One of the things we love about sports is the ability they have to bring us together. But just as obvious and much more polarizing is their ability to bring out different ideas and points of view. I mean, who doesn’t love a good controversy? Am I right?
In the spirit of agreeing to disagree, welcome to the first Belly Up Sports Debate.
The Topic
Love them or hate them, Super Teams are a reality in today’s NBA. But are they good for the game or bad? Two writers from the Belly Up Hoops team will present their arguments below.
The Argument For Super Teams
by Nathan Koss
NBA basketball is at its best when there is at least one super team in the NBA. Fans tune in to basketball to witness greatness happen. Honestly, nobody really gives a damn if the Sacramento Kings and the New Orleans Pelicans are going to be able to compete for an eighth seed. When fans turn on the television to watch basketball, they are watching the greats; LeBron, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Shaq, Magic Johnson.
The idea that the NBA needs parity throughout is a concept that people got because they also watch NFL football. Parity in football is great because there is an urgency in every regular-season game to win. However, in the NBA, the star players of the sport control everything. There is a reason that the NBA markets its star players more than any other sport in the country. The ratings and the success of the sport depend solely on the star players. Having three or more star players on one team creates a product on the court that every fan wants to tune in and watch.
Remember What Saved the NBA
People forget that the NBA was dying in the late 70s/early 80s. Then, the ratings spiked up in the mid-80s, and they rose to an all-time high throughout the 90s. The ratings didn’t skyrocket because there was parity; they rose because of the emergence of three super teams. The Lakers, the Celtics, and eventually the Bulls carried the sport on their shoulders. When the Lakers were playing the Celtics every year in the finals in the 80s, it seemed like fans didn’t care about parity. When Michael Jordan led the Bulls to two different three-peats, NBA fans didn’t care about parity. So, what’s the need for parity now?
More Energy, More Buzz
Moving onto more recent super teams, the two that have dominated this decade are the Miami Heat and the Golden State Warriors. When the Big Three formed in Miami and when Kevin Durant joined the Warriors, NBA fans were outraged. “They are ruining the sport. This is terrible for basketball.” Are you people crazy?
These historic, all-time teams are the best part of NBA basketball. They drove the NBA before, and it holds true today. When there is at least one super team in the league, other teams start making drastic all-in moves to beat them. When there isn’t a super team to chase, other organizations like to play it safe and not make risky moves. As fans, we like to see all-in moves, risk, and great players on the same team. The energy and buzz in the NBA is different when there is an all-time historic super team in the league.
The Argument Against Super Teams
By Jade Johnson
Maybe I’m old. Or possibly it’s because I played basketball in a rec league for years. Or perhaps I’m just a basketball purist. Likely, it’s a little bit of all of the above. Whatever the case, I am of that class of crazies who believe that super teams are terrible for the sport of basketball.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I see the usefulness of super teams in terms of entertainment value. Of course, if it’s just about ratings and dolla dolla bills, super teams are the way to go, no question. But good for the sport itself? Absolutely not.
Super Teams Diminish Quality
When you have super teams dominating the league, you create the equivalent of an NBA One Percent. You’ve got a fist full of guys who get all the minutes while other exceptional basketball players ride the bench. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it just seems like common sense to me that more players playing a higher level of basketball is good for everyone.
And what happens when these super-stars on super teams get injured and no one wants to tune in? Maybe, just maybe if there was more parity, the NBA’s ratings wouldn’t noticeably drop when there are a lot of injuries in the league. You know, like there have been so many of this year…
Fewer players expected to handle the bulk of the minutes per team could also have an effect on the need for load management. Right now, most teams play a maximum of 10 deep with the other 5 spots on the roster reserved to be used only in the case that one of the stars gets injured. I think basketball should be ore like hockey in that teams who use all four lines are at an advantage. The minutes are more spread out allowing for more rest through the season for stars, possibly eliminating the need for missing games to load management altogether.
The Death of Real Team Basketball
I have to say, with all due respect to my colleague, I feel he’s playing a little fast and loose with the use of the term, “every fan”. Give me the 2003-04 Pistons, 2010-11 Mavericks or the 2018-19 Raptors over the Heat or Warriors all day every day.
Also, I have zero use for football. I might watch the Superbowl if I’m invited to a Superbowl party with friends. Mostly though, I’ll YouTube the halftime show a week or two later. My preference for parity has nothing to do with football. It has to do with the fact that I love the game of basketball. And basketball is at it’s best when it’s played as a team.
The fact of the matter is, most “fans” of basketball are casuals. They only tune in for the big games with the big stars. They’re not students of the game. They don’t love it in its purest form. Simply put, they don’t know any better. They wouldn’t know good team basketball if it smacked them upside the head. All they know is that LeBron James didn’t have a great scoring night. Or that Steph Curry missed too many threes. No matter that their teams still won the game.
They don’t remember the way John Stockton or Steve Nash used to drop dimes. The way Scottie Pippen played defense or that the Bad Boys won championships from a defensive focus rather than an offensive one. They only want to talk about Michael Jordan’s stats but forget about how part of what made him so great was the fact that he was committed to making his team better by any means necessary. Not by recruiting other great players and creating a no-lose situation.
Super teams aren’t about competition, they’re about cheating the system. And I get it. I’m not mad at it. I’ve always had a, don’t hate the player, hate the game mentality. But let’s not pretend that super teams are about elevating the game. For me and to many NBA fans, the game is at it’s best when the best teams have to go through other excellent teams to get to the Championship. Not when the highschool kids team up and put a beating on the sixth graders.
Super Teams Don’t Foster Competition
I’ve always been a big fan of basketball, but I can tell you for certain that when the Warriors and LeBron were going at it in the Finals for that stretch of years, I wasn’t watching those games. I didn’t even watch the playoffs. I’m not interested in watching games in a series where the outcome is already decided. I want to see players in a series where I can’t be certain of the outcome before the opening tip of Game one. What’s the point of watching an entire playoffs’ worth of basketball when we already knew LeBron was coming out of the East and the Warriors were coming out of the West? Where’s the intrigue? Where’s the tension?
No, give me a playoff season where every game could go either way. Last season, I wasn’t watching the NBA at large. I was watching the Raptors. The season before that, I watched even less basketball. Yet, when I did the NBA Playoffs Bracket Challenge in April, my entire bracket was damn near perfect in terms of who won their playoff series. The Trail Blazers’ run was the only thing that messed me up. And we can all agree that the Blazers overperformed last season.
As someone who had been following only one team for several seasons, and stopped watching the playoffs when that team was eliminated, I shouldn’t have been able to do that. I mean, I’m smart and I know hoops. But the fact that I was able to get so close to a perfect bracket having acquired so little actual information tells me that the NBA is less competitive, and therefore, less enjoyable with super teams then it is without.
What do you think? Are you for or against NBA super teams? Let us know which side of the debate you fall on our social media channels or in the comments.
Check out other pieces by Nathan Koss, Jade Johnson and the rest of the Belly Up Sports Team.
