My friend Dave Deckard of Blazer's Edge penned an argument for contraction. Deckard argues that the league has become bloated, and that dissolving six franchises would boost the remaining teams' talent pool and financial health. "More is not always better," he writes.He's right. More isn't always better. More Mark Blount? Bad. More power for Mike Dunleavy Sr.? Bad. But in terms of the number of NBA teams -- the current 30 is a sweet spot. Erasing a half-dozen wouldn't strengthen the league. It would, for all intents and purposes, significantly damage its scope.
Attendance is bad in a few markets -- Indianapolis, Sacramento, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Charlotte, Atlanta (eternally Atlanta), Memphis. Not coincidentally, all but one of these teams are bad. Phenomenally bad. (Atlanta as a sports market is an enigma, and trying to make sense of it is a fool's game.) Recently Indy, Sacto and Minny hosted great crowds, full arenas. Two seasons ago, the Kings sold out every home game (despite a 33-win season). When a contender, Indiana kept the gym full. Minnesota has averaged better 15,000 fans a game in recent years despite a truly awful team.
Down attendance ... as teams rebuild their talent bases ... during a global financial crisis, aren't we jumping off the cliff a little too quickly by calling for contraction? My argument isn't based on the fact that these particular teams can be healthy again -- but if you agree and remove these teams from the list, who do you add? I mean, San Antonio -- despite perennial contention -- can barely beat league average attendance marks, has difficulty selling out opening nights and playoff games, and constantly asks the public for arena funding. Should we contract the Spurs? Would that make the league stronger?
The NBA has two or three current markets with serious problems: Memphis (the real ghoul), Charlotte (which may never recover from the Shinn departure) and Indiana (dying). Memphis probably shouldn't have a pro team, and needs a new owner badly. Should we blow the thing up? No! Other markets are dying to host the NBA. Look at the lengths Oklahoma City went to in order to have a team. Clay Bennett basically ruined his national reputation because bringing the Sonics to OKC would make him a local hero. Think about that. Bringing the NBA to Okla-fricking-homa made the dude a hero. The man had to resort to a completely shady tactics to spring the Sonics free because the demand for local NBA basketball was so high in two markets. (Unless you think, Dave, that Seattle didn't want to keep the Sonics ...)
Seattle, Kansas City, Anaheim, San Jose, Las Vegas, London ... they all want franchises, too! Cities see extremely high value in getting an NBA franchise, despite little proof teams or arenas serve as meaningful economic engines. There's a positive stigma attached to the NBA at the local level, which is all sorts of amazing when you consider, say, the last four decades of roller coaster attitudes toward the league.
Heck, just three years ago a certain small market team had awful attendance, an awful product, a bad arena situation and an owner looking to sell. That team? The Blazers. I, for one, am glad they didn't get contracted because of a rough patch.
The economy will rebound, the bad teams will rebound (as the Blazers did), and attendance will rebound. If a market (Memphis, Sacramento, Indianapolis) cannot support an NBA team long-term, the team will eventually move. (See: Vancouver.) Another market will support it, or try. There is no situation, nor will there likely be in the foreseeable future a situation where a team needs to move but there are no suitors. That isn't even fathomable. This isn't a fast food chain. This is the National Fricking Basketball Association.
Small markets do need help right now. Revenue sharing would go a long way toward providing that. The Knicks made an estimated $30 million of profit last season despite doing everything wrong, thanks to a sweet local TV deal. The Blazers lost $1 million, despite filling the building, putting out a promising product and doing things the right way. Market size -- and market size alone -- let James Dolan walk away with $30 million in profit while Paul Allen lost money on a far superior enterprise. Is that fair? Think sharing a greater pool of TV and corporate sponsorship cash between the teams might help these so-called endangered franchises balance the books?
Before we decide to endorse blowing up some valuable markets, look at the full range of options. Help the small markets survive, or erase them? Not a tough choice.
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
I'm for getting rid of a few teams just for the fact that the talent is so diluted. There are a lot of players who shouldn't be in the NBA, but are because of the number of teams. Getting rid of a few teams, I think, would put better players on the same team and make the games more competitive. The Celtics won the Championship last year, due in large part to having 3 All-Stars on their team. Just think of the match ups if you have a couple Celtic-like teams playing each other in the playoffs, instead of teams with 1 All-Star and a bunch of borderline D-leaguers.
I disagree. There are gangs of solid players languishing on benches, playing in the D-League, playing in Europe. Most teams are forced to cut solid players to stay at 14 or 15 players. You could argue that a lot of teams have a non-NBA player or two, but this is the result of bad decision-making -- there are a dozen D-League/Euro players that want to be in the league and should be.
I agree with the first commentator. I hope the league axes a few franchises so the talent pool will become better and the overall NBA viewing experience will improve.
Why does Memphis have a franchise? How about Oklahoma? Or the Clippers for that matter? There's three teams off the top of my head, and look what it would do for talent pool: Players like Durant, Mayo, Gay, Green, Baron Davis, Eric Gordon, and Marcus Camby to name a few would be available to other teams. Who knows how that would turn out, but it would increase the overall talent level of the remaining teams.
A watered down league with too many teams should not be the preferable alternative.
"The talent pool" is subjective. There is always going to be a top 10%, bottom 10%, and middle 80% of players, and the ones at the bottom will always be maligned. The reality is, everyone who plays in the NBA is incredible at basketball, and it's only compared to certain peers that they seem less adept. That relativity won't change with 6 teams gone, and there have complaints of dilution even during the eras of Bird and Magic (enter Miami and other Charlotte) and Jordan (enter Toronto, Vancouver, Minnesota, Orlando) when the popularity of the NBA was rapidly expanding. Clearly the NBA product must be doing something right.
The truth is, if the league needed to contract, it would. Other teams (or the league) would pool together resources to buy a weak team needing to be culled. But franchises are worth so much because people actually want to see the games, and until a team is worth more to the league dead than alive, I don't see the argument for contraction.
All the above commenters are right, Ziller. The talent is very watered down. Contraction makes obvious sense to every fan, but YOU. The league would flourish with stronger teams. Some teams never should have existed. Clippers, Grizzlies, Raptors, just to name a few. You sound like an NBA employee. Indirectly, I guess you are. More teams, more BS reporting.
You disagree with my argument, so you attack me? Makes sense.
You're right, I got carried away. I just don't see the level of talent being great as others do. The shortcomings of todays players probably has more to do with basketball 'savvy". I'm sorry, but these players just do not play smart basketball. So, more teams of stupid players doesn't work for me.
Rich: do you think contraction would result in fewer "stupid players" in the NBA? Wouldn't the most athletic, most skilled, best players survive, regardless of their brains? Do you think the presence of "stupid players" is wholly a current phenomenon; did stupid players not exist until the modern NBA?
If Dude can dunk from the free throw line, block anything LeBron puts up, or can steal the ball from Chris Paul at will, he'll be in the NBA regardless of how stupid he is. - Elgin
I don't subscribe to this notion that the league is diluted WHATSOEVER. If this was true, then the quality of basketball in NCAA and international leagues, who have a significantly less talented pool of players, would be awful. Quite the contrary, college games are highly entertaining, and the few euro league games I've caught are also fun to watch, despite the fact that these leagues are actually regularly being watered down by talent making the jump to the NBA. If the league isn't putting out a quality product, it certainly isn't caused by lack of talent.
Tom, you've certainly made your point from a demand side perspective. But you haven't properly addressed the possibility of there being a talent deficit. I think there is one because if historically well-managed teams which don't change GMs go through cycles of success and struggles (Sacramento, Boston, New Jersey) almost as a rule, it can only be caused by a talent deficit. That there are also a lot of teams that are being badly managed (Clippers, TWolves etc.) is neither here nor there.
Oh and you have to account for the fact that there is always going to be a certain percentage of players who are injured. This is after all a physical contact sport in which extremely athletic men exert themselves 4 times a week.
I pretty much agree with Ziller. At first I thought contraction was a good thing, but lately I kept thinking that probably it wasn't the case. Also, it's true there are a few teams with bad attendance, but it's cyclical. If those teams put on a good product and start winning games (yes, even teams like Charlotte and Memphis) people will come and will pack their arenas. Just look at Portland. They had attendance problems until a couple of years ago and it looked like they could move, and two years later they sellout every single game, even games against bad teams, even PRESEASON (!!) games. Or just look at New Orleans. Their average attendance was awful until last year, and now they play before huge crowds night in and night out. So, it's cyclica. If teams like Memphis, Charlotte, Minnesota start winning people will come.
btw, as far as Atlanta not being a good sports market, I disagree. local tv ratings, especially for NBA games on national tv, are spectacular and some of the highest in the league. NBA games in Atlanta average way higher ratings than the national average and the all-star game in february got an 8.0 (cable!!!!) rating in the Atlanta metro area (the national rating for the game was 4.5)..so Atlanta is a better sport market than people think.
http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/hot-lanta.html
For what it's worth, I'm all for contracting the Spurs.