I thought I would share what someone very smart pointed out MLB Champs since 1990 (13) Reds, Twins, Blue Jays, Braves, Yankees, Marlins, Diamond Backs, Angels, Red Sox, White Sox, Cardinals, Phillies, Giants Super Bowl Champs since 1990 (13) 49ers, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys, Packers, Broncos, Rams, Ravens, Patriots, Buccaneers, Steelers, Colts, Saints NHL Champs since 1990 (13) Oliers, Penguins, Canadiens, Rangers, Devils, Avalanche, Red Wings, Stars, Lightning, Hurricanes, Ducks, Blackhawks, Bruins NBA Champs since 1990 (8) Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Mavericks And only one more (76ers) since 1980
I don't know if these numbers are correct, but someone I know said that four (4) teams have accounted for 23 of the last 30 championships. If true, that's a staggering indictment. If I hadn't felt the Blazers had an underdog's chance a couple of times in that span, I'd have thrown in the towel long ago. It was the 2000-2003 blatant Laker favoritism that really sealed my disgust and hopelessness regarding the NBA. Paul Allen's money has been my only hope. Now that leg up may be waning.
Since 1980 (Magic's rookie year) Lakers--10 Bulls--6 Celtics--4 Spurs--4 Others--8 (Pistons 3, Rockets 2, Heat/Sixers/Mavericks 1 each) So, 4 teams have 24 of 32 titles. This is primarily the Lakers' fault, as can be said about the majority of the world's ills.
It's not about the hard-cap or unguaranteed deals. Football enables smaller market teams to succeed because the league had the foresight to build in a robust revenue sharing system that enables every team to compete financially. The NBA has basically dick.
8 vs. 13 is < 40% difference. Ya I guess so, especially taking into account that 2 more teams (TOR, NOR/CHA) have been added to the NBA in that same time period. Still, I had always assumed that there was more parity in the NFL/NHL.
You can also add some caveats: 1) MLB has 8 teams that can win a championship (playoffs) each year out of 30. ~27% 2) NFL, 12 of 32 = 37.5% 3) NBA, 16 of 30 = 53%
I wasn't making commentary, I was just saying that there are 8 playoff teams in MLB (6 division winners and 2 wild cards), 12 in the NFL (8 divison winners and 4 wild cards) and 16 in the NBA (6 division winners and 10 others). Not which teams showed a preponderance of appearances or whatever. By definition you can't win the championship if you can't get to the playoffs. Based on that tidbit alone, you'd think that NBA would have a more diverse spread. But that's not the case. I should've phrased it better.
What about championship appearances? I ask that without knowing for sure, but it seems like there's more diversity in the other two major leagues in terms of teams ALMOST winning the championship than in the NBA, although I might be wrong. The thing is that I don't know that anything can be done about this. One or two dominant players can make such a bigger difference in the NBA than they can in the NFL or MLB. Take the best hitter and the best pitcher in baseball and put them on the same team and... they aren't very good (as a team) if they're surrounded by average players. Take the best QB and the best, say, LB in the NFL and surround them by average talent... and the team isn't very good. Take the two best players and put them on the same team in the NBA and you can win an NBA title much more easily with a few breaks. There are only 5 players on the floor at a time and only 12(ish) on a roster. One or two dominant players are more important in basketball. Ed O.
The assertion that the Colts in 07 were an average team with just one great QB and a one great defensive player is just plain wrong. That team was loaded with playmakers: Dwight Freeney, Joseph addai, Bob Sanders, Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne and the list goes on. That team had talent, the reason the Colts suck now is that most of that talent got old and new pro-bowl level players haven't been added.
I think he was saying that the Colts are dogshit this year w/out Manning, rather than asserting that the '07 Colts team was Manning and a bunch of scrubs. You read to much into his flippant (and funny) comment.
