like_that;1718388 wrote:No it is definitely not. I.e. the AFC North had 3 teams with winning records, and one team that was a game away from .500. Was it because they were really good? No, they just beat up on the NFC South. They only won 1 game in the playoffs, and that is because there was a head 2 head matchup.
They did have good coaches, i will give them that.
Was there more parity in the East in 2001 sure, but you can't simply look at records and compare the east then to the east in 2007 and now. Look at the 4 teams who made the ECF in 2001 (Charlotte, Philly, Milwaukee, and Toronto). I can not confidently say that those 4 teams would win a series against the top 5 teams in this season.
If we are looking at a one man show "I am going to carry my team to the finals" performance, I think it would be way more impressive this year in the east and in 2007 than it was in 2001 since the east is so top heavy. Overall it is pretty sad how shitty the east has been for over a decad now compared to the West, but at least in the last few years the WCF wasn't the de facto NBA championship.
It's all about stability at the top I believe. Since 1999 only 4 franchises have won the West(Spurs, Lakers, Mavericks, Thunder) while 9 have won the East(Knicks, Pacers, 76ers, Nets, Pistons, Heat, Cavs, Magic, Celtics). That stability gives Western teams a clear target to shoot for in developing a championship team while the East really has not had that.
Same thing happened in hockey, the Red Wings, Avs and Stars dominated the West in the late 90s-early 2000s, whole conference became loaded with great defensive centers in an effort to stop those great puck possession teams, and an imbalance grew. Then when Pittsburgh became loaded the balance of power evened out
Baseball had something similar as well, Boston and NY were so good for so long the rest of the AL exploded up
