It's pretty easy to have parity in a sport with a single-elimination playoff (for the NFL)
![zQYf3px.png](http://i.imgur.com/zQYf3px.png)
![YKpneiz.png](http://i.imgur.com/YKpneiz.png)
It's pretty easy to have parity in a sport with a single-elimination playoff (for the NFL)
NBA will never have "parity" because it's basketball. When you make 30-40 FGs and 100 plays per game, the better team tends to win. It's less random and a lucky FG or two are less likely to make a difference.
Also, 7 game series helps to ensure the better team wins.
Yep. And I think Clay Bennett and Aubrey McClendon are almost certainly huge douches. Love this team though.We hate all those things too........
Right, baseball and hockey have strong parity with series, but I think it's fair to say to being single-elimination definitely makes more parity.
This is the best point made so far, besides the obvious single-elimination vs. 7-game series factor. You're 100% right... far more luck and randomness involved with the NFL.
I still don't think it's a good qualifier/argument because the NHL and MLB show that you can have decent amount (or in the NHL's case: GREAT amount) of parity in a 7-game playoff format. I think linsivvi's argument holds more weight. What can the NBA do about it? That's where the discussion should be.
The problem with the salary cap is that it doesn't scale linearly with talent. Role players are only worth anything if you already have a superstar, but minimum salary requirements and maximum salary rules ensure that they still make a ton of money. Luol Deng makes 3/4 as much as Lebron. That's a problem.
If you want to ensure superstars are spread out, increase the maximum salary, BUT only one player on each team is allowed to have a maximum salary. Every other player on the team can only earn 1/2 the max at most.
And that's why I can never get into soccer. A couple lucky goals and you're the world champion.
Or, take the NCAA for example.
No idea how NCAA works but no good HS player would join a bad team right?
When has a Cinderella team ever won big in soccer tourneys? I really can't think of really any examples.
Especially in the World Cup where the talent is so extremely rich. Maybe the US going to the quarterfinals?
jabari parker is going to duke sooooooo
the only good thing about them is their coach
and shabazz went to ucla. nothing good about that except socal.
To be fair, that's what Brooks sounds like when we're down too.McHale's coaching: "Cmon guys"
Denmark and greece both won the Uefa Euros. Denmark didn't qualify and only got in since another country had to pull out for war reasons.
Hey that is coach of the year candidate mchale sir.McHale's coaching: "Cmon guys"
When has a Cinderella team ever won big in soccer tourneys? I really can't think of any examples.
Especially in the World Cup where the talent is so extremely rich. Maybe the US going to the quarterfinals?
Denmark and greece both won the Uefa Euros. Denmark didn't qualify and only got in since another country had to pull out for war reasons.
When has a Cinderella team ever won big in soccer tourneys? I really can't think of any examples.
Especially in the World Cup where the talent is so extremely rich. Maybe the US going to the quarterfinals?
That's BS about Denmark in 1992. They had Michael Laudrup, the best goalkeeper in the world (Schmeichel) and were a strong team all around. Everyone who follows Football knows they've always had good teams
.
#ynotThis sleeveless shirt is a new low for Westbrook.
http://twitter.com/BeyondTheBuzzer/status/326194900460789760/photo/1
When has a Cinderella team ever won big in soccer tourneys? I really can't think of any examples.
Especially in the World Cup where the talent is so extremely rich. Maybe the US going to the quarterfinals?
In soccer, over the entire tourneys or whatnot, your luck runs out so it's hard for a cinderella team to win it all. The talent disparity is still big enough and soccer players have a bigger impact on the sport than in baseball or football.
That said, regarding the World Cup, there is definitely a home country advantage where almost always the home team over-performs. South Korea 2 world cups ago was a pretty crazy ride.
france beating brazil in 98?![]()
Greece won the Euro in 2004 beating all the major favourites like France, Czech Republic and Portugal. I think there was never a bugger cinderella story in football. (maybe Germany winning the World Cup 1954)
france beating brazil in 98?
It's not just the number or games, though. Baseball has tons of randomness. Huge underdogs can win in hockey too.
Is this argument all over the top seeds winning all their games?
Because if it is, thats pretty dumb.
They're the better seed for a reason.
![]()
Greece won the Euro in 2004 beating all the major favourites like France, Czech Republic and Portugal. I think there was never a bugger cinderella story in football. (maybe Germany winning the World Cup 1954)
well shit¡ celtics are done!! kg cant score and pierce cant take over games any more.....no rondo to control the offense, score, limit stupid mistakes and just be playof rondo. no ray ray in da clutch. had to see it to believe it. congrats knickers. and lakers aint doing shit with mike d! why start nash after winning 5 straight? frack these playoffs!aint the same without kobe! im out!
frac da knicks!
ah, I forgot about that team. That was a big cinderella run. I'm sure in soccer a cinderella will break through every so many years just because of the math behind it and low scoring.
I honestly don't think we'll ever see a true cinderalla run in basketball. The closest were the 1999 Knicks, but that was a lockout season and Knicks team to end the year was vastly different than the one that started.
I think the '95 rockets is the only title team in like a million years to win the title without being a top 3 seed and they were the defending champs...
You really can't figure out why more parity, more upsets, more unexpected runs deep into the playoff would be a good thing for this sport and the cities that harbor these teams?Is this argument all over the top seeds winning all their games?
Because if it is, thats pretty dumb.
They're the better seed for a reason.
The point we're making is that it happens far more often in basketball than other sports, not rocket science.It happens in basketball all the time, too.. Better teams usually win in all sports.. Don't really what the complaint is.
top 3 seed in the west or east or top 3 in the NBA because the 2003-2004 Pistons were the 6th seed in the NBA
The point we're making is that it happens far more often in basketball than other sports, not rocket science.
That could be something you like about the game, a preference, but objectively speaking it's not a positive. Stern & Co. have been trying to increase parity for years for this very reason. It's just not healthy for the sport.