-
Down with GLOBALISM
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Originally Posted by coin24
The leagues turned into a joke now, it really will be just the cavs and warriors next season..
I'd rather see one star player per team, this teaming up bullshit is ruining the league..
This years playoffs were some of the worst I've ever seen
I would be happy with that. One star player on one max contract per team. One salary cap amount that CANNOT be breached, no luxury taxes etc.
Let's also make the draft incentive based, now that there's an even playing field for all teams with cap limitations.
-
Local High School Star
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Most championship teams throughout history are super teams. This isn't some new thing, those Celtic teams that dominated the 60s, that's about as super a team as you'll find. You have odd years when a Pistons team wins but those years are rare.
There is a healthy amount of competition in the league right now. 4 different champions in the past 4 years. What more do people want?
People think they want parity but no one here is watching if the NBA Finals is the Milwaukee Bucks vs the Utah Jazz.
-
NBA Finals MVP
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
I'm not against Superteams but too many of them at the same time would definitely water down the league.
-
Maeru Perinawa Achali
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
The star system is the real problem. Phantom calls, favorable refs, untouchable status, inflated stats, etc.
In such a system, team ball is punished, or at least, is not benefited. Ergo, most teams want to have as much stars (or fake stars) as they can. That's the easy way to success in this fraudulent system.
-
3-time NBA All-Star
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Not when it f#cks over OKC.
-
Reds/Bengals/Cavs
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Yes and no. There is added intrigue and I'm sure ratings will soar through the roof for their games, but it feels like some NBA franchises only exist because the superstars of the game have to place other teams besides one another.
-
NBA Legend
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Originally Posted by francesco totti
Superteams arent bad for short period of time, but not long.
Something like Miami Heat was good for league, for 4 years. But not extended period of 7 - 8 years.. Same team winning.
I think the league is in good position. Since 2010, 7 championships 6 teams different won.
Ya really can't call a 24 loss 2 seed a super team like the 2011 Heat were.
-
Local High School Star
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Originally Posted by mlh1981
Yes and no. There is added intrigue and I'm sure ratings will soar through the roof for their games, but it feels like some NBA franchises only exist because the superstars of the game have to place other teams besides one another.
Well, just the same, every team out there isn't even trying to win an NBA championship. Donald Sterling owned the Clippers for years only concerned with turning a profit. He isn't the only one.
I'm sure all of them would say on the record that they want to win a championship but how many are willing to pay exorbitant luxury tax to get the players you need to do it?
The system isn't perfect but it adequate. Owners shouldn't be able to squeeze every last nickel out of their franchise and be in position to win a championship. Winning comes at a cost.
Last edited by Goldrush25; 07-13-2016 at 04:57 PM.
-
... on a leash
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Originally Posted by Solefade
Bird's celtics weren't a super team?
the show time lakers weren't a super team?
MJ's bulls weren't a super team?
i'm not debating if KD's move was a bitch move because that's pretty obvious
You dont understand.... the Warriors were ALREADY a super team. But that was fine. It made things interesting....
but to have a super team, ADD ANOTHER top 3 player?
THATS the unprecedented thing... the term super team doesnt even do them justice anymore. Its an UBER super team.
-
... on a leash
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Originally Posted by Doranku
It's more than just a high chance. Both the Cavs and Warriors could lose their best player and still be the heavy favorites to win their respective conferences.
The league is a joke right now.
Cavs favorites without LeBron? What fantasy world are you living in
-
Playoff Rondo
-
... on a leash
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Originally Posted by Doranku
Who's gonna beat a Kyrie/Love/TT core in the East?
The trash bros? The Dwight Howard-led Hawks? Maybe the Celtics if Olynyk decides to rip KLove's arm out of its socket again.
Kyrie just showed what he's capable of doing in the playoffs. Love in a second option role would be a much better fit for him.
It's not as set in stone as it'd be for the Warriors obviously, but they could easily compete with any other team in the East. You guys are sleeping on Kyrie, honestly.
They always go to shit without LeBron's presence on the court....
thats why this team is 4-16 without LeBron the last two years.
Love is a glorified Kyle Korver at this point. TT is like an equal to Biyombo. Damn right Im taking the Raps, Hawks, C's, Pistons... CHI with Wade/Butler, NY, and IND would be close, too.
-
"3 is greater than 2"
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Super teams have always controlled the NBA, the main difference is that before free agency existed there was no chance for those who didn't luck into drafting the best players.
The Celtics won EIGHT titles consecutively, yet people are going to cry foul because LeBron joined Miami and won TWO, or even worse you have people losing their minds over Durant and he hasn't even played a single game with Golden State, its a joke!
The 80s were extremely top heavy, did I really see a certain Jordan stan bring up the Hawks like they were a force, lmao, please stop the madness!
The NBA is better than ever from all sides, the game itself and popularity wise, hate it or love it, Adam Silver is making things happen!
-
Since 1974
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Weak Era
-
Local High School Star
Re: Lets discuss: Are super teams really bad for the NBA?
Originally Posted by CuterThanRubio
Super teams have always controlled the NBA, the main difference is that before free agency existed there was no chance for those who didn't luck into drafting the best players.
The Celtics won EIGHT titles consecutively, yet people are going to cry foul because LeBron joined Miami and won TWO, or even worse you have people losing their minds over Durant and he hasn't even played a single game with Golden State, its a joke!
The 80s were extremely top heavy, did I really see a certain Jordan stan bring up the Hawks like they were a force, lmao, please stop the madness!
The NBA is better than ever from all sides, the game itself and popularity wise, hate it or love it, Adam Silver is making things happen!
yup this what it is all about good post
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|