except that the Celtics had a major upset on Sunday night - but obviously that's just one game.
I'm fascinated by what the endgame is here. There is zero competitive balance in the league, 90% of teams know they have zero chance (outside of the Cavs or Warriors team plane crashing). But the national ratings are still huge and bring in big money. Local teams may be losing at the gate but they make it up on the national contracts where people watch other teams play.
More and more stars will cluster to existing powerhouses or make a new one. It's going to be more of a joke that it already is competition wise, but they'll still all be doing just fine.
Do the owners force a communist solution like only one top player per team? I don't see how, a lockout will cost them money which is all they care about.
You've got a couple situations here. There are about 7 teams in "going for it year in and year out" phase. Those are Cleveland, GSW, San Antonio, Boston, LAC, Chicago, Toronto (soon to be changed). Some of those teams aren't even good.
There are teams that are hording picks and drafting players. Those are Philly, Minnesota, Boston (funny they are in both), and now the Kings.
Everyone else is somewhere between this on varying levels from contenders but building a roster correctly (Memphis, Washington, Houston) and teams that have no picks and are bad (Brooklyn, Knicks).
Having 65% of the league thinking they don't have a shot at a title is an issue. In the NHL, there are so many teams that think they're a piece away. Logistically, that may be the case and for some it's harder for the team to get said piece.
The cap system in the NBA makes it so you can have 4 superstars on a team. Needs to become a hard cap. You'll see more parity then.