Do you think super teams are good or bad for sports?

With the Warriors absolutely demolishing other playoff teams every night and the UCONN women's team going for their 100th win in a row soon, I thought that now would be a good time to ask you guys if you think that super teams are bad for sports. Personally, I do because, even as a Warriors fan, I have gotten tired of watching them destroy teams on a nightly basis. This isn't to say that I didn't enjoy it in 2014-2015 and didn't like to see my team break the NBA record for most wins in a season, but I have to say that it's gotten old this year. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, especially with the Cavs drama, you can basically put their name on the trophy already because there's no way they'll lose 4 games in a 7 game series. Additionally, I know some people may say the same about Alabama football; however, I'd disagree because every National Title that I can remember them winning (with the exception of Notre Dame) has been close.

So what do you all think about the effect that super teams have on sports and what do you think can be done to make sports more even and competitive?

 

I don't really have an opinion on super teams, but do like the underdogs more. Love March Madness, because there is always at least one "Cinderella story".

I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing. See my Blog & AMA
 

Taking a step back I don't think I would worry about the NBA. 8 different winners over the last 10 years, somewhat frequent trades and movement between teams, higher draft chances for lower-ranked teams, ... It's still far from some European football/soccer leagues (e.g. Germany, Spain to some extent), possibly the All Blacks in rugby, or the Celtics during the Bill Russel era.

 

One crazy stat: from 1999 to 2014, every single NBA finals featured a team that had one of the following players: Tim Duncan, Kobe, and/or Dwyane Wade. The team that had one of these players won every time except for in 2004, 2008, and 2011. You could extend that back to 1991 just by adding MJ and Olajuwon.

 
Gangster Putin:

One crazy stat: from 1999 to 2014, every single NBA finals featured a team that had one of the following players: Tim Duncan, Kobe, and/or Dwyane Wade. The team that had one of these players won every time except for in 2004, 2008, and 2011. You could extend that back to 1991 just by adding MJ and Olajuwon.

Wow. #perspective

Array
 
Gangster Putin:

One crazy stat: from 1999 to 2014, every single NBA finals featured a team that had one of the following players: Tim Duncan, Kobe, and/or Dwyane Wade. The team that had one of these players won every time except for in 2004, 2008, and 2011. You could extend that back to 1991 just by adding MJ and Olajuwon.

The term 'super team' didn't come about until the Spurs. But the first super team was when Boston got KG and Ray Allen in 2008. So the former team was completely built internally, and the latter was really the only 'super team' as we think of the term today, which didn't take place until 2008. Now we think of Lebron and Bosh going to Miami, and other teams like the Clippers, Nets, Cavs, and KD in GSW. So, I get your point, and this is an interesting stat, but I don't think it's relevant to the league since 2008 or the concept of super team. Which, I don't think that's what you're trying to say, anyway.

 

Interesting stat, but as far as I know those players never played on the same team. So, yeah, the NBA allows for player-related dominance - which makes sense since you're playing 5v5 instead of 9v9 in baseball or 11v11 in soccer, excluding substitutes - but talking about one super team in that era might be a bit exaggerated. Don't get me wrong, these teams/players are among the greatest, but we're not talking about one institution dominating the rest of the league (as opposed to some of the examples in my previous post). In that sense, I woudn't be too worried about the NBA.

EDIT: Actually, if rugby 7's were to gain prominence it could lead to some very competitive, NBA-like performances. I'll keep an eye on that.

 

As was evident when the Warriors played OKC and Durant and Westbrook got into it a bit. Can you imagine how this would look if Durant had just half a nut?

I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing. See my Blog & AMA
 

Indifferent. I don't watch the NBA anymore because there's only a handful of teams that can actually win in a given year and that other than one of the mid-90s Rockets teams (who still had a ton of talent), a seed lower than 2 wins the league less than 15% of the time. Hell, 72% of the time, a 1 seed wins the league.

You can't really have a super team in the NFL due to the salary cap and while you can in the MLB, those teams are as likely to win as any other good team. Baseball is also all about streaks and it's so tactical that there's often a lot of parity.

One last thing to OP, and the only reason I know this is because I was listening to Mike & Mike on my commute today, this UCONN women's team is a bunch of nobodies compared to the other NCAAWBB teams. What Aureima is doing is nothing short of incredible and what's more incredible is that they had ZERO pre-season All Americans, were predicted to lose up to 5 games, and have gone out and dominated everyone they've played. In other words, no one would consider them a super team.

 

I don't see it as bad for sports. I try to view it as we are watching greatness that is not common so I take it in and enjoy it for while it lasts. Many thought Tiger was not good for the sport when he was winning majors non-stop but likely look back now and have a different perspective on what we all got to witness on his crazy run over those years.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
 
Best Response

NCAAW is probably the least interesting sport ever created. It often has overwhelmingly dominant teams, and the top 10 teams routinely beat opponents by 30+ points. The sport has almost no redeeming quality from a fan perspective (few hot chicks, low level of play, lack of competitive games).

The NFL's system of salary caps, in my view, is the best system implemented in the sporting world. The inmates run the asylum in the NBA and MLB.

Array
 

I think "Super Teams" are a natural part of sports. In competitive environments, you're always going to have groups laddered based off of their competitive performance. In sports, there will be teams at the top who dominate, teams at the bottom who lack any competitive spirit what-so-ever, and the teams in the middle. Things like salary caps/draft positions help level the playing field so you don't have one or a few teams sucking up a large share of the talented players.

If you find yourself feeling lost, go climb a mountain.
 

It's extremely good for the league. Last year the Cleveland Cavaliers (a city that hadn't won any championship in more than 50 years) won the NBA finals, before that it was Golden State (which hadn't won since 1975). Teams that were big city markets held a strong grip on championships, like NY, BOS, and LA. Chi is considered to be another big city, which had MJ in the 80s and 90s, and then they were winning 6 times in the decade. Now, it is moving around every year, depending on which team gets the best players first. I like this era of any team can potentially win any year.

The legit contention I have with the league is the lack of defense. I mean for fucks' sake, call travels harder, at least. These dudes literally walk to the basket after one dribble and we call it good offense. Or, they scoop the ball up, as if my naked eye needs glasses to understand what's really going on. It's just so fast pace, that before you know it, GSW have put up a 20 point surplus. It's still entertaining even though we know the outcome of the game by the 2nd half.

 

This. Though I live here, I grew up playing basketball in both Lithuania and Greece, and the focus there on defense compared to here (at least from the professional sports level) is very notable. However, at the same time this does lead for some interesting upsets if a team is up by a lot, but because of defense they just blow the lead, as has happened time and again.

Quant (ˈkwänt) n: An expert, someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
 
@_KrK:
Additionally, I know some people may say the same about Alabama football; however, I'd disagree because every National Title that I can remember them winning (with the exception of Notre Dame) has been close.

Plus they got wrecked this year

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 
conyak:

Wouldnt necessarily consider the Patriots a superteam, just a really good team that drafts well and has a very good system. By superteam I normally think of a team with a few superstars (or more superstars than any other team), which isnt the case in NE.

This is idiotic dude. Gronk is the best playing at his position (arguably ever) and Tom Brady is the undisputed best ever at his position (arguably the entire game). That takes care of your limited definition there. However what is critical to the definition of a super team is overwhelming success, a smothering of the competition. The OP describes a team that is preventing other teams from even having hope of winning and creating an environment that is poor for spectators. A super team with stars that doesn't win is irrelevant to this thread and the super team conversation.
 

Yeah, I believe OP is conflating superteam with dynasty.

I'm not a fan of dynasties, but I do think superteams are good because it's always nice to see them lose. Spending money on players is only a small portion of what it takes to win a championship. The team I recall fondly is the 2004 Lakers (Kobe, Shaq, Karl Malone, Gary Payton) losing to the Pistons in the Finals in 5 games. That 2013 Lakers team was pretty stacked on paper, too (Steve Nash, Kobe, Pau Gasol, and Dwight Howard), but they were sunk by injuries and chemistry problems.

 

If we are talking Warriors - Bad for NBA.

Adding a top 3 NBA player in Kevin Durant to a team that already went 73-9, won in 2015, and reached finals in 2016 is a problem. To have a player of Kevin Durant's caliber join arguably a top 5 NBA team in history after having a 3-1 lead on the warriors in the western conference finals 100% pathetic. People would have no issue if he went to any other team.

And yes, people will make the whole "Lebron did the same thing" argument, however, he joined a team that only won 47 games the year before and a team that won only 37 games after he left.

Can you imagine if Lebron joined the Warriors? The NBA would be unwatchable.

 

Can you imagine if Lebron joined the Warriors? The NBA would be unwatchable.

[/quote] Everyday would be a holiday! Although there would be the argument of him fitting in their offensive play.

 

My view on superteams depends largely on how they were built. The early 2000s lakers and the '08-'10 celtics (hell the '08-'10 lakers too) and the Spurs for forever have relied on drafting, trades, and solid talent spotting and development. What can you hate them for--having good general management?

In some sports, like individual golf or tennis, men's college BB and FB, the deck is stacked against any team being a dynasty by sheer number of teams / competitors that "super-competitors" almost have a Cinderella effect of their own, where instead of "oh wow George Mason could never have been predicted", it's more like "Jesus there's no way Tiger / Federer / Alabama / Kentucky should be able to do this year after year, we'll never see this again". It's kind of fun to root for evil in this scenario. Same goes for the Pats in today's salary-capped NFL.

Baseball has so much TV money now and has a harsh enough luxury tax that the super-team designation is much harder to achieve because so many teams can afford high payroll now. What used to be Sox/Yanks/Cubs/Phillies/Dodgers now includes the Padres (!), Dbacks (!), Nats, and even Miami. Sure, Tampa Bay and Oakland will always be handicapped, but I feel like the $$ disparity in baseball is not as vast now as it has been historically.

Basketball, due to the small teams and absurd cap, is really the only sport left where "bad" super teams are possible. "Bad" or "hated" super teams happen invariably as a result of free agency decisions (no one really hates the Spurs or Clips) where today's players pick the easiest path for them to win over their legacy ($ is usually a wash with max contracts capped and everyone having cap room). For me, LeBron's leaving Cleveland for Miami wasn't weird because of loyalty (Cleveland didn't give him ass for help unless you count Varejao and Ilgauskas), but because he left the opportunity for playing for immortality in Chicago and New York on the table. Those would still have been stacked teams (with Rose and Amar'e), but he chose a decision that Bill Simmons correctly called a cry for help. The Durant thing was super-weird because he left a bunch of options, specifically Boston and OKC, where he would have had damn excellent chances to win the championship while cementing his legacy, on the tale to pick the "easiest" path in GS. One can understand not wanting to carry a team like Lebron and the mid-2000s Cavs, but at what point does your personal pride drive you to compete with superstars rather than play with them?

 

Nulla facilis est magni iusto culpa consequuntur minima deleniti. Consequatur qui sapiente est ex non. Laborum sequi illo consectetur harum.

Vel aliquid atque suscipit quos maxime. Veritatis iste nihil ex. Temporibus autem beatae laudantium ducimus. Sint iste corrupti perspiciatis aut maxime.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”