@Brew_Mastr_Joe on Twitter
Dramatic growth through the last 20 years has brought the NBA to new heights. It's become global phenomenon, and everyone is still trying to be "like Mike".
What's intriguing is how much the NBA has grown (in franchises) and, where they are located.
 |
| NBA Champion Shaquille O'neal |
In 1988, David Stern decided--due to the growing popularity of the NBA--it was time to expand into 4 small markets (Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, and Minnesota). 7 years later, he added 2 more teams outside the United States in Toronto and Vancouver.
I can see the scheme of David Stern's vision.
Back in the yuppy "greed is good" days, no one zoomed out to look at the big picture. No one really thought:
"If we expand the league by 6 teams in 7 years, can the small markets survive if the economy slows down?"
And how will this effect the product put on the floor?
"Can the NBA's expansion spread talent so thin it will create a talent gap that can render most teams to a non competitive destiny?"
Another recent trend in the NBA is star players teaming up with each other which has come with mixed reviews. If you're sports fan "Joe Smith" in Boston, Miami, or New York, you're thinking this is great!!!
 |
| Miami & Boston's Big 3 |
Small market teams who become incapable of building their team through free agency.
No big deal.
Most small market teams will be able to build through the draft.
This could be true, but the current NBA draft model is non-friendly to small market teams.
The lottery system is a great idea when a league has a small amount of teams, but with 30 teams, the system is flawed.
This is why parity will never exist in the NBA.
How lopsided would the NFL be if they adopted the lottery system?
The NBA has backed itself into a corner with it's business model and what compounds the problem is no elite players wants to play in a small market.
So most first round draft picks demand a trade, or skip town the moment they are available as a free agent.
The NBA had a chance to fix this problem during the lockout last fall by adding a "franchise tag". The leverage would shift back to the owners, and teams wouldn't have to answer questions like the Nuggets and Magic did over the last two seasons.
David Stern and the owners rushed to get a CBA done to salvage the year at the cost of the game, and refuses to admit to over expanding. There is a serious talent gap plaguing the league and it does not seem to be doing anything about it.
450 roster spots are available over the 30 NBA teams. There isn't enough talent coming out of division one colleges/universities that can supplement a 30 team league into fair competition.
Is there a solution??
I have a few radical suggestions:
Contraction of Small Market Teams
Contract four teams based on attendance over the last ten years, financial burden to the owner(s)/league, and the key factor:Does said city attract free agents and keep it's star players?
The four teams that fall into this category are the New Orleans Hornets, Memphis Grizzlies, Charlotte Bobcats, and the Indiana Pacers.
The Hornets, owned and operated by the NBA, traded away Chris Paul before the season started. They have one of the worst attendance records since their move to the Bayou. The NBA owners should just chalk this up as a failure and cut their losses.
The Grizzlies consistently ranks in bottom 7 of the league in attendance and although they made the playoffs, the team also has one of the worst all time NBA records and hasn't been Memphis resident that long. Cutting ties won't have any long lasting "Lebron-esque" effects. The Pacers have been in the bottom 5 of the league in attendance over the last 6 seasons, finishing dead last twice in 4 years. The team has been showing improvement over the last few seasons, but where are the fans? If they can't come in droves when the team is flourishing, why keep them there? It's not like they are going to be attracting Lebron or any other high profile free agents in the near future.
Awarded to Charlotte when the Hornets abruptly left town the Bobcats have ranked in the bottom 10 in attendance, and are 226-381 since their first year in the NBA with only one playoff appearance. Not exactly a stellar start. If this team disappeared off the face of the Earth, I'm pretty sure MJ and his accountant would be the only two who'd notice.
All players should be waived and claimed accordingly. Anyone that passes waivers becomes a free agent.
All the talent from those 4 teams would be spread out over the 26 remaining teams creating some depth and stronger competition.
Spread the West Out
The Western Conference is very clustered. Southern California has the Lakers and Clippers, northern California has the Kings, and the Warriors. I have excluded Texas from this group because all three cities have a steady attendance record, have won previous championships, and each team isn't packed on top of each other.
Move the Clippers to Seattle
 |
So why not the Clippers?
The team received CP3 in a trade this season, picked up Caron Butler via free agency, and has Blake Griffin dominating underneath the basket. After Chauncey gets healthy and they add another piece to the bench, were talking about a team that can bring back a title to a city that deserves it.
Move the Kings to Las Vegas
Las Vegas has the local economy to support it's own team and the non-stop tourism the city receives through the year. Not only could the local economy support it's new team, but anyone who is visiting Sin City, will have a chance to catch their home team, and maybe a show afterward.
The best part? The name carries more than just one meaning.
The Las Vegas Kings.
Move the Hornets to San Diego
San Diego State's basketball program's growing popularity is making San Diego thirsty for an NBA franchise again. Once the original home of the Houston Rockets in the 1960's, the club left due to poor attendance and performance. The problem with the former is that in the 60's, San Diego only had a population of 573,000 people (That's smaller than Charlotte, NC). Almost 50 years later, it has surged to 1.3 million in the city, and over 3 million around the metro area.
A move like this would be highly unlikely due to the lack of an arena deal, but it's still something for the NBA to consider.
Instead of cramming two teams into one city, 3 teams in three of the biggest cities (in California) makes a lot more sense fiscally. But in reality the NBA will most likely not make any drastic moves. By contracting the league, David Stern admits he over expanded to early and made a mistake.
But I digress...
The NBA business model has remained the same since 20 years ago, but the landscape in which the league sits has changed.
The new CBA will relieve the owners fiscally (BRI, Revenue sharing, 12% player salary reductions), but won't solve any long term problems for the NBA.
The NFL has parity because they have enough talent coming out of Div. 1 colleges/universities to support a 32 team league.
The NBA doesn't.
College hoops does not provide enough talent to funnel into the NBA to allow parity to exist. You have a handful of stars that can emerge from the second round of the draft--Carlos Boozer, Monta Ellis, Gilbert Arenas--to name a few. The only problem is, you're never going to find multiple diamonds in the rough in the same draft--and if you do--that player will most likely be drafted before there's a chance that player will fall to you.
The NBA is a glass of Orange Juice from concentrate. When mixed thoroughly with the right amount of water, it's a superb product with great smell and taste.
But when there isn't enough concentrate and your adding to much water, what are you left with???
 |
| Watered down Orange Juice............ |
