Official NBA Discussion Thread

[lazorbeak]

I hope the NBA does lose the 2011-12 season. The league is broken and needs to be completely re-structured.

 

I disagree with this so much it's ridiculous. How is the league "broken"? Basketball does have a salary cap, unlike baseball. It does give small market teams and even the Clippers the ability to compete on a level playing field. And, unlike football, it doesn't take a roster of 50 guys plus a practice squad. It also lets bad management shine: when the Knicks spent like they were the Yankees, they stunk, because they paid guys like Alan Houston as if they were franchise stars. A team like the Spurs can win multiple championships without spending a bunch of money; I just don't understand how any of that qualifies as "broken."

 

And I don't think anyone is asking the public to "care" about a labor dispute. But to hope for no resolution is pretty petty. It's about getting what's fair for people who shorten their lives and their quality of life to compete and entertain. You'd think, of all places, a wrestling forum would be where people understood the value there, since that "sport" features a 60 year old man with no retirement and no savings employed by a 2nd rate franchise to pay the bills. "No, don't pay the players even a proportional fraction of the millions in revenue they generate! I want to see LeBron playing ball at age 55 for a team in Israel!" That kind of thinking is just so needlessly negative.

[PeterHilton]

Same here, I hope both the NBA and NFL season do not happen. Why should we care about a labor dispute between millionaires and billionaires?

 

'Crotchedy man' strikes again lol

 

I think the dispute is idiotic, but in both cases the owners pushed forward the dispute because they want changes to systems the players are perfectly happy with.

 

Other than the rookie salary cap in the NFL, every 'dispute' amounts to "Hey we're not smart enough to control our own spending, so we need someone to do it for us"

 

I hope the NBA does lose the 2011-12 season. The league is broken and needs to be completely re-structured.

 

I really would like to know how the league is 'broken.'

 

There's a rookie wage scale, a salary cap that allows teams to pay more to retain it's own players, and a minumum spending amount which means that teams are required to pay competitive market value.

 

This conversation happened a few months back, before the season started, where people argued back and forth about whose fault t was the certain teams were losing money. And then we went through another round of Free Agency where guys were getting contracts that were 2 and 3 times the going market value.

 

In the NBA specifically, the owners are the one screwing things up for themselves.

[jbergey_2005]

 

Other than the rookie salary cap in the NFL, every 'dispute' amounts to "Hey we're not smart enough to control our own spending, so we need someone to do it for us"

 

 

This is what bothers me so much about these labor disputes. The owners create the problem and try to take it back from the players because they can.

 

In the end the owners always have the leverage and use it more than they should need it.

 

With the short cycle that athletes have the players union is only going to stick strong for so long before the prime/pre prime players start giving in. Same crap over and over. Players should just understand that in the end they will have to give more than the owners so just reach a damn agreement now already and be done with it.

[PeterHilton]

With the short cycle that athletes have the players union is only going to stick strong for so long before the prime/pre prime players start giving in. Same crap over and over. Players should just understand that in the end they will have to give more than the owners so just reach a damn agreement now already and be done with it.

 

This is true, but the mentality with the unions (all unions really) is that you fight for every concession from management and then you fight even harder once they want it back.

 

I mean..think about it: the NBA owners basically want to decrease the amount of revenue that is spent on salaries. Even though they've had a salary cap the whole time that punishes those who spend over the cap amount.

 

So who's to say that teams won't still jump over the cap? Check out this article from this summer:

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/363064-hindsight-is-2020-the-10-worst-contracts-in-the-nba

 

And that's just a sampling..

 

The league isn't 'broken.' The owners are idiots

[GatorBait19]

I use to be a big supporter of the league is broke and while looking at some different things I have changed my mind a lot. first let me say the league still does have faults, I think the salary cap is still extremly high for the amount of players per team and the min salary limit does make it where you see some stupid contracts....... but in saying that some contracts like Drew Gooden, Hakim Warrick, Eddy Curry and others are completely on owners.

 

 

I do think the league is losing money. Not teams like the Lakers and other big market teams, but the Wolves, Kings, Wizards and others I could see. Again though went you put product on the floor that doesn't warrant the price of a 30 dollar ticket plus another 30 dollars on food and stuff, when the couch is just as comfy and I can pause the game

 

The owners and players in each league are to blame for the arguing. I think a split of 50-50 rev is fair. Owners of real companies wouldn't do this, but when the players are the reason the fans dish out 30 bucks per game for tickets (depending on the league) then it's only fair.

 

 

 

Also for the NFL I think the NFL should cover all medical expenses of retired players that is determined Football related. Player X who retires can't be in a car wreck and have back problems the rest of his life and have the NFL pay, But player Y retires and had a bad back injury when he was playing and the pain comes back.

 

Also players need to stop complaining about what they get after the retire from football, They make 60k a year for like 5 to 7 years. That is more than enough time to get a better education and getting a good job. 75% of players that are drafted are homeless four years after they retire. They need to take a hold of their lifes and realize football (unless you are a Manning or Brady) is not going to make you enough money to live off of for the rest of your life for one big reason..... You spend it on stupid crap and don't save or invest in something that will give you income after your years of playing are done.

 

J. Russell will probably never play in the NFL ever again (unless he changes out of no where) and he already owes 195k on a house that the bank is about to take back from him

[GatorBait19]

So I watched the Haywood and Amare thing and it (to me) looks like haywood gave Amare a forearm to the face and Amare reacted. I can see why the dropped the Tech because there isn't a huge thing and both didn't really seem like it was on purpose (even look Haywood looked at Amare right before he threw the forearm.)

[Slagaholic]

The league is broken because in basketball more so than any other sport, you need stars to win. The problem is that there are too many teams and not enough stars so while a few teams are great and have a legit chance at winning a title, every other team might as well not show up because they don't have an all-star. And now the star players are cutting into the already negligible amount of legitimate contenders by saying screw it and muscling their way on to the same team.

 

The league either needs to contract a half dozen teams or completely re-do the financial structure of the league. The league is broken because a star driven league has been stretched so thin half the teams in the league are wasting their times playing games and no it's not all the fault of the owners. Not to mention that the teams who have stars can keep all of their stars together for their entire careers as long as the stars want to keep playing there. You don't build teams in the NBA, you luck into a star or two and put pieces around them.

 

I'm a Sixer fan and I love this team but I know if they are to ever get a chance to even sniff a title chance they need to luck into finding a star in the draft or finding a star who has a stroke and wants to play for a team without another star which may never happen again as the league is currently constructed. Really, why would a star player go to a team that doesn't have another star player?

 

Maybe my definition of broken and your definitions differ. But when 3/4 the teams in the league might as well forfeit all 82 games because they don't have a prayer of making it out of the second round of the playoffs and will continue to be gigantic wastes of times unless they luck into a star. I think that denotes a broken league.

[Slagaholic]

Also for the NFL I think the NFL should cover all medical expenses of retired players that is determined Football related. Player X who retires can't be in a car wreck and have back problems the rest of his life and have the NFL pay, But player Y retires and had a bad back injury when he was playing and the pain comes back.

This can get really ugly especially since many retired football players' injuries don't appear until 10-15 years after retirement. The NFL could simply argue that the injuries weren't football related and hold up players' medical payment requests ad infinitum. For example former full-back Kevin Turner was diagnosed with ALS, we don't yet know for sure that multiple head trauma and a severe neck injury during his playing days were a factor but I'd prefer the NFL ere on the side of caution and help him out. However if your suggestion was adopted the NFL would be allowed to shug their shoulders say, "sorry brah" and wheel Kevin Turner's into his forclosed home.

 

Also players need to stop complaining about what they get after the retire from football, They make 60k a year for like 5 to 7 years. That is more than enough time to get a better education and getting a good job. 75% of players that are drafted are homeless four years after they retire. They need to take a hold of their lifes and realize football (unless you are a Manning or Brady) is not going to make you enough money to live off of for the rest of your life for one big reason..... You spend it on stupid crap and don't save or invest in something that will give you income after your years of playing are done.

In my experience most people that are world class athletes aren't exactly barn burners in the financial department. Saying "just be smarter" will work as well on them as it would an 8-year-old.

[GatorBait19]

This can get really ugly especially since many retired football players' injuries don't appear until 10-15 years after retirement. The NFL could simply argue that the injuries weren't football related and hold up players' medical payment requests ad infinitum. For example former full-back Kevin Turner was diagnosed with ALS, we don't yet know for sure that multiple head trauma and a severe neck injury during his playing days were a factor but I'd prefer the NFL ere on the side of caution and help him out. However if your suggestion was adopted the NFL would be allowed to shug their shoulders say, "sorry brah" and wheel Kevin Turner's into his forclosed home.

 

 

In my experience most people that are world class athletes aren't exactly barn burners in the financial department. Saying "just be smarter" will work as well on them as it would an 8-year-old.

 

 

lol I just find it funny because each and every year they spend a whole day with rookies talking to them about money and they still don't get it... oh well

 

and they could put injuries and stuff in there that are related to football. If a guy gets some type of head sickness 15 years down the line and he played LB then he is covered. I get where it would be hard, but the NFL does need to do something to support these guys. The avg age of a football player at death is 55, I understand that Players should be able to take care of themselves, but if I am giving my body to you (cough like the Military) why can't you at least pay for my Medical insurance for life. Not even family insurance, just my medical insurance.

[GatorBait19]

The league is broken because in basketball more so than any other sport, you need stars to win. The problem is that there are too many teams and not enough stars so while a few teams are great and have a legit chance at winning a title, every other team might as well not show up because they don't have an all-star. And now the star players are cutting into the already negligible amount of legitimate contenders by saying screw it and muscling their way on to the same team.

 

The league either needs to contract a half dozen teams or completely re-do the financial structure of the league. The league is broken because a star driven league has been stretched so thin half the teams in the league are wasting their times playing games and no it's not all the fault of the owners. Not to mention that the teams who have stars can keep all of their stars together for their entire careers as long as the stars want to keep playing there. You don't build teams in the NBA, you luck into a star or two and put pieces around them.

 

I'm a Sixer fan and I love this team but I know if they are to ever get a chance to even sniff a title chance they need to luck into finding a star in the draft or finding a star who has a stroke and wants to play for a team without another star which may never happen again as the league is currently constructed. Really, why would a star player go to a team that doesn't have another star player?

 

Maybe my definition of broken and your definitions differ. But when 3/4 the teams in the league might as well forfeit all 82 games because they don't have a prayer of making it out of the second round of the playoffs and will continue to be gigantic wastes of times unless they luck into a star. I think that denotes a broken league.

 

I do agree I think there are to many teams, but teams not having stars is the teams fault. The Trail Blazers for an example look at there picks since 2001 (only cause 2000 was a horrible year) they are known for missing of stars in drafts

 

2001: 1st Zach Randolph; they passed on the likes of Gilbert Arenas, Gerald Wallace, and Tony Parker. Overall a pretty nice pick. B for overall grade

 

2002: 1st Qyntel Woods, 2nd Jason jennings, 2nd Federico Kammerichs; 1st Tayshaun Prince, 2nd Carlos Boozer, 2nd Luis Scola. They wouldn't have been able to grab both Tayshaun and Boozer, but could have taken at least one of them and Scola was 3rd to last pick. Hard to judge because wasn't a huge pool they could have picked from, but a D- overall grade

 

2003: 1st Travis Outlaw, 2nd Nedžad Sinanović; 1st Kendrick Perkins, 1st Josh Howard, 1st Leandro Barbosa, 2nd Mo Williams, . The big draft with Lebron and everyone. Now obviously they wouldn't have been able to select them, but they did pass over some big names. Outlaw wasn't a horrid pick, but they did pass on two all-stars and two solid starters. C overall grade

 

2004: 1st Sebastian Telfair, 1st Sergei Monia, 2nd Ha Seung-Jin; 1st Kris Humphries, 1st AL Jefferson, 1st Josh Smith, 1st Jameer Nelson, 1st Kevin Martin, 2nd Trevor Ariza. This was the Howard draft and I have always said you can screw up with a 2nd round pick and even a late round pick like Monia, but a top 12 needs to be money. Telfair came out with all the hype, but never lived up to it. They would have been better off with one of the other 1st rounders (maybe not Humphries as much because he is just now starting to do well.) F+ overall grade

 

I also noticed a trend with their bad drafting came better slots to pick from.

 

2005: 1st Martell Webster (6th overall), 1st Linas Kleiza (traded to Denver), 2nd Ricky Sanchez (traded to Denver). 1st Andrew Bynum, 1st Danny Granger, 1st David Lee, 2nd Monta Ellis, 2nd . They traded the number three overall pick away to Utah that was used on Deron Williams. They could have had there choice of Paul or Williams at three and have had a great PG (which they need) Portland blew a chance to get one of two superstars. F- Overall grade

 

2006: 1st Tyrus Thomas (traded to Chicago for Aldridge), 1st Joel Freeland, 2nd James White. 1st Rudy Gay, 1st Rajon Rondo, 2nd Paul Millsap, This is the year they got two main pieces of their team in Roy and Aldridge, but per drafting wise (both were traded to them) they didn't select well. So they did miss out of Gay and Rondo, each healthier than Roy, but it was a good draft overall because of the two trades. A overall grade

 

2007: 1st Greg Oden (1st overall), 2nd Josh McRoberts (37), 2nd Derrick Byars (42, Traded to 76ers), 2nd Taurean Green (52), 2nd Demetris Nichols (53, traded to Knicks). 1st Kevin Durant (2nd), Al Horford (3rd), 1st Mike Conley Jr (4), 1st Joakim Noah (9th), Wilson Chandler (23rd), 2nd Marc Gasol, 2nd Ramon Sessions. They did get Fernandez in this draft and the 30 overall pick for Byars. New York acquired Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau, Fred Jones and the draft rights to 53rd pick Demetris Nichols from Portland in exchange for Steve Francis, Channing Frye and a 2008 second-round draft pick. This one was a slam dunk. Oden was that missing Center they thought they needed.... just injuries destroyed him. Overall grade D+

 

2008: 1st Brandon Rush (Traded to Indian), 2nd Joey Dorsey (Traded to Houston), 2nd Ömer Aşık (Traded to Chicago), 2nd Mike Taylor (traded to Clippers). Portland acquired the draft rights to 11th pick Jerryd Bayless and Ike Diogu from Indiana in exchange for the draft rights to 13th pick Brandon Rush, Jarrett Jack and Josh McRoberts. In a three-team trade, Portland acquired the draft rights to 25th pick Nicolas Batum from Houston, Houston acquired the draft rights to 33rd pick Joey Dorsey from Portland and the draft rights to 28th pick Donté Greene and a 2009 second-round draft pick from Memphis, and Memphis acquired the draft rights to 27th pick Darrell Arthur from Portland. There were some players selected, but only two years removed it's hard to judge this class.

 

 

I understand that there are a lot of variables when it comes to drafting. What positions do we need, they make trades where a team tells them who to draft, etc.

 

But out of everyone Portland drafted only one All-star in Zach, a huge bust is Oden, passed on two superstars in one draft and another in a 2nd draft.

 

There may be some truth to the whole you luck into a superstar, but you also have to be able to draft to give those superstars players around them and Portland as well as other don't do that.

[lazorbeak]

The league is broken because in basketball more so than any other sport, you need stars to win.

 

Say what? Did you not see the Heat go on a 5 game losing streak despite their "stars"? Are the Spurs and Mavericks not some of the best teams in the league by playing excellent team basketball? This whole proposition is just false. Or how about the Rockets? They would be a playoff team in the East, and their highest paid player makes under 10 million a year (not counting their "star" that's probably done with basketball). There's plenty of teams that do fine without "star" players.

 

The league either needs to contract a half dozen teams or completely re-do the financial structure of the league. The league is broken because a star driven league has been stretched so thin half the teams in the league are wasting their times playing games and no it's not all the fault of the owners. Not to mention that the teams who have stars can keep all of their stars together for their entire careers as long as the stars want to keep playing there. You don't build teams in the NBA, you luck into a star or two and put pieces around them.

 

Everything in this paragraph is false. "Half the teams are wasting their time" has nothing to do with the presence of "stars," it's about whether the team is composed of people who know how to win at a high level: a surprising number of NBA players don't: they are in it for themselves and their own stat line. Chicago has one "star" and yet they're already five games better than they were a year ago because they added Boozer and Korver as Rose has developed. You can say the Thunder are better because Russell Westbrook is a "star" now but where did that come from? Who was he a year ago? And "putting pieces" around a star isn't so easy: look at how incompetent the Cavs were at surrounding LeBron with people who complimented his skill set.

 

I'm a Sixer fan and I love this team but I know if they are to ever get a chance to even sniff a title chance they need to luck into finding a star in the draft or finding a star who has a stroke and wants to play for a team without another star which may never happen again as the league is currently constructed. Really, why would a star player go to a team that doesn't have another star player?

 

Or they need to develop the talent they have and translate that into winning games. If they did that, Iggy would magically transform into your definition of a "star."

 

Maybe my definition of broken and your definitions differ. But when 3/4 the teams in the league might as well forfeit all 82 games because they don't have a prayer of making it out of the second round of the playoffs and will continue to be gigantic wastes of times unless they luck into a star. I think that denotes a broken league.

 

Yes, all teams should forfeit all games if they can't win a championship. And this is a problem unique to basketball because of a vaguely defined concept of a "star." Other sports that are broken: all professional sports.

 

Note: your "starless" team beat the Celtics last night.

[jbergey_2005]

I agree with LB and I can speak intelligently about this being a T-wolves fan.

 

The Timberwolves had KG for 12-13 years and were able to get out of the first round 1 time. When that idiot McHale decided to put a couple of decent players around him.(Spree, Cassell) KG then heads to Boston and wins a championship his first year and lost in game 7 of the championship game a different year.

 

I see horrendous management/coaching in the NBA as more of the problem than the "lack of stars" theory. IMO the NBA is as deep as it has ever been other than lacking great centers.

[lazorbeak]

I agree with LB and I can speak intelligently about this being a T-wolves fan.

 

The Timberwolves had KG for 12-13 years and were able to get out of the first round 1 time. When that idiot McHale decided to put a couple of decent players around him.(Spree, Cassell) KG then heads to Boston and wins a championship his first year and lost in game 7 of the championship game a different year.

 

I see horrendous management/coaching in the NBA as more of the problem than the "lack of stars" theory. IMO the NBA is as deep as it has ever been other than lacking great centers.

 

Agreed. Poor coaching, breaking league rules, and sinking way too much time into trying to make Stephon Marbury the #2 guy sank the T-Wolves more than some notion of "stars." Sam Cassell is another guy that was never a "star," but he won 3 championships with two different teams and went to the conference finals with two other teams (the Wolves and the Bucks). No matter where he was he won. He even helped the Clippers get to the 2nd round of the playoffs for crying out loud. And they took Phoenix to 7 games! But no, the league needs "stars" and only "stars" make you win.

[jbergey_2005]

Agreed. Poor coaching, breaking league rules, and sinking way too much time into trying to make Stephon Marbury the #2 guy sank the T-Wolves more than some notion of "stars." Sam Cassell is another guy that was never a "star," but he won 3 championships with two different teams and went to the conference finals with two other teams (the Wolves and the Bucks). No matter where he was he won. He even helped the Clippers get to the 2nd round of the playoffs for crying out loud. And they took Phoenix to 7 games! But no, the league needs "stars" and only "stars" make you win.

 

Yup. In addition the Spurs are a classic example of this especially this year that you can no longer call Tim Duncan a "star." They have always been a team that overachieved IMO because they are so discipline and play right into the team philosophy. Too many teams try to force players into a system they dont fit into while the Spurs just find players that fit into their system. The make the Bonnors, Blairs, and Bowens of the world very useful players.

[jwt13]

So how about Mr. Hansbrough doing his thing with the Pacers his two games in the starting line up have been 20 plus point games. I love this because everyone saying he wasn't going to do anything in the NBA. He has a lot of upside IMO.

[lazorbeak]

So how about Mr. Hansbrough doing his thing with the Pacers his two games in the starting line up have been 20 plus point games. I love this because everyone saying he wasn't going to do anything in the NBA. He has a lot of upside IMO.

 

I'd like it more if he hadn't done it in straight double digit losses to Minnesota and Toronto, two of the worst teams in the league. I agree that he has upside because he is very smart and he knows how to get his offense, but if he's your top scorer, it's a symptom that something is going wrong. Granger was 2 for 19 in that loss to Minnesota.

[Capelli King]

To be honest i am not too sure what everyone is going on about. In Europe the system is totally different. You have teams which are usually traditionally strong and those which are not and it all has to do with the cash they can spend.

 

With the NBA you have this cap (which i think is totally dumb). The whole goal of this dumb cap it to balance the league and have more competition. However look at it this way, what is the point of having big market teams playing bad? Maybe there is too many teams, that i cannot argue, but having salary caps and such simply does not make sense to me.

 

In European football they are thinking of adding a cap based upon revenue, that i can understand, but what you guys have is just an artificial attempt in trying to force teams to be balanced.

 

Bottom line is that stars want to play together and in the end they find ways to try to make that happen and they usually end up on those big market teams irrelevant of you having stupid caps or not.

 

I rather see a league where there is 5-6 super teams, 8-10 good teams and 20 average to poor ones than a league of 30 teams all slightly above average teams.

[PeterHilton]

Bottom line is that stars want to play together and in the end they find ways to try to make that happen and they usually end up on those big market teams irrelevant of you having stupid caps or not.

 

This is true in a sport like basketball with smaller rosters. However,

 

I rather see a league where there is 5-6 super teams, 8-10 good teams and 20 average to poor ones than a league of 30 teams all slightly above average teams.

 

..the success of the NFL says this is wrong and that parity is a good thing to most American fans.

[BHK1978]

..the success of the NFL says this is wrong and that parity is a good thing to most American fans.

 

Parity is not the reason why the NFL is popular among American fans. The NFL was already popular before it became a league of parity. The NFL's popularity grew out of its short season, the NFL championship game between the Giants/Colts, the fact that it is a violent sport. All of those factors made the NFL popular well before it became a league of parity.

 

Also, who is to say parity is good? Baseball reached new levels of post-strike popularity thanks in part to the home run chase but also thanks in part to the rise of the Yankees. People need a bad guy to root against and having the most hated franchise in baseball back to winning multiple championships in a row, has greatly helped baseball.

[PeterHilton]

Also, who is to say parity is good? Baseball reached new levels of post-strike popularity thanks in part to the home run chase but also thanks in part to the rise of the Yankees. People need a bad guy to root against and having the most hated franchise in baseball back to winning multiple championships in a row, has greatly helped baseball.

 

True. But it's also limited its appeal in years when the yankees don't make the postseason

 

While with the NFL, regardless of who plays on a weekly basis, or what teams go to the playoffs...the ratings are monstrous.

 

As a comparison: the World Series averages around an 8.5-10 rating, which ends up being around 15 millions viewers

 

The NFL beats that FOR REGULAR SEASON GAMES. The SB just drew 111 million viewers. They wipe their nose with MLBs numbers

 

There's nothing saying that baseball's no cap system can't work...but having a cap that practically guarantees that every team has a chance to be competitive from year-to-year has proven more successful. You're referencing the league's popularity after the Giants/Colts game in the late 50s...that doesn't even compare to the league's popularity now.

 

The league was popular at a level that made it *arguably* the #2 or #3 sport in the US. Theres no argument now: it's the #1 Sport in America. And that happened after parity and after the cap. The fact that ALL fans can be engaged ona yearly basis helps exponentially imo

[GruntMark]

. However look at it this way, what is the point of having big market teams playing bad? .

 

Then whats the point of having small market teams at all?

 

1 New York

2 Los Angeles

3 Chicago

4 Houston

5 Phoenix

6 Philadelphia

7 San Antonio

8 San Diego

 

Theres your new league for every sport. No one else matters anyway, right?

 

Especially you Dallas. Suckas.

[GruntMark]

Also, whats up with the NBA playoff system?

 

A losing team makes the NFL playoffs and its SCANDAL.

 

Does no one even care anymore that the East is terrible and has been for YEARS?

 

Im in favor of allowing Chicago and Boston playing a single game to decide it and everyone else being sent home right now to contemplate how terrible they are at basketball.

[PeterHilton]

Also, whats up with the NBA playoff system?

 

A losing team makes the NFL playoffs and its SCANDAL.

 

Does no one even care anymore that the East is terrible and has been for YEARS?

 

Im in favor of allowing Chicago and Boston playing a single game to decide it and everyone else being sent home right now to contemplate how terrible they are at basketball.

 

It's easierto deal with because the NBA used to have such a short first round that the flotsam and jetsam were toast early. Those 7 game series are killing me in the first round though

[GruntMark]

It's easierto deal with because the NBA used to have such a short first round that the flotsam and jetsam were toast early. Those 7 game series are killing me in the first round though

 

Right?

 

Should you have to beat the Pacers (or, whomever limps into that sad 8th seed) 4 times to prove they dont need to be there?

 

Pointless padding for ad revenue.

[GatorBait19]

This is true in a sport like basketball with smaller rosters. However,

 

 

 

..the success of the NFL says this is wrong and that parity is a good thing to most American fans.

 

 

Agreed. The reason sports follow what the NFL does so much is because of the success it has had. Back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and even part of the 90's NFL was the 3rd best sport behind Baseball and Basketball. Basketball was at it's golden age in the 80's and 90's with suck great teams as the Rockets, Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls. Baseball was in it's juiced stage and hadn't hit a strike. Then in NFL free agents and a Salary Cap with a floor hit and it took off (that and the product was better in the end). With the Cap teams became able to compete year in and year out and rebuild quickly with the right mangement.

 

In Football you have a couple clear cut favorites each and every year but a bunch of teams who could surprise. Colts, Pats, Giants, Packers, Falcons, Saints, Bucs, Eagles, Bears, Ravens, Dolphins, 49ers, Seahawks, KC

 

These are just a couple teams who did well or were picked to do well and didn't. Two big names who did extremely well last year were Bucs and KC each who picked in the top 10 the year before.