The NBA expansion in recent year has done nothing but make the league a more mediocre product.
If the league were to lose 2 teams, things would be back to normal.
Just look at free agency. Anyone who's 7 feet tall gets 10 to 20 million (think of Brian Grant, Kwame Brown)
With 2 less teams, there'd be more quality mid-level players available, and free agents would have less suitors, so there wouldn't be those ridiculous contracts that players like Alan Houston, Kwame Brown, Brian Grant.... are getting.
though with so many teams it has diluted the talent pool. you can make a case that each team has a All Star caliber player now. with so much parity, the concept of dynasty is now dead.
The NBA takes players form all over the world these days. The talent pool is not diluted b/c it is now so much larger than before.
What killed dynasties is the salary cap and free agency. Its a good thing that teams like the Lakers and Celtics can no longer hoard all of the very best players for themselves.
There's definitely too many teams. Less teams means more games against your division and conference. Or, you could do what hockey does. Eight games against each team in your division, four games against all other teams in your conference, and ten games against the other conference.
expansion has made the NBA some great cash but its definitely watered down the league.
before 1995 almost every team had pretty nice depth. now with the addition of Toronto, Vancouver, and Charlotte there's 36 players in the league somewhere that would've been cut 12 years ago for not being good enough. it hurts depth, it spreads out the talent (we wont see anymore teams with 3 or 4 hall of famers at once), and it lowers the quality of the overall product.
still with the the 90s-00s expansion thats 50,000 some more fans that can watch an NBA game in person.
expansion has made the NBA some great cash but its definitely watered down the league.
before 1995 almost every team had pretty nice depth. now with the addition of Toronto, Vancouver, and Charlotte there's 36 players in the league somewhere that would've been cut 12 years ago for not being good enough. it hurts depth, it spreads out the talent (we wont see anymore teams with 3 or 4 hall of famers at once), and it lowers the quality of the overall product.
still with the the 90s-00s expansion thats 50,000 some more fans that can watch an NBA game in person.
The thing I don't understand is why would the Hornets leave Charlotte, and then Charlotte gets a team two years later?
the 86-87 and 87-88 seasons ended with 10 teams under 500. That's way less than half of the league.
Last season ended with 14. Much closer to half of the league.
Uhhh half the teams under 500 is exactly what should happen, if there are only ten teams under .500 then you have ten teams that REALLY SUCK and a bunch of others padding the numbers.
HALF the teams should be OVER and HALF UNDER .500.
NBA needs to shrink
Re: NBA needs to shrink
