You are right one part of it is wrong, they can only franchise them 3 times and I was thinking they could keep doing it. Not sure what else you think is wrong about it. Guys on rookie contracts are a huge part of team building in the NFL just because careers and primes are shorter. Other factor that ties into and makes NFL's restrictive policies more effective is that injuries are such a big part of the NFL that guys have to grab the money/contracts when they get the chance, waiting to hit FA even if you are a Labron level talent would be crazy.

And talent evaluation being much harder in the NFL is wrong, how so? You have a roster of 50+ guys, 22 starting + special teams, have limited sample sizes to evaluate them on, careers are much shorter, injuries make depth important, etc. Whereas in the NBA its these select group of elite guys, let me just get a couple of them and we are good to go.

Its not about MIA when plays TOR or some other bad team, Labron's team being favored by 11 or 14 doesn't really matter much.

But when they are playing OKC in the Finals (doubt you were even aware that OKC was 60/40 favorites in that series), or heck even the Celtics in the ECF or Indiana the rounds before? It is so irrational to enjoy seeing Chris Bosh on the court in those games, instead of having him lead an okay Raptors team that I would have only had a mild interest in seeing anyway? Only an inbred would be indifferent to that tradeoff. So you are saying if Labron was on CLE, you would have watched CLE games, TOR games with Bosh, and a breaking down Wade leading the Heat, but **** Labron ruined it for you and now you can't watch any of them. Have a feeling you weren't watching any of it regardless.

Oh, was not aware that not viewing the sports from a business perspective = dumb fan, I'm supposed to care about whether Dan Gilbert's investment is worth $500 million or $200 million? Why? Sacramento is in financial trouble, not really sure how you think that is supposed to affect my enjoyment of the NBA. Worst case scenario, there are less teams, so what? But was wrong about you, you are not asking for charity, you are asking for it on behalf of Dan Gilbert, how noble of you.

And you are clueless, Wade vs. Labron is not a competition now, much less in 2015 when Wade will be lucky to be a top 30 player.

And by the way your whole premise is bull**** in the first place, look at the winning %s of the top teams in the NBA vs. NFL. So despite these superteams, NBA has just as much variance on a game to game basis as the NFL which proclaimed variance lover RT should love! Butnahhh, your real beef seems to be that NBA playoffs are much less variancefests than other sports due to the playoff structure and nature of the game. Or you just don't like basketball.

AU JUS is elite

whoa

prepare your anus for endless talk of danica patrick. i dreaded the day she'd actually win something that mattered

i dont know dick about nascar but does winning a pole really matter that much?

not really

has there ever been a nascar season or w/e thread in SE? or do nascar fans still not have internet

well it IS the daytona 500

wow rat wrong here. bridge is a super elite movie.

Rarely if ever will a player be franchised 3 times, it's too expensive. Players hit Free agency all the time.

No idea what this has to do with anything, if it was in the part of your post I called all wrong then yeah, my fault. I just ignored it as it doesn't pertain to the discussion.


So again, screw all the other teams, distill the talent down to 4-6 teams and those games will be EPIC!!!

Meh, doesn't interest me in the least. Watching 26 other teams fight for scraps is a waste of time and effort.

I watch Pacer games as they're my favorite team. When the team had Reggie, Rik, the Davises, etc. I was going to games and watching all the time. When those guys retired and the remaining players started shooting up strip clubs, my interest waned.

Now, with the new group (George, Hibbert, West, etc.), the product is fun and I've been to 5 games so far this season. If George and West leave in Free Agency in the next few years and the team regresses harshly, my interest will again wane.

Keeping teams robust and not doormats is good for the product and the league. *

*Well, it should be, but the NBA's fans are such drooling idiots that they actually prefer 4 great teams an 26 meh teams to 30 good teams. (Obv. exaggeration is obvious, don't be a nit)

Again, you seem confused. I don't have any issue with the NBA allowing players to group up. If anything, I feel a little bad for the players who aren't getting their full value thanks to the NBA's salary policies.

No, the entire issue was around my disbelief that people actually prefer fewer teams made up of more great players to a more even spread of talent. It really speaks to what 72o said when he talked about his lack of interest as a fan until the last rounds of the playoffs. The ratings reflect this feeling among many of the fans as well. The NBA isn't worth watching for them unless it's Kobe/D12 vs. The Heat on Christmas or something similar. Pretty sad imo.

It's even stranger to think that in periods where the NBA hasn't had super teams, the OVERALL ratings are down. So not only do people watch the major games (ECF/WCF, Finals) less when the talent is less-but-more-balanced, but they also watch all the games less.

It feels like NBA fans don't really like basketball as much as they do watching Wade and Bron dunk on people.

nit

LOL @ comparing the NFL and NBA winning%. Sample size matters. That's mostly because they're different sports but its crazy to say the NBA has anywhere near the variance of the NFL.

For fun, check out the odds of winning titles:
NFL: Broncos and Niners are tied for 1st at 7/1
NBA: Heat are 1st at 8/5, OKC 2nd at 13/4

NFL: 3 teams (Bills, Raiders, Jags) are worse than 100/1
NBA: 15 (!!!) teams are worse than 100/1

But variance isn't really what makes it fun, it's just a byproduct of the close competition.

Not really at all in Daytona, but it's Daytona and she's a woman.

you need to think a bit more about what you think this means

I think it means that the Super Bowl's next likely winner is less obvious/certain than the NBA Finals next likely winner. What do you take from it?

Edit: And obviously, there's a little bit of "fun with numbers" here since we're midway through the NBA season and the NFL bets are futures bets, but I'll be damned if I'm going to take the 30 seconds required to google search "Pre-season 2012-2013 NBA futures"

Further edit: Ok, I lied, solid little sortable table

it doesnt mean there is less parity. a 7 game series would certainly change the nfl odds.

Oh wow the Lakers were 9/4 preseason lol

Which is still a tangential discussion from the one we're having (Where I asserted that all NBA fans who prefer super teams are akin to Hitler).

But yeah, the NBA playoffs do the best job of crowning the "true" best team of any current Major US sports league. Not really up for debate tho.

I doubt very much the inclusion of a 7 game series in the NFL would move the lines to LOLNBA levels, the game is just too different and the teams too close.

its hard to even imagine what a 7 game series in football would look like. it would completely change the game.

Pretty much whoever stays healthiest wins, which is already a huge part of the NFL.

well you'd either have to have the games so close together that health would be the #1 factor or so far apart that the gameplanning aspect would become pretty insane.

7 Game football series has to favor coaching hugely. NE favs from then on imo

series in the NFL would be amazing if they were workable.

7 game football series would have a ton of variance due to injuries.

Damn, RT still drooling all over this thread

Noze

Don't worry buddy, I'll pay attention to you.

Can you imagine the hits Brady would take in game one when Bellichick leaves him in up 30? All out blitz every play to take him out for games 2-7