I just read a lockout article in support of the players. I have to say the author, Howard Bryant must be Kobe’s brother because the arguments made here are completely irrational.
In summary, he’s saying that there is parity in the NBA. The owners argue that there isn’t enough parity and that they want to base their model more like the NFL’s where there is. The author says the NFL does not have parity. He bases his argument on stats like this “In the NFL, the league of the vaunted hard salary cap and far less guaranteed money for its players, 20 of the 44 teams in the NFC of AFC title games came from top-10 TV markets” OK, so 31% of the teams played in 45% of the title games. I think that’s pretty even considering some teams get ravaged by injuries or bad management every year.
To say the NBA has parity is ridiculous. 3 teams from the west have made the finals since 1999. 12 years. 3 teams. Sounds pretty lopsided to me. In the east there have been a number of teams that made the finals, but every year there are about 4 good teams and 11 horrible ones. Yes the Knicks have one of the highest salaries and haven’t done anything, but that doesn’t mean having no cap is a good system. In poker if you start each hand with pocket aces you might not win every hand but you definitely start off with an advantage. If you have good ownership, having the highest salary is a huge advantage. (see Lakers and Yankees). Those two teams don’t win every year but they’ve made the finals a hell of a lot more than any other team in their respective sports.
I’m all for a hard cap. It’s boring if the same teams are in it every year. Why not just contract the league to 8 teams if the others aren’t going to have a chance at being competitive? And yes I’m aware that Oklahoma City is a very small market and are doing alright for themselves, but last I checked there is still only one Kevin Durant, so not every small market team is going to be able to draft him to become relevant.