The NBA has not had a back-to-back champion since the Golden State Warriors won their second consecutive championship in 2018. Since then, we have seen eight champions in eight seasons:
- 2019 — Toronto Raptors
- 2020 — Los Angeles Lakers
- 2021 — Milwaukee Bucks
- 2022 — Golden State Warriors
- 2023 — Denver Nuggets
- 2024 — Boston Celtics
- 2025 — Oklahoma City Thunder
- 2026 — New York Knicks
Eight years. Eight different champions. On the surface, that sounds fantastic. Competitive balance is something almost every professional sports league wants, and the NBA certainly has it right now. But has this new era of parity actually been good for the NBA? I think the answer is complicated.
The Good: More Fanbases Have a Real Chance
Let’s start with the obvious benefit. More teams and more fanbases can legitimately believe they have a chance to compete for a championship. Look at some of the teams we have seen reach the NBA Finals in recent years. Dallas made it in 2024. Indiana reached Game 7 of the Finals in 2025. New York won the championship in 2026, while San Antonio made it all the way back to the Finals.
That’s exciting. Fans don’t want to enter every season knowing that their team has virtually no chance because one superteam is standing in everyone’s way. This era has created opportunities for different franchises, markets and players to experience the biggest stage in basketball. That part of parity is unquestionably good for the NBA, but I also think something has been lost along the way.
The NBA Was Built on Dynasties
I grew up watching an NBA where it felt like the Spurs, Lakers, Warriors or whatever team LeBron James happened to be playing for was going to end up in the Finals. And that wasn’t unusual. That was the NBA.
Go through the history of this league and you repeatedly find periods defined by dominance:
- Bill Russell’s Celtics
- Larry Bird’s Celtics
- The Showtime Lakers
- Michael Jordan’s Bulls
- The Shaq and Kobe Lakers
- The Duncan, Parker and Ginóbili Spurs
- LeBron’s teams
- The Stephen Curry Warriors
Dynasties haven’t been an unfortunate side effect of NBA history. They have helped define NBA history. There was something special about knowing that one dominant team sat on the throne and watching everyone else desperately try to knock them off. You either wanted to watch the dynasty continue or you wanted to watch somebody finally destroy it. Both gave you a reason to care.
Has the Second Apron Gone Too Far?
This is where I have an issue with the direction of the modern NBA. I understand why the second apron exists. The league doesn’t want the richest franchises endlessly stacking stars and spending their way out of mistakes. It wants competitive balance and wants front offices to make difficult decisions.
But I think we’ve reached a point where the rules can effectively punish teams for drafting and developing too well. That obviously wasn’t the intention, but think about what happens when a franchise drafts multiple great players, develops them properly and eventually has to pay all of them. Those contracts become expensive. Suddenly that homegrown core can push the franchise toward the second apron, where roster-building restrictions make maintaining and improving that team considerably more difficult.
Teams above the second apron face restrictions on tools they can use to build their rosters, including limitations involving trades and exceptions. At some point, I have to ask: Why are we making it so difficult for great teams to remain great?
If an organization drafts brilliantly, develops its players and builds a championship roster, shouldn’t the rest of the league be responsible for figuring out how to beat them?
Dominance Creates History
Look at the other major American sports. Baseball hasn’t really experienced a traditional dynasty since the Yankees around the turn of the century. The NFL has had two obvious modern dynasties with the Patriots and now the Chiefs, but sustained championship dominance is extremely difficult in football.
The NBA has always been different. Basketball allows individual greatness and elite roster construction to influence winning more consistently than almost any other major team sport. That’s part of what made NBA dynasties possible, and I don’t necessarily think that was a problem that needed fixing.
Think about some of the greatest periods in NBA history: the Bulls trying to complete a second three-peat, the Lakers chasing championships with Kobe and Shaq, LeBron trying to overcome Golden State, or the Warriors adding Kevin Durant and becoming the team everybody in basketball wanted to beat. Dominance creates villains, rivalries and history.
So, Has Parity Been Good for the NBA?
Yes and no.
I like that more fanbases have hope, and I like seeing franchises that haven’t traditionally lived on the NBA’s biggest stage make deep playoff runs and compete for championships. Eight champions in eight years is an incredible display of competitive balance.
But I don’t want competitive balance to become forced mediocrity. If a franchise drafts well, develops its players, makes smart trades and constructs a dominant roster, I want to see how far that team can go. Maybe they win two championships. Maybe they win three. Maybe everybody hates them for five years while desperately waiting for someone to finally beat them. That’s sports.
The NBA shouldn’t manufacture dynasties, but I’m also not convinced it should be working this hard to prevent them. Parity has given more teams an opportunity, but dominance gave the NBA some of its greatest eras.
Maybe the healthiest version of the league needs room for both.
If you enjoyed the article, make sure to like and subscribe to Ethical Sports Takes for more NBA discussions, rankings and sports opinions.
Thanks for reading.
Leave a Reply