- Thread starter
- #1
WiggyRuss
Well-Known Member
5-on-5 predictions: Who would win a Warriors-Cavs series right now?
1. Are these two superteams good or bad for the NBA?
Amin Elhassan, ESPN Insider: They are awesome for the NBA. Their respective collections of star power not only generate incredible interest in the game, but they also force their conference opponents to sharpen their focus and seek improvements any way they can, whether that's by personnel moves or greater knowledge and execution of their game plans. Both teams raise the bar on what it means to be a championship contender, and that's a good thing.
Ethan Sherwood Strauss, ESPN.com: Good. Let's review the recent evidence. The lockout-shortened 2011-12 season garnered the league's best TV ratings since Michael Jordan. If you recall, that season culminated in a Finals between the Big Three Miami Heat and a favored Thunder squad that boasted three MVP-caliber talents.
The NBA's problem isn't parity; it's scope. The standings look very close to how they finish, 20 games into a season. Even with a wider talent distribution, the season will lack suspense in this way. So, the NBA might as well feature a couple of stacked teams that fans will watch absent serious stakes.
Brian Windhorst, ESPN.com: It depends on whom you ask. There might be seven All-Stars on the two teams. For some, that sort of star clustering is a negative development for competitive balance. But these two teams are also guaranteed draws both in arenas and on TV. Those marquee attractions are business drivers.
Jeremias Engelmann, ESPN Insider: A study showed superteams having a positive influence on viewership in sports leagues. They are fun to watch, and they create more interesting storylines. The last true dynasty, the Bulls of the 1990s, was good for the league. On that note: I wouldn't really call the Cavs a superteam, as they have only two high-impact players, LeBron James and Kevin Love. Their consecutive Finals appearances are more a function of the East being weak.
Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: More good than bad. The research I've seen from economists suggests that dominant teams are good for the league to a point. If the outcome starts to feel predetermined, that can be a turnoff to casual fans. Since there remains drama about the Finals if nothing else, I don't think we've yet reached that point.
1. Are these two superteams good or bad for the NBA?
Amin Elhassan, ESPN Insider: They are awesome for the NBA. Their respective collections of star power not only generate incredible interest in the game, but they also force their conference opponents to sharpen their focus and seek improvements any way they can, whether that's by personnel moves or greater knowledge and execution of their game plans. Both teams raise the bar on what it means to be a championship contender, and that's a good thing.
Ethan Sherwood Strauss, ESPN.com: Good. Let's review the recent evidence. The lockout-shortened 2011-12 season garnered the league's best TV ratings since Michael Jordan. If you recall, that season culminated in a Finals between the Big Three Miami Heat and a favored Thunder squad that boasted three MVP-caliber talents.
The NBA's problem isn't parity; it's scope. The standings look very close to how they finish, 20 games into a season. Even with a wider talent distribution, the season will lack suspense in this way. So, the NBA might as well feature a couple of stacked teams that fans will watch absent serious stakes.
Brian Windhorst, ESPN.com: It depends on whom you ask. There might be seven All-Stars on the two teams. For some, that sort of star clustering is a negative development for competitive balance. But these two teams are also guaranteed draws both in arenas and on TV. Those marquee attractions are business drivers.
Jeremias Engelmann, ESPN Insider: A study showed superteams having a positive influence on viewership in sports leagues. They are fun to watch, and they create more interesting storylines. The last true dynasty, the Bulls of the 1990s, was good for the league. On that note: I wouldn't really call the Cavs a superteam, as they have only two high-impact players, LeBron James and Kevin Love. Their consecutive Finals appearances are more a function of the East being weak.
Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: More good than bad. The research I've seen from economists suggests that dominant teams are good for the league to a point. If the outcome starts to feel predetermined, that can be a turnoff to casual fans. Since there remains drama about the Finals if nothing else, I don't think we've yet reached that point.