5 reasons why super teams ruin the integrity of the NBA

In the last decade, the term “super team” has come up many times as players try to win an NBA championship. Loyalty to a team has been questioned by fans and why the good teams get better and the bad teams get worse. Rarely you see a player stay with one team for the length of his career. Kobe Bryant and Dirk Nowitzki are good examples as they have remained with their respective teams for their playing careers while the owners built around them.

Recently retired Tim Duncan also played his 19-year career with the San Antonio Spurs, showing that loyalty to a team and city exists for those who want it to be. What’s even more impressive is that Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili also have remained with the Spurs for their entire careers, thus giving the Spurs three big players to go with without having to overspend or entice with other matters.

Although not on the same level as those stated above, Udonis Haslem started with the Miami Heat, after they drafted Dwyane Wade in 2003 and remained with the Heat since then. Sometimes players are unaware how much of a difference they make when they stay with a team, how younger fans look up to them as heroes, and how loyal they can be for those fans who cheer for them night in and night out.

Listed below are 5 reasons why I believe the NBA's integrity is ruined by these super teams.

1) Morally and ethically, players are taking the easy way out

When players declare their eligibility for the NBA draft, it’s supposed to be a joyous occasion where the dream of playing in the NBA is achieved after many committed hours of hard work and dedication.

Once playing, the thoughts of winning a championship come to mind. It brings the principle of working hard to accomplish your goals. By skipping that part in hopes you get on one of the super teams via trade or other methods, you morally want the easiest way of getting what the majority of others work hardest for.

If a draft pick had a lower stock and wasn’t going in the top half, for example, he would be thrilled with the idea of going to a super team with a late 1st round pick.

There are exceptions, though. One could argue that Kevin Garnett tried his best with Minnesota from 1995-2007 and then was traded to Boston where he won a championship in 2008.

Another example could be Chris Bosh. He spent 7 seasons with Toronto before moving onto Miami Heat and their super team. Is 7 or 12 years considered enough time before leaving for a super team?

2) Super teams make small markets smaller

The Memphis Grizzlies in action during the playoffs

To a certain extent, a winning team will draw more fans than a losing team. Super teams cause smaller markets like Charlotte, Indiana, Memphis, and Milwaukee to fall further behind as their players don’t gain exposure to merchandise sales and sponsorship deals which negatively impact the players on a small market team and the ownership as well.

Owners pay players, front office staff, insurance, travel, stadiums and rent if they don’t own the stadium. If the team is bad or doesn’t gain enough mainstream exposure because of the super teams, they lose money and as a result, have to pay more out of their own money. It’s up to the players if they want to protect the integrity of the league and make a level playing court.

More super teams could cause the league to contract teams in the future should they become not profitable or if the owner has had enough and there isn’t a buyer to be found. In the short term super teams cause drama and make people follow the super teams, but in the long run, it causes many issues that could even result in a work stoppage lockout if it gets too far gone.

3) It doesn’t give an incentive for people to watch games

The 76ers aren’t expected to get close to the Warriors

It all goes as follows. Fans of the so-called super teams or those who jump on the bandwagon, fans of any of the smaller market teams, or the casual fans who will watch any game they see on the television when they get time.

For those people who like basketball but don’t really support a team, why would they watch Golden State destroy Philadelphia for example? Although nothing is impossible, you’d have to figure that the better players will outplay and outperform the others when surrounded with others with the same capabilities.

This is why the integrity of the league is ruined by these super teams. Just because some players want the easy way of getting a championship, doesn’t mean everyone should do it. What happened to the morals and values your family taught you growing up?

As Cleveland versus Golden State was the matchup in the last two finals, one would imagine that New York in the Eastern Conference or Dallas/Portland in the Western Conference reaching the finals would be warmly received.

Since super teams primarily exist in the NBA rather than NFL, NHL, or MLB for instance, there isn’t a comparable example in any major North American sports league currently. Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Barcelona or Paris Saint-Germain are European examples of super teams, but they get a lot of revenue from television deals as well, something that politics plays a part in.

4) Super teams created excessive spending which results in diminishing parity

The financial muscle of the Nets does give them a slight advantage

Excessive spending was caused by the NBA having a soft salary cap with a basic luxury tax for any team that spent more than the maximum amount. A soft cap allows the richest teams to basically buy their way to the top and thus dissolves the competitive balance.

Threatening the majority of the owners in the NBA with a basic luxury tax is not going to even come close to deterring them from spending more than the cap if they want to. This is why a hard salary cap is needed. Teams will have to make decisions realistically based on how much cap space they have. The current structure is more of a guideline than a cap, and teams are more than willing to ignore it.

In order to really build a contender in the NBA today, a team either has to tank a few seasons and get lucky in the draft, or they have to spend more than the cap. Spending wisely is also a factor, the Brooklyn Nets paid roughly $100 million on players salaries in 2013, plus an $80 million tax penalty. Though the amount seems high, Mikhail Prokhorov’s net worth of $8 billion swept the tax penalty aside.

5) Creates separation in the league between the super teams and everyone else

Derrick Rose joining the New York Knicks is a big blow to Chicago

With free agency and trades so far in the 2016 offseason, new super teams were formed, although how well they perform divides opinion amongst the fans. Derrick Rose was traded by the Chicago Bulls and Joakim Noah signed as a free agent as the New York Knicks formed their own super team, while Golden State, San Antonio, Cleveland, and Los Angeles Clippers are the true super teams.

We will have to wait and see how Oklahoma City and Miami Heat do without Kevin Durant and Dwyane Wade. While Cleveland won the Eastern Conference last season, it’ll be interesting if Toronto, Boston, and New York will improve their win-loss record and challenge them as outside competitors.

Making the playoffs is one thing, winning the conference is another. Golden State, San Antonio, Dallas, and the Clippers are the top teams competing to win the Western Conference. Portland, Houston, and even Oklahoma City are regarded as playoff competitors, thus giving a slightly better competitive balance between the teams to the West.

Admittedly, the separation isn’t helped when teams like the Philadelphia 76ers make questionable decisions like trading good players for draft picks and narrowly avoiding the worst record in the history of the NBA set by the 76ers of 1972-1973.

Brooklyn’s win now mentality led them to give their first round draft picks from 2016-2018 to Boston even though Boston thrived with young talent and won 48 games last season while the Nets fell to a 21 win season, only above the 76ers.