You keep ignoring certain things to make your argument make sense to you. You still haven't explained to me why San Antonio or OKC have been a top tier team the last couple of years. Its been Damn near 20 years on The Spurs end.
Luck has a lot to do with it, but that's an easy out. It does start with being able to land the right player. The Spurs and OKC have 2 franchise guys that were committed to building it there and saw shyt through, especially Durant. For example. Kyrie Irving's about to start year 3 in Cleveland and there's already talk about where he might go later on. With KD, people forget the Thunder were not good those first 3 years, but they were allotted patience. Their fans didn't demand quick results; they were happy just to have a team. Their management wasn't under fire; ownership trusted Sam Presti (and let's be clear, you'd be hard pressed to find people that would call Clay Bennett a good owner, and despite all the goodwill Presti has built up, it took a James Harden trade for everyone to start questioning what the hell he's doing.
The Spurs to me are like the Colts. They've had an A-1 bonafide hall of fame franchise big on their roster since 1989. Robinson /Duncan is like Manning /Luck in that they've been wildly lucky to have that presence on a roster. They haven't had to wonder who would be the face of their organization moving forward for 24 years. That's freakish.
OKC and SA have just as many disadvantages that a Minnesota or Cleveland or Charlotte might have so how have they been so good all these years?
But they don't. Between weather and no income tax, San Antonio's not dealing from a position of weakness, whereas unless you're Chicago or Detroit, there's a nickname for your region. It's called "flyover country," meaning you don't wanna be there; you just wanna fly over it. Much of it is blurted out by writers, and I'll tell you, in my time working in the sports business, the press would rather not travel to flyover country if they don't have to, so you'll never seen an outpouring of support to make these teams better.
Lets make it even more easy the smallest market in the NBA is MEMPHIS yet they are always in the mix for a Western Conference Title year in and year out. They seem to have no problem locking up their franchise guys, no? Why are the disadvantages you speak of not hindering them from being a NBA talent wasteland?
and here's the irony of Memphis: they built that squad under BAD MANAGEMENT. They traded Pau for (at the time) pennies-- and got killed for it, they drafted Thabeet 2nd overall in that draft class, traded Kevin Love the year prior, maxed out Rudy Gay, and gave Conley $9 mil a year before he ever proved he could justify that with his play. That's not good management. That's called shyt breaking right for you in spite of it. 4--5 years ago, Chris Wallace was the joke of the NBA. Now, that team's damn near a model franchise. If you're gonna use an example, Indiana would best serve your argument, not Memphis. Memphis is very much an outlier.
And fukk it I EASILY blame ownership for my team's problems (again, I don't know why you're assuming I blame the players when I never have). I want my owner dead for crying out loud. What more do you want?
if a player choses their squad.
