Sign in to follow this  
Notorious O.D.K.

Silver: NBA Expansion is Inevitable

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, MemphisX said:

90s was just the first time the masses were exposed to the talent.  So people of glorified that era even though it had some of the worst basketball being played ever.

Exactly, it was the first time it was marketed on such a wide level.I mean, in the late 70s going into the 80s, everybody was coked out. They got lucky with Magic and Bird and an old Dr. j and then got really really luck with Jordan. He changed the dynamic and the Dream Team and other things led to the big marketing push in the 90s.

Not sure if it was the worst bball ever thought. That's a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael D    0
1 minute ago, Notorious O.D.K. said:

Only 1 team would go. There are currently 15 teams in each conf. If 2 teams are added, presumably there would be 16 teams in each. If you add two to West, you have 17 teams so you would only need to send 1 team over to balance out at 16.

Memphis makes perfect sense to go over, more so than any new or current Western Conference team.  That's another reason I don't want them to take on Louisville as an expansion team because Louisville would definitely be considered an eastern team.

Silver said he isn't going to consider doing away with the current playoff system of 8 teams from each conference for a while.  The Grizzlies make way more sense in the Eastern Conference and they have a better chance of advancing in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 

Just now, Notorious O.D.K. said:

Only 1 team would go. There are currently 15 teams in each conf. If 2 teams are added, presumably there would be 16 teams in each. If you add two to West, you have 17 teams so you would only need to send 1 team over to balance out at 16.

If it's only 1 then they would probably send New Orleans over because they are the more marketable team.   Da Brow and Boogie would on the surface be the way to add more stars to the East.  

I'm torn because I do think going to the East is a simpler path to playoff success.  However, tougher competition is how teams truly get better and more exciting to watch.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
3 hours ago, Notorious O.D.K. said:

Only 1 team would go. There are currently 15 teams in each conf. If 2 teams are added, presumably there would be 16 teams in each. If you add two to West, you have 17 teams so you would only need to send 1 team over to balance out at 16.

Quite being so **** logical!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dwash    0
6 hours ago, Notorious O.D.K. said:

I think so much of it depends on when you were exposed to the NBA. If you began watching at a young age in a whatever decade, your natural inclination is to feel that they were more talented. That is your baseline and if you were younger you tend to look at sports stars as superhuman who can do no wrong. They don't have flaws in their games, they are perfect off of the court, etc. You have a romanticized view of the sport when you were first exposed to it. Then you kind of have a confirmation bias going forward after all of your favorite players have retired. You look at every else as a follower and not as good as the people you watched when you were first exposed and you point out their every flae as if flaws didn't exist back then.

People do this with music as well "(insert decade here) is the best music ever". For most people, it depends on exposure and it's highly subjective.

 

I mean, we have no way of knowing how the stars of yesteryear would compete in today's NBA. There have been all types of advancement in training, training techniques, kinesiology, sports science/medicine, weight lifting equipment, supplements, AAU tourneys, recovery from injury, etc. It's just different. A lot of people think that if such and such star from yesteryear was in today's NBA they would dominate and these youngsters couldn't compete with the toughness and hard fouls of back then. On the flip side, I've heard tons of stories of those stars of yesteryear smoking in practice, not practicing at all, turning it on when the game starts, etc Would they be able to have the mentality to stick to a physical regimen like so many stars of today?

There's no right or wrong answer. I just live for the moment and appreciate what is in front of me. As Nas said, ain't no best.

 

 

So.why doesnt this nostalgia exist so heavily in other sports. Like in baseball, everyone acknoledges that pitchers throw harder and players have more power. They chalk it up to steroids sometimes but we know it exists. They sometimes say the game is softer due to not throwing inside as much but that is a rule change or more conscious about hitting playerd in the head.

People love them some 70's football but no one questions whether the Patriots or Crimson Tide could stomp with the best teams of all time. I dont hear many complaints about the product, other than stuff like targeting, which is a safety rule change. Not a huge football fan, but the people I know that watch it love it.

Basketball is complained about heavily and you can see a change, a major change, in how it is played in terms of style like no other sport. We can all acknowledge that players are more athletic and shoot deeper. But thats it. Big men, 7 footers, cant score one on one, most wings cant do anything but spot shoot and defend, teams truly are less physical and it more than just rule changes causing it and as said earlier, rookies are no longer impactful.

This isnt just nostalgia or some feeling about something that we used to love. You cant deny that the big man used to be able to score more, that the wing had a bigger role in playmaking as the point guard just facilitated, that the game was rougher and that rookies were better earlier. Like this stuff is absolutely true. Its one thing to tweek the game, but the roles have changed so much that one has to notice.

Like if someone says "Draymond Green could not have checked Shaq, Ewing, or Dream." are you honestly going to chalk that up to nostalgia? There is enough evidence to suggest that those guys would have smashed Draymond in their prime. Its totally understandable why people dont respect the small ball era with half the teams being led in scoring by their point guard. The athleticism hasnt improved that much where this shouldnt be noticed. Just imo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
13 minutes ago, Dwash said:

So.why doesnt this nostalgia exist so heavily in other sports. Like in baseball, everyone acknoledges that pitchers throw harder and players have more power. They chalk it up to steroids sometimes but we know it exists. They sometimes say the game is softer due to not throwing inside as much but that is a rule change or more conscious about hitting playerd in the head.

People love them some 70's football but no one questions whether the Patriots or Crimson Tide could stomp with the best teams of all time. I dont hear many complaints about the product, other than stuff like targeting, which is a safety rule change. Not a huge football fan, but the people I know that watch it love it.

Basketball is complained about heavily and you can see a change, a major change, in how it is played in terms of style like no other sport. We can all acknowledge that players are more athletic and shoot deeper. But thats it. Big men, 7 footers, cant score one on one, most wings cant do anything but spot shoot and defend, teams truly are less physical and it more than just rule changes causing it and as said earlier, rookies are no longer impactful.

This isnt just nostalgia or some feeling about something that we used to love. You cant deny that the big man used to be able to score more, that the wing had a bigger role in playmaking as the point guard just facilitated, that the game was rougher and that rookies were better earlier. Like this stuff is absolutely true. Its one thing to tweek the game, but the roles have changed so much that one has to notice.

Like if someone says "Draymond Green could not have checked Shaq, Ewing, or Dream." are you honestly going to chalk that up to nostalgia? There is enough evidence to suggest that those guys would have smashed Draymond in their prime. Its totally understandable why people dont respect the small ball era with half the teams being led in scoring by their point guard. The athleticism hasnt improved that much where this shouldnt be noticed. Just imo.

I have to disagree. I don't follow the sport of baseball that closely but all I hear about is not how much more talented players are but how the fundamentals have been lost. Players don't make the right plays as often. Players miss cut off men. They overrun bases. They don't know how to pitch a complete game relying instead on pure power than finesse and understanding of the strike zone. 

Football players are bigger and faster too but they miss blocks routinely, receivers run bad routes, QBs can't call the game from the huddle, running backs duck out of bounds rather than reach for a few extra yards. Sure the physical skills are better but they've lost some of the mental aspects of the game in the process. 

I feel the same is being said about basketball. There is more innate human ability. Players jump higher and are faster thanks to superior training and diet regimes but the fundamentals aren't as strong in some fans eyes. Sure players can hit shots from 24 feet out but they can't defend the pick and roll, hit their free throws or make a mid-range jumper any more. That's why Europeans are making such an impact on the NBA. They aren't as physically impressive as their american counterparts but they know how to play the game smarter. 

Fans are just as nostalgic for the old days in baseball and football as they are in basketball. The players have become more athletic but they have lost the essence of the game with their physical brilliance. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dwash    0
6 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

I have to disagree. I don't follow the sport of baseball that closely but all I hear about is not how much more talented players are but how the fundamentals have been lost. Players don't make the right plays as often. Players miss cut off men. They overrun bases. They don't know how to pitch a complete game relying instead on pure power than finesse and understanding of the strike zone. 

Football players are bigger and faster too but they miss blocks routinely, receivers run bad routes, QBs can't call the game from the huddle, running backs duck out of bounds rather than reach for a few extra yards. Sure the physical skills are better but they've lost some of the mental aspects of the game in the process. 

I feel the same is being said about basketball. There is more innate human ability. Players jump higher and are faster thanks to superior training and diet regimes but the fundamentals aren't as strong in some fans eyes. Sure players can hit shots from 24 feet out but they can't defend the pick and roll, hit their free throws or make a mid-range jumper any more. That's why Europeans are making such an impact on the NBA. They aren't as physically impressive as their american counterparts but they know how to play the game smarter. 

Fans are just as nostalgic for the old days in baseball and football as they are in basketball. The players have become more athletic but they have lost the essence of the game with their physical brilliance. 

 

Maybe there are some complaints about fundamentals being lost in other sports, but I feel like the complaints in basketball are literally that they feel that the players are easier to defend. Even if they covered basic fundamentals, that stuff like "going small" would get destroyed in their day. I dont see those type of comparable complaints in other sports unless Im missing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

Have you seen a list of all time greats of the game in either baseball or football that lists current players? I don't see it. Sure players are physically more talented but when people think of all time bests in other sports they aren't talking about current players compared to basketball where LBron, Durant, Curry, Westbrook and Kawhi are all in the conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paladin    0

The great Bill Russell said that "You can't compare basketball players from different eras."  In a sense, I agree.  I suspect Wilt, Oscar, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Jerry West, and some others would have adjusted to whatever style was being played.  I also don't think it is profitable to try and compare them.  We argue whether LeBron is better than Michael, don't agree,  and are unable to convince others of our position.  So comparing athletes from the 50's with those of the present day won't ever be resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dwash    0
7 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

Have you seen a list of all time greats of the game in either baseball or football that lists current players? I don't see it. Sure players are physically more talented but when people think of all time bests in other sports they aren't talking about current players compared to basketball where LBron, Durant, Curry, Westbrook and Kawhi are all in the conversation. 

Oh yeah I see guys like Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Manning, Aaron Judge,Trout, Kershsaw, Bryce Harper, etc being considered among the best ever.

Do you see in football and basketball where what used to be the most impactful and coveted position in the game is basically disrespected to the point where it was eliminated from Allstar bench voting? Where rookies (like the Cowboy rookies) are basically ignored for 3 or 4 years? Where one man breezes through a conference for 7 straight years? An era where NO up and coming team was on the horizon to dethrown the champs (ie Shaqs Magic and Lakers). Where teams openly disregard the importance of the regular season (see Jordans 72 wins at age 35). This typr of stuff is new to the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MemphisX    0
On 7/27/2017 at 10:26 AM, Notorious O.D.K. said:

Exactly, it was the first time it was marketed on such a wide level.I mean, in the late 70s going into the 80s, everybody was coked out. They got lucky with Magic and Bird and an old Dr. j and then got really really luck with Jordan. He changed the dynamic and the Dream Team and other things led to the big marketing push in the 90s.

Not sure if it was the worst bball ever thought. That's a stretch.

I really hated that Knicks/Heat style of play and the Barkley post up for 15+ seconds to try and get an illegal defense.

The games is better now for my tastes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GF#1    0
17 hours ago, chipc3 said:

Have you seen a list of all time greats of the game in either baseball or football that lists current players? I don't see it. Sure players are physically more talented but when people think of all time bests in other sports they aren't talking about current players compared to basketball where LBron, Durant, Curry, Westbrook and Kawhi are all in the conversation. 

You might have a point about baseball, but you're wrong on football.

Tom Brady has been proclaimed the greatest quarterback ever by many, if not most, over the past few seasons (starting after winning SB 49 over Seattle) and even more now that he won his 5th.

Aaron Rodgers is regarded by MANY as the greatest quarterback talent in the history of football. Just as a complete package of skills, intangibles, etc. Got Marino's arm, Montana's touch, Elways legs.

Rob Gronkowski has been recognized as the greatest tight end in the history of football, when healthy.

There's even been some rumblings about the potential all time greatness of Antonio Brown and ODB as wide outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
2 hours ago, GF#1 said:

You might have a point about baseball, but you're wrong on football.

Tom Brady has been proclaimed the greatest quarterback ever by many, if not most, over the past few seasons (starting after winning SB 49 over Seattle) and even more now that he won his 5th.

Aaron Rodgers is regarded by MANY as the greatest quarterback talent in the history of football. Just as a complete package of skills, intangibles, etc. Got Marino's arm, Montana's touch, Elways legs.

Rob Gronkowski has been recognized as the greatest tight end in the history of football, when healthy.

There's even been some rumblings about the potential all time greatness of Antonio Brown and ODB as wide outs.

True. There are some football players like Brady who are considered the best. Not many but a few. I'd argue that Montana was the best quarterback personally but I am biased when it comes to my Niners!

Jerry West is the greatest WR of all time by the way! 

It is curious how QBs are looked at as being the greatest of all time when they don't call their own plays any more. To me, being able to call the plays is a skill lost among today's talented quarterbacks and it is too bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GF#1    0
3 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

True. There are some football players like Brady who are considered the best. Not many but a few. I'd argue that Montana was the best quarterback personally but I am biased when it comes to my Niners!

Jerry West is the greatest WR of all time by the way! 

It is curious how QBs are looked at as being the greatest of all time when they don't call their own plays any more. To me, being able to call the plays is a skill lost among today's talented quarterbacks and it is too bad. 

What seems to get lost at times with Montana is that the man was 4 for 4 in Super Bowls with 3 MVPs that, in my opinion, should have been 4. Jerry Rice was great in that game, but someone's gotta throw him the ball. And Montana never threw an interception in the Super Bowl.

That's as Jordan-esque as it gets.

Of course, my guy is Rodgers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
9 minutes ago, GF#1 said:

What seems to get lost at times with Montana is that the man was 4 for 4 in Super Bowls with 3 MVPs that, in my opinion, should have been 4. Jerry Rice was great in that game, but someone's gotta throw him the ball. And Montana never threw an interception in the Super Bowl.

That's as Jordan-esque as it gets.

Of course, my guy is Rodgers.

Rice was thrown to by Montana, Steve Young (a more physically talented QB than Montana but not as "great" as Montana) and Jeff Garcia not to mention those mistake seasons playing for the Raiders. He was targeted a 1640 times and caught 1549 passes too!  

Aaron Rodgers is a great talent but not in the top 5 of all time in my mind. That doesn't mean he isn't great however. 

Have we hijacked this thread long enough? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GF#1    0
9 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

Rice was thrown to by Montana, Steve Young (a more physically talented QB than Montana but not as "great" as Montana) and Jeff Garcia not to mention those mistake seasons playing for the Raiders. He was targeted a 1640 times and caught 1549 passes too!  

Aaron Rodgers is a great talent but not in the top 5 of all time in my mind. That doesn't mean he isn't great however. 

Have we hijacked this thread long enough? 

I'll start a thread in the off topic forum unless subliminal locked the entire forum. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chipc3 said:

True. There are some football players like Brady who are considered the best. Not many but a few. I'd argue that Montana was the best quarterback personally but I am biased when it comes to my Niners!

Jerry West is the greatest WR of all time by the way! 

It is curious how QBs are looked at as being the greatest of all time when they don't call their own plays any more. To me, being able to call the plays is a skill lost among today's talented quarterbacks and it is too bad. 

The logo played wide receiver too? :o  I didn't even know he was a two sport guy!

That last part is why I still like Johnny Unitas.  He called his own plays and he didn't have the benefit of all these rules to protect the quarterback like they have today.  He just had to stand in there and take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

Brain cramp! I meant Jerry Rice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another example of why different eras are just different eras and no way to compare them. The players of Oakley's and Payton's era had a totally different mentality, they were brought up differently, their environments were different. Even players from impoverished neighborhoods today are in different situations than those guys of yesteryear. They have AAU cicuits where they get free shoes, free clothes, free food,  travel with the top talent and they are in effect taken away from their environments for long periods of time. They grow up differently these days and are much more likely to be buddy buddy with other top players who make it to the NBA. Things are just different and you can't compare eras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle did nothing to deserve losing a team.  They should get one.

Las Vegas will continue to be the stick held over teams who want to move.

I saw Father Pat say Mexico City earlier, and I agree, that is where I am convinced they would expand were David Stern still the commissioner.  He always saw the NBA as a global league, and would push hard for that.  Plus, you're talking about one of the most populous cities in the world, there's no way it wouldn't be successful.  And I would be for it. 

The next most populous cities with no competing sports franchises (which had been Stern-era targets) would currently be:  Albuquerque, Omaha, Honolulu, Providence, Birmingham, Hartford, Louisville, Virginia Beach, Austin, and Riverside-San Bernadino.  Among those, I could see Louisville, Hartford, and Albuquerque being strong candidates, due to their past and current support of college basketball.  Of those, probably only Hartford would light up the eyes of the TV bean counters.  But it could be anybody.

I would dismiss both Kansas City and Pittsburgh, as they barely seem able to support the franchises that currently reside there.  The Pirates in particular are often pointed out as being a barely-making-it franchise.  Cincinnati supports both the Reds and Bengals well, but are probably incapable of doing that with three teams in town.  

And if Nashville got an NBA team - well, whoever made that possible, I would go ahead and ask them who shot Kennedy, because they probably know.  I think I would just renounce my Memphis heritage at that point, in fear that Nashvillians would be given lawful rights to hunt us all down to extinction.

For the record, I'm all for expansion to 32 teams.  A league where over half the teams make the playoffs is a bit ridiculous, but that's really just a pet peeve, not a good reason. This league has been built on individuals and dynasties, but the Warriors are a dynasty built on luck and timing, more so than any other NBA dynasty of recent memory.  The league will still have dynasties, but not in the completely unbalanced way the Warriors were built and grown.  So "dilution" of talent, when you're talking about growing the total league active roster by less than 7%, doesn't really add up. But those fat expansion fees are going to help all teams' bottom lines when they come in.  They will probably be in excess of $1B this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dwash    0
8 hours ago, Notorious O.D.K. said:

Yet another example of why different eras are just different eras and no way to compare them. The players of Oakley's and Payton's era had a totally different mentality, they were brought up differently, their environments were different. Even players from impoverished neighborhoods today are in different situations than those guys of yesteryear. They have AAU cicuits where they get free shoes, free clothes, free food,  travel with the top talent and they are in effect taken away from their environments for long periods of time. They grow up differently these days and are much more likely to be buddy buddy with other top players who make it to the NBA. Things are just different and you can't compare eras.

I agree. "Neighborhood pride" that used to exist amongst high school players (like Northside vs. southside)  probably just manifested into pride about your team once you got to the league. Plus it was harder to leave a team. Now nobody plays for the neighborhood team. Then with social media you have open friendly contact with players from other neighborhoods in high school or other teams in college or the NBA year round 24/7. Its no longer "I will see you on the court" and nowhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0

David Aldridge just wrote a follow up article on this topic; http://www.nba.com/article/2017/07/31/morning-tip-future-of-sonics-seattle-nba-expansion/ 

It was mentioned that the league may want all 30 teams to be fiscally sound before expanding and although relocation may happen before expansion, neither is happening soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GF#1    0
On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 1:01 PM, chipc3 said:

Brain cramp! I meant Jerry Rice. 

Yeah I let that slide. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this