Ok, so you all know the NBA is now on hiatus because the players don't understand why the league wants to level the spending field across teams. You know the argument. The players contend that there is no direct correlation between spending and wins. And that league will never find its panacea of a level playing field by squeezing the spending band amongst teams.
The owners insist that they need to level the playing field between all 30 teams so the big markets teams (or those with deep pockets) can't continually outspend the rest of the league. They believe that more equal spending will give more teams the chance to be competitive.
The history is clearly on the owners side.
And by disproving that claim, natural order is restored. I mean, doesn't it just make sense that the more you spend the more you win? Otherwise, why would smart people like Mark Cuban continue to spend money hand over fist?
Read Seth's article (linked above). Look over the charts.
Under the old system, the more you spent, the more you won.
The top 5 spenders have won the last 4 championships.
Over the past 5 seasons, the top 10 spending teams enjoyed an 82% chance of making the playoffs. A 82% chance! And that's including the Knicks. If you take the Knicks out of the top 10 analysis, it's an 89% chance of making the playoffs. Everyone else? 40%.
Need any more reasons why the NBA wants to level the spending field?