Contracting the NBA

For years now we have heard calls that the NBA should be contracted.  Many clamor that there are too many teams, that the talent pool is too widely dispersed, and that the league has teams in remote outposts that cannot support a professional sports franchise.  Lately, we have heard people within NBA circles make such statements.  Earlier this season, LeBron James posted a comment on his twitter feed suggesting that the NBA should contract.  So, the question remains, is this a good idea, and if so, what would the NBA look like?

Those pushing for contraction tend to rest their argument on the aforementioned premise that talent is too widely dispersed in the NBA.  I would counter that this is simply not the case, as, with the influx of recent talent from the past five drafts, the Association is experiencing a renaissance of sorts.  In fact, it is hard to think of many NBA teams that do not have a "franchise" guy.  Additionally, the notion that there are too many NBA teams is a bit outdated.  Our country has grown exponentially since the NBA was first established 60 years ago. During that time there have also been massive populations shifts in terms of where people reside in this country (now more than ever people live in cities, and we have seen population booms in the South and throughout the Western United States for 20 years now.) Perhaps the strongest argument for contracting the number of teams is two-fold; certain cities cannot support a team, and parity is a good thing.

Beginning with the first part of that argument, it is true, there are certain cities that simply cannot support a team. I harped on this in my last post, but New Orleans, and Charlotte, are two cities that seemingly cannot deal with having more than one professional sports franchise.  The Jazz failed in New Orleans, and have flourished in Salt Lake City. The Hornets languished in Charlotte, and are now experiencing the same sort of fate in New Orleans, while the Bobcats have fared quite poorly in Charlotte since their inception.  The argument then must be carried through to its logical progression; because certain cities have failed to support a team, they should not be considered as locations for relocation of existing franchises.  While I think that certain cities should be considered off limits for NBA franchises in the near future, it is hard to say that cities like Kansas City or St. Louis, both of which previously had an NBA team, should be prohibited from bringing a team like the Hornets or Kings to town, just because franchises failed there years ago.   The Kansas City Kings and the St. Louis Hawks were moved long ago. Since that time, both cities have established themselves as cities capable of supporting multiple franchises.  Additionally, both cities have terrific collegiate and prep-level basketball prospects which indicates a passion for the sport therein.  So then, why not just relocate teams rather than taking draconian measure and eliminating them altogether?

As for the second part of that argument: parity is a good thing.  To conclude that having 30 teams of equal ability is a good thing for professional basketball is fallacy.  The NFL has become a "more even" league over the past ten years, and yet certain teams (namely the Patriots, Steelers and Colts) have all continued to dominate. While talent has been dispersed across the league like never before, I am not sure I can agree that it has been better for the NFL.  As a San Francisco 49ers fan, I would argue that the past ten years have been terrible. For starters, my team has been horrible (to the point that I did not watch a single NFL game other than the Super Bowl between 2003 and 2007.)  Beyond that though the teams I grew up watching, at least those that were continually successful (Green Bay, Dallas, Miami, etc...) have had up-and-down years, and as a casual fan of the NFL, my interest has wavered. In short, it is hard to follow a sport casually when the landscape is changing year-to-year.  Those sports fans who exist on the fringe like regularity, they like to know who to follow. Not every fan of the NFL, or the NBA for that matter, is a die-hard nut like yours-truly, most are sane individuals who recognize that it is just a sport.

As an addendum to the second part of that argument, I think it is also shortsighted to say that fewer teams will create parity, when it fact it seems to be strong management that keeps teams successful in an otherwise even league (as the success of New England, Pittsburgh and Indianapolis would suggest.)

Even if contraction were under consideration, the next logical question would be who to contract.  Looking at attendance numbers and overall record, using the past ten years as a sample, I think the teams most likely to be put on the "chopping block," would be the New Orleans Hornets, the Charlotte Bobcats, the Memphis Grizzlies and the Sacramento Kings.  While the Los Angeles Clippers would certainly make any one's short list of franchises that need to go, they continually make money, they have a bright future with their young core of players, and they play in a market that has shown itself capable of supporting two NBA teams. 

After contraction, there would be a dispersal draft, wherein the players from those four teams would be drafted by the remaining 26 teams.  The remaining teams would likely select those players in inverse order of how they finished that season.  In reality, it would be more fair to use their aggregate winning percentage over the previous five to ten seasons to determine the order, but nevertheless, that's small potatoes.  The draft would probably go something like this: Cleveland (Chris Paul), Minnesota (Rudy Gay), Washington (David West), Toronto (Zach Randolph), Clippers (Tyreke Evans), New Jersey (DeMarcus Cousins), Golden State (Marc Gasol), Detroit (Emeka Okafor), Houston (Mike Conley), Milwaukee (OJ Mayo), Utah (Stephen Jackson), Phoenix (Tyrus Thomas), Indiana (Carl Landry), Philadelphia (Shane Battier), New York (DJ Augustin), Portland (Samuel Dalembert), Denver (Tony Allen), Atlanta (Gerald Henderson), Oklahoma City (Jason Thompson), Orlando (Darrell Arthur), Lakers (Trevor Ariza), Chicago (Marcus Thornton), Miami (Xavier Henry), Dallas (Sam Young), Boston (Omri Casspi), San Antonio (Donte Green). Now certainly, this could vary, I am just basing this on the talent available, and then considering the needs of every team. 


The 26 teams that got at least one new player would undoubtedly be aided by that player's presence. But, the addition of one player might not help that many teams (even with Chris Paul, would the Cavaliers be any good?) The idea is that adding these players, particularly the stronger players to rather moribund franchises (cough, Minnesota, cough) would speed up the rebuilding process in those cities.  Nevertheless, gerrymandering the league's talent to compensate for poor management decisions is not the way to make a team better. 

In the end, the strongest case for contraction, at least the only one I can make without lying to myself, is that some cities just cannot support a team.  If that remains the case in towns like New Orleans, Memphis, Sacramento, and Charlotte, then yes, the league should consider either gutting those teams and selling off the parts, or perhaps think more prudently and relocate those franchises to cities that are dying to have the hardwood heroes in their town.