5. Miami Thrice: Good or bad for NBA?
We asked our 93 NBA panelists if they think LeBron, Wade and Bosh joining forces in Miami is good or bad for the NBA. Check out the results in the pie chart above.
Below, the TrueHoop Network has chimed in with their thoughts.
LeBron, Wade, Bosh signing with the Heat: Good or bad for the NBA?
Kevin Arnovitz, TrueHoop: Good for the NBA.
The assembly of talent in Miami and all the noise surrounding it has made the NBA a 12-month affair. That's good for business.
Dan Feldman, Piston Powered: Good for the NBA.
If the Heat win, they will be heroes. If they lose, they will be villains and the team that beats them will the hero. Either way, the NBA gets a hero to market.
Brett Hainline, Queen City Hoops: Good for the NBA.
It's brought a level of awareness back to the league that it has missed since MJ retired -- where even my (fill in the blank non-sports-fan friend/relative/spouse) has heard about the trio and has an opinion on LeBron's decision. Casual interest can become something greater, so it's a start.
SUMMER FORECAST: FIVE HEAT QUESTIONS
• Vote: Share your thoughts
For Question 5: "LeBron, Wade and Bosh signing in Miami -- Good or bad for the NBA?" Our 93 NBA panelists:
• Good for the NBA: 74
• Bad for the NBA: 19
Spencer Hall, Salt City Hoops: Good for the NBA.
A truly great league needs formidable villains. LeBron's decision may have rubbed people the wrong way, but the excitement and the buzz will bring a huge spotlight to the 2010-11 season. It's the TMZ era of sports, and the Heat, Lakers and Celtics have the kind of appeal that goes beyond the game.
Rahat Huq, Red94: Good for the NBA.
I really fail to grasp this notion that for a league bordering on irrelevance to the casual American, something of this sort could be anything but "good. " Seems to be just the latest example of the age-old case of anti-labor sentiment force-fed down from the very top.
Bret LaGree, Hoopinion: Good for the NBA.
If Pat Riley's work inspires 29 other teams to be more aggressive and intelligent in their decision-making, the league will benefit.
Rasheed Malek, Warriors World: Good for the NBA.
It's great for the NBA because we get to see what a so-called "Dream Team" can accomplish. LeBron took less money to go to Miami for one reason -- to win. Can't knock him for that.
Matt McHale, By The Horns: Good for the NBA.
Are you kidding me? Look at how much interest the SuperFriends have generated already. How could that not be good for the NBA?
Benjamin Polk, A Wolf Among Wolves: Bad for the NBA.
Mostly bad, I think. To me, the past few years have been something of an NBA golden age, with lots of interesting, idiosyncratic teams playing really fun, competitive basketball. I worry that this heralds a return of the juggernauts and the drab inevitability that comes with it.
Ryan Schwan, Hornets247: Good for the NBA.
It creates a buzz and interest in the league. It wasn't parity that drove the golden age of the NBA in the '80s and '90s, it was a few transcendental teams.
Michael Schwartz, Valley Of The Suns: Good for the NBA.
LeBron, Wade and Bosh put the NBA on every sports fan's mind in the middle of the offseason. A New York Yankees of basketball that everybody loves to hate can be nothing but a great thing.
Zarar Siddiqi, Raptors Republic: Add a third option: "No difference."
Carey Smith, Philadunkia: Good for the NBA.
Uniting this group in Miami is great for the league. When has there been a summer when the NBA was so discussed among sports fans? Plus, the move instantly turns Miami into an NBA city, which it has never been before. For years, the league has needed an NBA city in the college football-crazy South, and now it has one.
Timothy Varner, 48 Minutes of Hell: Good for the NBA.
When the Los Angeles Lakers traded for Pau Gasol, the NBA entered a new era: the era of the supercontender. It's no longer possible to field a contender with a celebrated superstar/all-star/all-star triumvirate. Today's NBA requires something far more extraordinary than that, and how could far more extraordinary be anything less than great for the NBA?
Jeremy Wagner, Roundball Mining Company: Bad for the NBA.
Everyone loves to hate somebody, and the Heat give NBA fans that fix. However, if this leads to a new era of two or three or four super teams battling it out in the Finals, the regular season becomes meaningless along with the other 26 teams in the league. If there were any Bobcats fans, they would know what I am talking about.
Kyle Weidie, Truth About It: Good, because it probably drives home the need for parity to be an even larger part of new CBA discussions. But bad if the NBA just becomes collusion amongst the best markets and best players to form more super teams.
Royce Young, Daily Thunder: Good for the NBA.
When basketball is being talked about more than baseball in July, you know that's a good thing. This is one of the most highly anticipated seasons ever for the league. So yeah, it's a good thing.