The National Basketball Association has never been so popular. The league, the teams, the players, they're all enjoying a rich season of professional basketball.
As a result, the league is being flooded by cash from all directions. As great as that seems, however, not every organization gets to feel those effects.
As far as team markets go, the NBA has one big lingering problem: it's severely unbalanced.
According to Brian Windhorst and Zach Lowe of ESPN, with information from a "confidential" inside source, 14 NBA teams actually lost money last season, despite how much money the league is bringing in nowadays. But the similarity between the 14 teams?
But when you take a further look at the teams, the pattern becomes quite clear.
Almost all the teams that lost were small market franchises located in relatively lesser-known cities. In fact, some big market teams earned as much in a week as some franchises earned in a season, even if the team was not performing well.
Time and time again, location has proved to be the true factor of pro basketball. In cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, teams will always prosper in light of almost any situation. This latest report just shows that talent level doesn't really play a factor.
On the other hand, cities like Memphis, Sacramento, San Antonio, and Cleveland will always struggle to make big money, despite how good their teams may be.
This isn't the first time the big-market vs small-market situation resulted in controversey. In fact, it's a pretty routine debate amongst NBA execs. The imbalance between organizations has left the league predictable and repetitive over the years.
How can NBA seasons differ and vary at an acceptable rate if the same big market teams are always dominating the little guys?