Balance of Power

The last few seasons of NBA play have moved professional basketball to the forefront of the American sports scene -- just beyond baseball and far ahead of hockey in both television ratings and the sale of merchandise.

Sure, The Association experienced some lean years around the turn of the millennium, which is often attributed to the end of the Chicago dynasty. But the truth is, while Jordan's Bulls were surely the best team of the 90's, the NBA was loaded with legendary players and teams throughout the decade.

The end of the Jordan era in Chicago was just the tip of the iceberg. Perennial powers across the map (the Houston Rockets, New York Knicks, Phoenix Suns, Utah Jazz, and the artists formerly known as the Charlotte Hornets and Seattle SuperSonics) all fell by the wayside around the same time.

When countless Hall of Famers-to-be retire, and an influx of teenage streetballers think they can run with the big boys, that type of thing is bound to happen. But like the economy, the NBA talent pool has proven to be cyclical, refreshing itself in no time.



Today, 2010, is a new age. The days of B.H.G.W.A. (Ball-Hogging Gunners With Attitude) who play little, if any, defense are long gone. In today's NBA, the best players can do it all.

A new generation -- from Dwight Howard and Rajon Rondo in the East, to Chris Paul and Brandon Roy in the West -- has matured quickly, providing the league with a number of marketable young stars.

Meanwhile, all-time greats such as Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Steve Nash, and Dirk Nowitzki (to name a few) are still playing at a very high level in what many consider to be a young man's league.

That's not all. I can't forget to mention the '03 draft class featuring Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and LeBron James. These players, drafted in the same month that ratings for the NBA Finals reached an all-time record low, have since helped to restore the NBA's shimmer.

But James, Cleveland's do-it-all hometown hero, is of a different breed. Arguably the world's best player, he transcends basketball.

If "King James" played football, his size and strength would match up with the game's biggest defensive ends, his speed and explosiveness with the most athletic wide receivers, his awareness and savvy playmaking with the most cerebral of quarterbacks.

Combined with these undeniable skills, James' down-to-earth personality and good sense of humor have not only led to infinite endorsements -- which, according to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, make him the world's second-most "powerful" athlete -- but they also set an example for young players.

But while all of these ingredients certainly make the NBA an attractive commodity to the casual basketball fan, it's hard to imagine the sport taking over as America's favorite any time soon.



I could go on forever about why football (our sport of choice in the U.S.) is so appealing, or why the NFL reigns supreme in a country that, for the most part, likes both suspense and violence in its entertainment. But I'd be wasting my time.

Fully-padded men smashing into one another is the nature of football. On the other hand, calling a foul when someone attempting to pass or shoot is simply touched is the nature of basketball. This will never change. We need to look beneath the surface.

As far as I can tell, one noteworthy, underlying factor that separates the NFL from the NBA is competitive balance. The NFL has it. The NBA does not.

For starters, check out the NBA standings...

As of February 6th, there were only six teams with a win percentage at or above .500 in the Eastern Conference. Meanwhile, there were eleven such teams in the Western Conference. This imbalance is typical around the NBA.

(In case you're unfamiliar with how seeding for the NBA postseason works, eight teams from each conference advance to the playoffs -- the three division winners from both the East and West, plus the five best records among non-division winners in each conference.)

This means that, as of February 6th, the Chicago Bulls -- 8th in the East at 23-25 -- have a chance to win a championship, while the Houston Rockets -- 9th in the West, the stronger of the two conferences, at 27-22 -- watch the playoffs on TV. It just doesn't seem fair.

And it's not. But let's keep it real: the Chicago Bulls do not have a legitimate shot to win a championship anyway. A team in their position (sub-.500 yet playoff bound), which we see every year in the Eastern Conference, is usually nothing more than a warm-up series for the East's top seed.



So what can be done about this East/West imbalance?

The NBA could copy the NFL's blueprint, implementing a new playoff format that features just six teams from each conference. This would limit the number of mediocre teams that advance from the East, and reward each conference's top two seeds with a first-round bye.

And it makes even more sense when one considers that no team seeded lower than No. 4 in its conference has advanced to the Finals over the last decade.

But the problem with this format is that -- instead of two, three, or four good teams from the West missing the postseason each year, which is an absurdity to begin with -- as many as five, six, or even seven quality Western Conference teams could be home for the playoffs.

Now that we can rule out that idea, how about realigning the divisions, swapping one or two teams from each conference?

Though it may seem like a logical solution, realignment is not sensible from a geographical perspective. Plus, it makes it difficult to maintain historical rivalries within each conference.

How about this novel idea: eliminating the NBA Draft lottery. Instead of giving the team with the worst record only a twenty-five percent chance of landing the top pick in the draft, how about giving them a one-hundred percent chance?

I understand why the NBA introduced the weighted draft lottery in 1990: It wanted to prevent teams from intentionally losing their remaining games. But while I'm sure that it's not always easy to prove such a thing, wouldn't a fine for teams that tank their season be as effective?

The NFL doesn't hold a draft lottery. The worst team selects first, the best team selects last. Over the years, this has helped to sustain competitive balance. And I'm not just talking about balance between conferences. I'm talking about balance from top to bottom.



From 1999 to 2008, the team with the worst record in the NFL each year -- and therefore the top pick in the subsequent draft (minus the Panthers in '02 due to the expansion Texans) -- improved its win percentage by an average of 29.4 percent. Rounded up, that's an average turnaround of five games. In the NFL, that's a huge difference.

Over that same span, the team with the worst record in the NBA improved its win percentage by an average of 15.8 percent from one season to the next. Rounded up, that's an average turnaround of only thirteen games -- not nearly as impressive as the about-face we've seen over the last decade from the NFL's worst.

As is the case with anything, eliminating the NBA draft lottery alone will not make the NBA more balanced. But considering those staggering numbers, it could help.

Whether or not the generation before me wants to admit it, the NBA is a quality product. It's as healthy as it's been in years, young people love it, and I would estimate that it's -- as far as popularity goes -- the fastest-growing sport in the world.

But until NBA officials figure out a way to make their league more balanced as a whole, it has no chance to overtake football as America's favorite sport.