Lets face it in the NBA there are teams like the Bobcats, Timberwolves, Bucks, Kings, etc that are not actually competitive. They simply dont have the cash to compete and if they try to spend money to improve it comes directly out of the owners pockets. On top of not that their revenues are much less due to market size which creates 22 teams that lose 100s of millions per year and 8 teams that make 100s of millions per year.
Should the NBA agree to revenue-sharing and allow these small-market teams to profit/compete with the larger market teams or is it correct for a team like the Lakers to always destroy these teams and make millions while 22 teams lose millions?
There is not another professional league in the US with even close to the level of disparity that the NBA has, for instance if you were asked to pick 3 teams to win the Western conference championship and chose Dallas, San Antonio, LA, you would be 100% for the past 13 seasons. One could argue out of a 15 team conference never having any of the other 12 teams ever make the finals is somewhat ridiculous and indicates a structure which doesnt allow them to compete. Im all for dynasties but even dynasties cant win every single year.
Should the NBA simply contract the league, from the current 30 teams (22 of which lost money last year) to lets say the top 16 largest markets to create a profitable/competitive league?
What should the NBA do to avoid a lockout every 6 years as each CBA expires?