Duncan and Kobe are two of the top 10 or 12 players of all time. Dirk is probably top 20 or 30. Durant, Rose, LeBron, Wade, Paul and Howard are on that kind of trajectory if their careers go as planned. Nash and Garnett have been incredibly compelling players who warrant top 50 player in history talk. That's a pretty distinguished and exciting list of players.

So attendance is your guide? Really? I don't even know how it compares, but it's not terribly relevant. The world (primarily media, economy and ticket pricing) is a very different place today than it was 20 years ago.

No, attendance is not my guide. Nor is TV ratings. Though both favor the golden age.

Your last statement, "it's not really quantifiable", is one with which I agree.
Everyone has their own opinion. If you feel like the quality of play is as good today, the players are as likable, the game is as popular, as was the case during the golden age of the NBA then that is your opinion.

Do you see anything that compares to the Showtime Lakers, the Bird Celtics, the Thomas Bad Boys, the MJ Bulls in talent, quality of play, style?
How about popularity, fan involvement, likability?
I don't.

Fair enough, can't argue with that. That said, I listed a pretty impressive group of players at the high end of the spectrum that would be hard to argue weren't worthy of previous eras. There probably aren't as many vets these days, and there are certainly younger players than back in the day, so you could argue that comes at a cost to quality of play. On the flip side of that argument however, is the excitement of watching guys develop over time.

You need to factor in that I'm a 45 year old white guy with a margarita in my hand.

I feel like your the old guy on the porch chanting "In my day......"

Players don't stay with teams like they did in those days, and that's true of all sports. Having said that, I'd say the Lakers and Celtics have been pretty compelling, as have the Spurs through the 2000's. Kobe and Shaq, Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, Garnett/Pierce/Allen, etc.

It's funny --- you're arguing that we don't have the consolidation of talent/power to create these semi-dynasties, and therefore the game is worse. That's somewhat true to an extent. Yet, the Heat, Knicks, Bulls try to accumulate that same concentrated talent, and people complain that would kill parity.

I really think guys like Durant, Rose, Griffin, etc. are going to bring us into a really exciting era where guys establish themselves on one team and stay there. In addition, they'll be likable guys who play the right way and carry themselves well off the court.

I would say the Heat compare very closely to the Bad Boy Pistons.

The Suns of a few years back were a lot like the Showtime Lakers, but they were a star away from getting it done.

:spock: how so?

"Overall, 76 percent said they weren't missing NBA games, 12 percent were and 12 percent did not have an opinion."

Really only 12% actually miss the NBA. heh

Pass shoot repeat.Repeat.Repeat...****'em.


Well..... Bye......

Lots of star power, embrace the role of villains... They aren't they same style of team, but they fit the "bad guys" bill.