All's good if your a superstar in the NBA, right??

This is my first post, so I just want to say a couple of things before I get started.

1) I have a passion for all sports (mainly the big 4 in North America)
2) I am by no means saying anything is final and no one can argue it. This is not science, this is my opinion based on observations.
3) The purpose of these once a week articles are to vocalize my thoughts, data gathering, and observations on something that strikes me as interesting. What I think is unique about them is that they will be shorter then  the long articles that are on such websites as espn or cbssports, etc. Also, I have noone in my ear telling me what I should and should not say. It's just insight
4) By no means am I a qualified writer, so excuse the grammar.
5) Finally, feedback is welcome. My only request is if you want to bash me, back it up. I am not perfect.

All's good if your a superstar in the NBA, right??

I want to first classify the teams in the NBA into three categories which I think you will agree with. Category 1 are the teams with elite superstars that I figure have a shot of winning the title: Heat, Thunder, Lakers, Clippers, Knicks, Nets, Bulls, Spurs. Category 2 are teams that might have a superstar and have an outside chance of winning the championship, tier II if you will: Pacers, Celtics, Mavericks, Grizzlies, 76ers (post bynum trade). Category 3 are teams that don't have a shot to win the title: Everyone else.

In recent years, starting with Boston Celtics, the NBA has had a changing of the guard where teams are stock piling superstars in order to make a run at the title. We all know this is happening, we have seen Dwight Howard rumours in the headlines more times then we see our family on a day to day basis (thankfully thats over). It seems that gathering these superstars is the ideal way to win a championship for your team and city, I mean the heat did prove it just this past year, and the celtics have proved it too. But I want to address two things that I think will become relevant as the NBA moves forward with sky rocketing ratings.

The first is, within Category 1 I count 7 out of the 8 teams there with at least two superstars on their teams. The team I am leaving out is the Chicago Bulls (sorry Carlos Boozer). Yes, you might say the Nets? But I think Joe Johnson is a top tier player, so forgive me. Out of those 7 teams, I believe each one of them have attracted 1+ superstars to their teams from other teams with the exception of OKC and San Antonio. That leaves 5 teams (Heat, Lakers, Clippers, Nets, and Knicks) with at least 2 superstars. I didn't even notice until now that 4 of those teams are in two cities.

 But anyway, as we know only one team can win the title each year, so even if a different one of those 5 teams won the title each year, one of those teams would have to wait five years until their team and city won a championships. There is no way that all of these teams with superstars are going to last if their team is not winning year after year, they have egos and the pressure is on all of those teams in category 1 to win a championship NOW. As quickly as it seems we have seen these super teams form, how long will it take before they turn on each other, or jump ship. My point is, there cannot be a fairy tale ending for a number of these so called "super teams" and I fear that as quickly as these guys got all buddy buddy and came together, I think that we might see them unravel. The question then becomes, where do they go from there?

The second thing I want to address is the future of the NBA. Ratings for basketball right now are through the roof. The average for the 2012 NBA Finals were a 10.1 on the scale. To give you an idea of how good that is, the 2012 Stanley cup finals drew about a 3.0 average in the United States. The 2011 World Series was even slightly lower at 10.0 average for the series. Although, everything seems great I fear the future stability of the NBA could possibly be in jeopardy. With the formation of these superstar teams, the smaller market teams (the one's the elite players are leaving) now face extreme obstacles in drawing attendance, selling season seats, selling sponsorship, and the list goes on. Now, I'm not sure how you feel on how much the average attendance should be for each team, but I'm in the ballpark that each team's average attendance for a season should be around 17,000 per game. This past season there were 14 teams below that mark. Out of those 14, not shockingly only 3 made the playoffs. I fear this may only be the beginning, as each of these types of teams must rely on what is now called the "OKC" approach. Now,this may be just a case of if you can't play with the big boys don't play at all, meaning if you can't keep your superstars or attract superstars then we don't feel sorry for you. But heading into the next 5 years, the NBA will need to see balance on various levels to achieve overall success.

To those teams that are in Category 3, and Category 2 for that matter. My message to you is to hire good scouts and draft well because that may be one of your only hopes moving forward.

Written by:

Garrett Daly