Remember the glory days of the NBA? Though I’m not old enough to recount the late 80’s and early 90’s in great detail, I certainly have watched my fair share of documentaries and reruns of classic games to know it was vastly different from the NBA we have today.
When I think of the NBA’s golden age, images of Michael Jordan putting his team on his back night after night come into my head.
I remember the fierce rivalries that were fostered, the intense competition and the tenacity of all the players involved.
The NBA has always been a brotherhood, and always will be. But being in a brotherhood doesn’t mean you can’t have great competition and heated rivalries to pair.
Obviously, the NBA is still relevant today, but the structure of it is vastly different than it used to be.
As in all sports, larger market teams usually haul in more money, and therefore can attract big name free agents to their teams.
However, in other sports, the addition of one or two players usually is not enough to catapult the team to instant success.
Football, baseball and hockey all have much larger rosters and require a bevy of solid talent, not just one superstar.
Two summers ago, LeBron James signed with the Miami Heat. Coupled with perennial stars Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, James easily cruised to two straight finals appearances after two seasons with the Heat.
By witnessing how the Heat won (dumping their roster for 3 superstars), it seems apparent that that is the new formula for success in the NBA.
Sure, you can argue that any team should try to pursue the best talent possible, but I think this “Big Three” system has become blown out of proportion.
I’m not discrediting LeBron as a fantastic player by any means, but did Jordan ever leave the Bulls and team up with Charles Barkley and Magic Johnson to make a super team? No.
He had some solid players around him (like Scottie Pippen) but they had to grow over time before becoming a phenomenal team.
In today’s world, it’s all about instant success. Gone are the days of building a team from the ground up and having more equal teams to enhance the level of competition.
When I look at this most recent offseason, I noticed that the Los Angeles Lakers are the latest team to join the “Big Three” sweepstakes, roping in all-stars Steve Nash and Dwight Howard to join the notorious Kobe Bryant in a quest for a title.
Once again, I commend L.A. for putting together a tremendous offseason, but is it really best for the league if the Lakers have arguably three of the Top 10 players in the league on one team?
If you survey the NBA landscape, there seems to be an imbalance of power in terms of how many teams have superstars and how many do not.
Perhaps the one exception to this entire “buying the best players on one team” concept is the Oklahoma City Thunder. Unlike L.A., Miami or Boston, the Thunder do not have the same financial flexibility and had to instead grow their team from the ground up.
As a result of many years of growing as a team, the Thunder have homegrown superstars Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook leading the charge back to the Finals this year.
Unlike other teams, Oklahoma City didn’t just purchase an already established mansion, they had to build their structure brick by brick.
Maybe more teams should be like the Thunder and hearken back to the old-fashioned style of building a team. The NBA is still incredibly exciting to watch, but I certainly miss how the league was in its prior form. I miss the days of MJ and Barkley getting in each other’s faces, even if they were friends off the court.
I miss the Celtics-Lakers rivalries that pitted teams against each other, not just collections of free agents.
Griffin Guinta is a freshman communications major from Bradenton, Fla. He can be reached at griffin.guinta@spartans.ut.edu.