When I learned that Kevin Durant was going to Golden State, my initial reaction was "well, following the NBA has been fun."
I am already a person who has put the NBA 4th on my personal list of Big-4 sports in terms of interest. I don't have a team that I actively root for - sure, I've become a bandwagon Spurs fan but there is no level of commitment there as there was to the Colts (or whatever team had Manning), Astros and Devils. I like the NBA because it is generally a fun game to watch, and has some good storylines and drama. On its face, this move takes away some of those storylines and drama.
There are two clear sides to the news that Kevin Durant is leaving OKC to join the Thunder. The first, are those who will respond to it saying 'Good', either because Kevin Durant is an able-bodied adult who should be able to make the decisions he feels is best for his life, and because they like watching amazing things and this Warriors team will be amazing. The other side of those that are saying it is bad really center on countering that second point - that while this will result in an amazing team, it also results in the NBA being turned into a season-long glorification on one team while the rest sits idly by.
In reality, both sides are right. We can rightfully point out Kevin Durant has the right and ability to go wherever the hell he wants. He is someone probably sick of not winning a title, and saw a chance to raise the chance he does that tremendously, and play for what is probably a darn fun team to play for.
That said, we can also point out what a wuss move this is. Durant may be happy in Golden State, and may win multiple titles, but his legacy will be slightly tarnished for this. People said about LeBron that it was a wuss move to leave Cleveland to join Wade's Heat team to win a ring. That was LeBron leaving for a 40-win team that he would immediately become the best player on. For anyone who thought it was bad of LeBron, it is way worse for Durant.
Kevin Durant is joining a 73-win team with the league's two-time reigning MVP. He will not be the face of that team even if they win a title. It is Curry's team. Some stupidly thought LeBron would take a back-seat to Wade, which lasted like two games. Durant will take a back-seat. He will win a title, but as the 2nd best player on his team, the second most important, the second most loved.
Maybe none of these things matter to Durant, and that is fine. He may only care about winning a ring, and that is admirable. But we shouldn't then give him all the credit for having a ring if he plays 3rd-fiddle for the Warriors.
The other end of it is what does this do to the league. There are two camps here too, the first that states that superteams like this are great for the league, that parity is overrated, that this will do wonders for the league's bottom line. The other half states that parity is more important, that this will alienate fans of teams out West that basically have no shot now, and that the league will be weakened by a season where the NBA Finals seems all too pre-ordained.
It probably lies somewhere in the middle. Basketball has long been ruled by dynasties. The peak of NBA popularity came at a time where one team won 6 times in 8 years. The growth of the modern NBA came when two franchises combined to make 14 NBA Finals, and win 8 titles in a 10-year span in the 80's. The NBA's low point came in the 1970's when un-historic teams were passing around titles. These are facts.
Still, we already had a super team or two, but we also had some compelling teams to challenge them. Much like the 5 great teams that played the 90's Bulls in the finals, or even the Knicks / Pacers in the West. There is like one team right now that would have any shot against this Warriors team otu West - the Spurs, who probably don't have a real shot. LeBron needed a superhuman performance to beat a lesser version of the Warriors. Parity is not always needed, but inevitability has to be bad, right?
In the end, the Warriors will definitely be fun to watch initially, but if they run out to a 25-2 start, winning most games by 15+, people will start to get bored. People may start to tune out. If that happens, we can revisit these arguments, but Durant will be getting what he wanted. It just is a question if he's giving away more than he thinks to get it.
I am already a person who has put the NBA 4th on my personal list of Big-4 sports in terms of interest. I don't have a team that I actively root for - sure, I've become a bandwagon Spurs fan but there is no level of commitment there as there was to the Colts (or whatever team had Manning), Astros and Devils. I like the NBA because it is generally a fun game to watch, and has some good storylines and drama. On its face, this move takes away some of those storylines and drama.
There are two clear sides to the news that Kevin Durant is leaving OKC to join the Thunder. The first, are those who will respond to it saying 'Good', either because Kevin Durant is an able-bodied adult who should be able to make the decisions he feels is best for his life, and because they like watching amazing things and this Warriors team will be amazing. The other side of those that are saying it is bad really center on countering that second point - that while this will result in an amazing team, it also results in the NBA being turned into a season-long glorification on one team while the rest sits idly by.
In reality, both sides are right. We can rightfully point out Kevin Durant has the right and ability to go wherever the hell he wants. He is someone probably sick of not winning a title, and saw a chance to raise the chance he does that tremendously, and play for what is probably a darn fun team to play for.
That said, we can also point out what a wuss move this is. Durant may be happy in Golden State, and may win multiple titles, but his legacy will be slightly tarnished for this. People said about LeBron that it was a wuss move to leave Cleveland to join Wade's Heat team to win a ring. That was LeBron leaving for a 40-win team that he would immediately become the best player on. For anyone who thought it was bad of LeBron, it is way worse for Durant.
Kevin Durant is joining a 73-win team with the league's two-time reigning MVP. He will not be the face of that team even if they win a title. It is Curry's team. Some stupidly thought LeBron would take a back-seat to Wade, which lasted like two games. Durant will take a back-seat. He will win a title, but as the 2nd best player on his team, the second most important, the second most loved.
Maybe none of these things matter to Durant, and that is fine. He may only care about winning a ring, and that is admirable. But we shouldn't then give him all the credit for having a ring if he plays 3rd-fiddle for the Warriors.
The other end of it is what does this do to the league. There are two camps here too, the first that states that superteams like this are great for the league, that parity is overrated, that this will do wonders for the league's bottom line. The other half states that parity is more important, that this will alienate fans of teams out West that basically have no shot now, and that the league will be weakened by a season where the NBA Finals seems all too pre-ordained.
It probably lies somewhere in the middle. Basketball has long been ruled by dynasties. The peak of NBA popularity came at a time where one team won 6 times in 8 years. The growth of the modern NBA came when two franchises combined to make 14 NBA Finals, and win 8 titles in a 10-year span in the 80's. The NBA's low point came in the 1970's when un-historic teams were passing around titles. These are facts.
Still, we already had a super team or two, but we also had some compelling teams to challenge them. Much like the 5 great teams that played the 90's Bulls in the finals, or even the Knicks / Pacers in the West. There is like one team right now that would have any shot against this Warriors team otu West - the Spurs, who probably don't have a real shot. LeBron needed a superhuman performance to beat a lesser version of the Warriors. Parity is not always needed, but inevitability has to be bad, right?
In the end, the Warriors will definitely be fun to watch initially, but if they run out to a 25-2 start, winning most games by 15+, people will start to get bored. People may start to tune out. If that happens, we can revisit these arguments, but Durant will be getting what he wanted. It just is a question if he's giving away more than he thinks to get it.
