Quite possibly, the one thing that ruined the NBA for me was the whole Super Team creation. Parity literally went out the window for it.
Well, the NBA never really had parity to begin with. Have you SEEN the list of NBA Champions?
Eight franchises (Lakers, Celtics, Warriors, Bulls, Spurs, 76ers, Pistons and Heat) have won 61 titles, and the other 22 franchises have won 16.
The NHL does have overall numbers like that (It's 55-22 in the NHL in the same time span), but most of that stems from the league having only six teams while the NBA had 8-12 for their first 21 seasons.
The big thing that allows super teams is all the Exemptions/Exceptions in their soft cap. It allows teams to add a third guy to create a super team when a hard cap would force players to be like "I can't get paid being the third guy." The NBA needs their top 60 players to be "two per team" and not "one team with four, and one team with none."
Disagree. If you do that then you need to add adjustments to the cap for other advantages franchises have vs others.
Do the O6 teams get penalized for being more desirable based on prestige/history/fanbases?
Do the California teams get penalized for being more desirable based on weather?
Does NY get penalized for being more desirable because its NYC?
Do places like NY/LA/Toronto get penalized because there's a lot more sponsorship opportunities vs Calgary/Edmonton/Raleigh?
Not really. You can't put a number on the value of happiness. (like weather and prestige).
But you CAN put a number on the value of money. Which we do all the time, including in the CBA.
The CBA also specifically details how to count non-cash items in terms of salary and prohibits using the financial value of secondary sources to circumvent the cap. A team can't offer "sign here for $1m and we'll give you a $20m sponsorship as the spokesperson for Madison Square Garden."
But a team CAN say "sign here for $8m and it's worth $7m in Texas, but only worth $5.8m if you have the same offer in Canada or California."
The CBA is specifically designed to level the playing field and make sure that teams are playing by the same rules. They're built on the fundamental principle that $1 is $1 everywhere.
But the argument that federal, state and provincial taxes change the rules by location is a VERY sound argument, and you'd have a very easy time convincing people that $1 isn't $1 everywhere.