the NHL because hockey as a whole doesn't have widespread popularity in the States. But I guarantee you there'd be broader interest in the sport n the mainstream if there were more bonafide superteams.

Accessibility and Megastars drive global interest in a league. We all know NHL doesn't do a good job at promoting its stars but this is much easier said than done. Forwards spend only about 1/3 of the game on ice vs Soccer almost 100% and NBA 80-90%. MLB has the same challenge. NFL has QBs but not many countries play football at any level. Soccer/basketball have very low entry cost for recreational play and as such is already everywhere.

 

[Deleted member 93465]

Accessibility and Megastars drive global interest in a league. We all know NHL doesn't do a good job at promoting its stars but this is much easier said than done. Forwards spend only about 1/3 of the game on ice vs Soccer almost 100% and NBA 80-90%. MLB has the same challenge. NFL has QBs but not many countries play football at any level. Soccer/basketball have very low entry cost for recreational play and as such is already everywhere.

Agreed. Youve just described why parity may be a talking point in basketball, but it's not going to make a difference to its popularity. Some sports have inherent advantages, as you outlined.

NBA players not only spend more time on court, they also have way more of the ball than any other sport. And they dont wear helmets. It's the easiest sport to create megastars.

 

[offkilter]

This isn't entirely true. Warriors run can't last forever, and once it ends the league will be more competitive than ever.

No, no it won't. Superteams aren't a new thing. Outside of the 70s which saw 8 different NBA champions there has always been that one or two superteams and a bunch of non competing scrubs. The Warriors now, early 2000's Lakers, 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers, 60s Celtics, 50s Lakers, etc.

It's not a good look that just 5 teams own 50 championships in a league that's 72 years old.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Fold teams? Might as well just fold everybody except the big cities then. Regulate? That also wouldn't work, because then nobody would get a chance in the big leagues because the big markets will flex their financial muscle to ensure the best talent sticks with them and not with some potential upstart.

That's why the NBA needs a hard cap and not one where you can go over to sign your "home" talent.