The other thing was a bit darker, though very much linked, that people were losing their minds that we have a Final Four in the NBA of teams that either haven't won the title before (Timberwolves, Pacers), never won it in their current city (Thunder - having won it previously only in Seattle) or haven't won in 50+ years (Knicks). No matter the outcome, there would be a long awaited fanbase celebrating. Of course, three of those fanbases are the smallest media markets in teh NBA, and the second that was clear the jokes started piling in about how Adam Silver must truly hate the prospect of a Pacers/Thunder or Pacers/Wolves series. And tehre lies the NBA's issue - parity is good, but also potentially really bad.
The NBA was for decades designed for this not to happen - both the 7 winners in 7 years fact, or the success of teams in Oklahoma City, Minneapolis and Indiana. If there's any one primary factor it is the fact that because only five people are on the floor at any given time, and top players can play 80%+ of a game without breaking a sweat, the teamse with the best players generally won. And the NBA, more than any other sport, has long been dominated by stars seeking out the biggest adn brightest markets. Even in the days before real free agency we saw this with Kareem heading to LA. A move that has been repeated all the time.
Of the various dynasties in the NBA, the reasons why we haven't ahd this spread of seven teams winning over seven years, have largely been teams in Los Angeles, Boston (a big market in NBA terms), San Francisco and Chicago dominating. The only real exception being the Spurs, which was a once in a lifetime (or maybe twice, if Wemby continues to develop) confluence of events. None of this is particularly novel, by the way. People are aware of this congregation of key stars. But I think what is being missed is how the NBA is on a precipice of disaster becauase for once this isn't the case.
The NBA is a star driven league but it is the only one that also ties itself to market. The easiest way to draw the comaprison is to the NFL. Much like the NBA, the NFL has long had dynasties - and many metrics can show you that the NFL really has no appreciable edge in parity. Much like in the NBA, a team in the NFL can be great becasue of one player - namely the QB. But unlike the NBA, great QBs in teh NFL can grow organcially in any market, and then almost always stay in that market. There is no "taking my talents to South Beach." There is no pushing your way to LA. Peyton stayed in Indianapolis. Mahomes stayed in Kansas City. Favre and Rodgers in Green Bay (until strange circumstances pushed them away). Great QBs can have as dominant an elongated run in the NFL as a great player in the NBA can, but that run can happen in any market. ANd that is the difference.
The NFL also knows how to market (no pun intended) small markets way more than the NBA does (or really any sport). Sure, the NFL will forever shove the NFC East down our throats, and generally ratings will improve when the Commanders are good, or the Bears, or Raiders, but they also were at their peak when one of the biggest draws in the NFL was in Indianapolis, or now when a team from Kansas City plays a team from Buffalo (two markets that would get laughed out of the room in the NBA). Hell, one of the biggest draws in the sport is in Green Bay, a town literally smaller than the size of its stadium.
There are myriad reasons why the NFL is a bigger, more popular league than the NBA. But I think higher up the list of reasons than people woudl think is the fact taht they can make big ratings and big stories and big interest out of small markets. Sure, we woudl get a few jokes about lack of ratings and Roger Goodell sweating bullets if there were a Falcons v Cardinals NFC Championship Game, but if those teams had a Mahomes type, or stayed good for a few years, that would all change. Case in point is the Lions - finally good and they've been the draw of the league for two years now.
The NBA has put itself in a very tough position - with draconian, complex cap rules and aprons and madness that necessitates the move away from superteams, coupled with the giant financial edge the team that drafts you can offer. Let'see if it pays off on continuing to raise parity leaguewide. The Final 4 this year is a clear step in that direction - the rise of a new guard in new markets where at least for the moment we can't really picture a Shai or Ant scrambling to a more prominent city. That's great.
What isn't is the NBA is the one sport not built on the marketing side to deal with this new reality. They need big stars in big cities. They need the incessant years of fake trades on getting Giannis to a big market (a win for the NBA on that one!). The way they've set themselves up is that there will be many more Oklahoma City v Minnesota type premium playoff series to come. The NBA just has to figure out a way to get people to care, and they're woefully unprepared on doing so. The NBA has created the monster of an era of parity that they are in no position to actually vanquish.
