The curtain has come down on what proved to be an NBA season chock full of storylines. Kawhi Leonard delivered Toronto its first title, LeBron James missed the playoffs for the first time in over a decade, and Golden State missed out on the first 3-peat since a guy named Jordan did it in the 90s. Yet, as the dust settles, one key role has been left shockingly unfilled in the world of basketball. For the first time in quite a while, basketball does not have a villain.
This role, most recently portrayed by Kevin Durant, is one common to basketball for decades. Sometimes, it even manifested into teams. The “Bad Boys” were the clear villain in the NBA during the late 80s, led by Bill Laimbeer. The mantle was passed to Christian Laetner in the early 90s. The late 90s were owned by that Kobe kid. He likely held that title for quite a while, even giving his persona a name which struck fear into the heart of his opponents. Although JJ Reddick really challenged him for the crown during the mid 2000’s.
In 2010, LeBron James announced he would be taking up the role until further notice when he created the first modern era super team. When he stepped down, as his character arc brought him back to hero status, Grayson Allen stepped up to bring back the Duke hate. That led us into Durant’s reign when he signed with Golden State.
There is no doubt though that Durant is done with the role, after attempting to play through injury in the finals before rupturing his Achillies, as the Warriors ultimately succumbed to injuries and the might of Kawhi Leonard. That kind of grit and determination won over a lot of the haters. Golden State already seemed to be losing steam as the league’s big bad. With Durant set to miss most or all of next season, Grayson Allen wasting away in Utah and LeBron looking like a business mogul in L.A., it is safe to say basketball will be holding auditions to replace him as its antagonist.
It is hard to know where to look for the next villain of basketball. The men’s college game didn’t produce any worthy candidates. It’s best player was one of the nicest people on the planet. The women’s college game didn’t even come close to manufacturing a leading lady, as Sabrina Ionescu (basically) felled every triple-double record ever known. The closest thing the WNBA might have is Brittney Griner, but she doesn’t seem to command the same level of animosity she did in college.
The NBA seems like the best bet to unearth the next great basketball antihero. With free agency looming and the Lakers acquisition of Anthony Davis, could Los Angeles once again become the home of the sport’s evil empire? This is Hollywood after all. They produce great villains all the time.
LeBron’s Lakers feel like the only remaining hope for a true villain right now in basketball. There is the potential college basketball will suddenly find a worthy contender, but no one seems ideally placed to take on the role. In the NBA, none of the current superstars feel all that hateable. Leonard is way too soft spoken. Giannis Antetokounmpo feels way too lovable. The closest thing the Association currently has to a new villain is Drake. In order for him to truly vault into that position, the Raptors would need to be a consistent contender. That is far from guaranteed. It also feels pretty lame if the villain is not even a player.
I just feel lost right now in terms of who to hate. After so many years of great villains, I can’t buy into hating the Lakers yet. I now feel bad for Durant and the Warriors. I dislike James Harden, but that hardly elevates him to villain status. Basketball just looks like a villain-less wasteland.
No, basketball must truly return to the drawing board and craft up a new character to lord over the sport, inspiring hate in all of our social media diatribes. The NBA capped its incredible storytelling with a masterstroke of having the unsuspecting Raptors vanquish the mighty Warriors, but it came at the cost of its best villain in years.
Tuesday night’s chaos has led to some legitimate reshaping of the NBA landscape in a matter of minutes. The New Orleans Pelicans, who entered with the 7th-best odds to land the top pick, actually won the NBA Draft lottery. I would argue though, that based on how the rest of the lottery shook out, the Celtics actually won the night.
There is no question the Pelicans are in a much better place than they were prior to the those ping pong balls bouncing their way on Tuesday. The opportunity to (most likely) select Zion Williamson in June could be a franchise-altering moment. However, it sounds like their current superstar Anthony Davis still wants out of New Orleans.
It sounds like the Pelicans will still need to move the former Kentucky star this offseason, even if they hope to convince him otherwise. There have been some landing spots bandied about over the past few months, but with the Pelicans already in possession of the top pick, it changes a lot. And it all shook out in the Celtics’ favor.
For one, the Knicks don’t have the top pick, significantly hurting their ability to pry Davis from NOLA. RJ Barrett would be a nice piece to add, but if that is the piece that headlines the trade deal for Davis, there is a lot less to be excited about considering the Pelicans are already in line for the best prospect in the draft.
While the Lakers jumped into the top 4, there is reason to be skeptical a deal will get done between these two franchises. Los Angeles started this whole Davis sweepstakes and New Orleans accused LA of tampering as well. Part of me believes the Pelicans will remain spiteful and refuse to deal Davis to the Lakers. The package of Lonzo Ball, Josh Hart, Kyle Kuzma and the fourth pick, probably DeAndre Hunter or Jarrett Culver, is much more enticing than anything the Knicks could offer.
With the Knicks in a much worse position and the Lakers still viewed as the enemy, that leaves the Celtics. Boston landed the 14th overall pick, which is what most expected, but that pick could have gone to the 76ers if the Kings had won the lottery (the NBA is complicated sometimes). So hanging onto the pick was good for Boston, either to add another young player or as ammo in a trade for Davis.
What Danny Ainge has that no one else does is a budding star to offer in return in the form of Jayson Tatum. Boston could send Tatum, Gordon Hayward, Marcus Smart and that 14th pick to New Orleans in return for Anthony Davis. They can offer a better package than anyone else in the NBA. Hayward is included to balance out the money being swapped, but that also means the Celtics could keep a max contract slot open this offseason to attract, say, Kevin Durant. Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant and Anthony Davis would present Boston with its best big three since, well just 2010 actually, but you get the idea. The key would be locking up Davis to a long-term deal, but that is a core more than capable of winning a title in Beantown.
The reason why I like the Celtics to land Davis is because of what the Pelicans feel they can build in return. A team boasting Jayson Tatum, Marcus Smart, Gordon Hayward, Zion Williamson and Jrue Holiday has a lot of potential to be great. It would give them a good mix of cost controlled deals and max contracts to build a true contender, something New Orleans seemed intent on doing with Davis after hiring former Cleveland general manager David Griffin as executive vice president of basketball operations.
It is a rare situation where both franchises get exactly what they are looking for. The Celtics add a superstar to keep Kyrie in town and make it the most popular free agent destination in the league, while still hanging onto young talent like Jaylen Brown and Terry Rozier. With two other first round picks, they can still add new rookie contracts or acquire another veteran via trade. The Pelicans go through an accelerated rebuild and create one of the most exciting young teams in the league pretty much overnight.
After months of feeling like AD was headed for Los Angeles or New York, the Pelicans are back in control and can listen to the best offer available. That will definitely come from Boston, who is desperate to win a title very soon.
It is all speculation at this point, but Tuesday night was a very good night for the Boston Celtics.
Alright, let’s be honest. The NBA regular season was more entertaining than I expected with the Bucks taking a huge next step and the Nuggets coming out of nowhere. I definitely stand corrected on my initial take that the season was not worth watching.
That being said, there are still some major issues with the NBA regular season. It doesn’t really mean much. Between the 82 games and excessive number of playoff teams with 7 game series in the postseason, it really diminishes the value of performing well in the regular season.
Last year offers a clear example of this issue. The Rockets and Raptors earned one seeds in each conference. The Cavs entered as the 4 seed and still made it to the finals. It took 7-game series for Golden State and Cleveland in the conference finals, but the two best teams still made it through to the finals (well the two best teams that could, the Rockets and Warriors were the best two teams in the league overall).
In short, the regular season is too long. 82 games is unnecessary to determine who the best teams are. 16 teams is too many for the playoffs and history shows how little success those bottom seeds have in the postseason. The reason for the limited success is the format of a 7-game series in every round. Let’s fix that and set the league up to be even more entertaining in the future.
Cutting down regular season to 60 games
This has been a complaint for quite a long time. The NBA regular season is far too long to hold fans interest the whole way. There are highlights to the schedule, but 16 divisional games and 62 games in the conference. It is completely unnecessary to have that many matchups between conference foes is excessive. The solution is to cut down on the regular season. Before you call me crazy, this is very possible. Adam Silveris considering shortening the season and games.
82 is an arbitrary number. 60 might sound like another random number, but it actually works really well for scheduling purposes. With 30 teams in the NBA, each team will play two games against each of the other 29 teams (English Premier League style). That only adds up to 58 games, so then each team will play against the two teams that finished in the same divisional position as them in their conference, which is exactly what the NFL does.
What does this accomplish? This almost entirely eliminates strength of schedule, which doesn’t really have much use in the NBA. It is great to see in college basketball, but not needed in the pros. A 60-game schedule also creates more incentive to win every game.
Take a look in recent years at how many teams rest their top players (now frequently dubbed Load Management to avoid league fines). Just 7 players started all 82 games this season. That speaks volumes about the length of the season. Tons of teams chose to rest their stars players throughout the regular season to maximize effort and health in the playoffs. That also underlines the issues of general wear and tear NBA players deal with. Even if players are not resting, we see so many players missing games or strings of games due to minor injuries. Blake Griffin missed a win-and-in final game of the season due to knee soreness, likely due to overuse.
There is some evidence that shorter seasons might really help keep top players on the court for more games. The 2011-12 season was shortened to 66 games due to a lockout. 15 players started in all 66 games that season. That is not a huge uptick, especially looking at the next season, which had the same number of players starting every game in an 82-game season. You have to wonder though if the previous season being shorter, possibly reduced the overall wear and tear on players. In the 2013-14, the number of players dipped back down to just 12. It has continued to drop since then, bottoming out in the 2016-17 season when only five players started every game.
Go back further to the lockout season of 1998-99 and we start to see some significant differences. 39 players started all 50 games in that regular season. The following year, back to a 82-game slate, 27 players started every game. It went down to just 20 by the 2000-01 season. There is no denying this trend, and a shorter season is likely the best way to maximize the number of top players appearing in every game. The NBA is a star-driven league and the best version of the product is when more stars are on the court.
Reducing the number of playoff teams to 12
For some odd reason, the NBA has more than half the league reach the postseason. It really doesn’t make any sense. The lower-seeded teams almost never make a run to the Finals. It is rare for the bottom two seeds in each conference to even advance to the second round.
It has been seven years since a seven or eight-seed won a playoff series. Since the NBA moved to a seven-game series in the first round back in 2003, there have only been four times where the one or two seed failed to reach the second round. That means the higher seed in those series won 93.3 percent of the time. I get there is always a chance for an upset, but after watching Game 1 of the Bucks-Pistons series, I am pretty sure it isn’t worth it.
For a frame of reference, the NHL has the exact same set up, with 16 teams qualifying for the postseason, eight from each conference. They play seven games in each series. In the same time frame, the last 15 years, a bottom-two seed advanced to the next round 17 times (I considered the “wild cards” the NHL now uses 7 and 8 seeds.) Comparatively, NHL 7 and 8 seeds pulled off the upset 28.3 percent of the time, while NBA 7 and 8 seeds made it out of the first round just 6.6 percent of the time. NHL teams have a fighting chance. The NBA feels like a forgone conclusion.
With that in mind, it’s time to reformat the playoffs. Moving to a 12-team setup means the top-two seeds in each conference would receive a first-round bye. To avoid making that too much of a competitive advantage for the top-seeds, the first round should be cut to just three-game series once again. The NBA actually did this back before it expanded to 16 teams. The higher seed still has home-court advantage, hosting the first and third games. At most, this would give the top seeds a week off to get healthy, somewhat like the NFL giving it’s top two seeds in each conference a first-round bye.
This adds further incentive to the regular season, with earning a top-two seed now a priority for each team. It also would mean we trim the mediocre teams making the playoffs from the picture. Ideally, this should reduce the overall wear and tear on players as well.
Suddenly, the playoffs are much more competitive and intriguing from the start. A best-of-three series this season between the 76ers and Nets would be amazingly intense. As would Celtics-Pacers and Blazers-Thunder. The margin for error is shaved down immensely and provides an exciting introduction to the postseason, rather than the lackluster games we’ve seen so far (although that Raptors-Magic finish was pretty sweet).
After the initial three-game series, the ensuing rounds would all be best-of-seven affairs. Once we work our way down to the final 8 teams in the league, it is worth it to watch some extra basketball and see the drama unfold over a long series.
Change draft lottery odds
One of the biggest issues the NBA has had to fight is teams tanking in order to secure a better draft pick. The league has the draft lottery in place to limit the incentive to lose. It even made some tweaks recently to dissuade teams even further by giving the teams with the worst three records the same odds of landing the top pick.
However, under my proposed system, there would be 18 teams in the lottery as opposed to the previous 14. That is going to require different odds to land the top pick.
The new odds would be as follows:
3 worst records – 11 percent
4th-worst record – 9 percent
5th-worst record – 8 percent
6th-worst record – 7 percent
7th, 8th, 9th-worst record – 6 percent
10th-worst record – 5 percent
11th, 12th, 13th, 14th-worst record – 3 percent
15th, 16th, 17th, 18th-worst record – 2 percent
A new lottery system would hopefully increase parity in the league by reducing the temptation to tank. It could also lead to significant playoff turnover from year-to-year if teams who came close to qualifying for the playoffs land a top-tier college player. Imagine what the expectations would be for the Clippers if they added Zion or Ja Morant.
These new odds also increase the chance for the teams who just missed the playoffs to land the top pick. In this scenario, the Spurs, represented as the last team to miss the postseason cutoff, would have a two percent chance to land Zion Williamson. The Charlotte Hornets, who were actually the last team to miss the postseason this year, only have a 0.5 percent chance. It is small, but this change is significant. That’s the difference between having 200-1 odds and 50-1 odds.
It might be a little tricky then for the teams truly lacking talent to build their way back up, but it would require shrewd drafting and smart team building, overall increasing the competitive landscape of the league.
Obviously, these would be some drastic changes for the league to undertake all in one year. It would probably need to be spread out over time.
There are some obvious financial issues that would come up as well. Fewer games being played each season likely means less lucrative television contracts. However, producing a better night-to-night product could replace some of the value lost in terms of volume of games to sell. Additionally, Silver is rumored to be interested in adding some sort of midseason tournament as well, which could potentially offer another incentive for television deals.
The only thing that seems clear is that change is on the horizon for the NBA. Silver has proven to be one of the most open-minded and progressive commissioners in sports history, willing to push the envelope on what is accepted and use other sports as an inspiration for change. With the league looking to embrace the future, there is no doubt resetting the competitive format is the place to start.
With the NBA season just getting underway, it seemed like a good time to address the major issue developing for basketball’s professional league. Over the past several years, there has been a growing sentiment regarding the NBA regular season. In truth, it has barely mattered. At the end of the year, it always ends up being the same few teams vying for a title and it is predictable.
Take last year for example. The Cavaliers struggled to the fourth seed in the Eastern Conference after a rough regular season. Sure, Cleveland was challenged throughout the playoffs, but LeBron James led the Cavs to another finals appearance, the eighth straight year his team has represented the East in the NBA Finals.
On the other hand, the Warriors finally appeared to have a true equal in the West with Houston stocking up on star players. The Rockets had the best regular season record, but Golden State advanced to the finals for the fourth straight season. The route to get there was a bit interesting, but the result was as expected.
I understand in many ways the process makes the result worthwhile, but knowing the ending cheapens the journey.
Let’s be honest, the Golden State Warriors are winning another NBA Championship this year. We don’t need to kid ourselves into thinking this is up for debate. Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant and Dramond Green will be joined by DeMarcus Cousins when he returns from injury. All five of those players are in the top five at their position, with Curry and Durant arguably being the best at theirs.
You cannot convince me the Rockets adding Carmelo Anthony will give them the edge. If anything, it probably hurts Houston defensively more than it helps offensively. The Lakers aren’t challenging this year, even if they added LeBron. With his sidekicks of Rajon Rondo, Lonzo Ball and Lance Stephenson, this team will be lucky to be a top-four seed in the West.
In the East, there might be some minor intrigue in which up-and-coming team is going to win the conference. Boston finally gets its stars back and retained all of its key free agents. Philadelphia brought in a few more young draft picks to a team with a bunch of rising stars. Neither of these teams added a major asset in the offseason. However, The Celtics almost swept the 76ers without Gordon Hayward last year. For as much as people want to bill this as an exciting matchup, this almost feels predictable as well. Don’t bother try to sell me on whatever it is the Raptors are doing either.
No one is going to admit to it, but the best method for just about every NBA team right now is to wait out the Warriors. No one can even come close to matching all of the talent it has no accumulated on the roster. I mentioned the stating lineup before and didn’t even get to the bench that contains veterans Andre Iguodala and Sean Livingston, plus prospects like Quinn Cook and Jordan Bell.
Now the current core the Warriors have could only take until next year to break up as Cousins signed just a one-year deal with the team. Thompson’s contract expires after this year as well. The exceptions to this wait-it-out approach could come in Boston and Philly, who might want to get their young players experience playing in the NBA Finals before taking a real shot at it when the Golden State dynasty comes to an end.
The NBA has been built around this idea players will continue to jump at the money, but we are seeing that is no longer the case. Players eager to win rings, play with friends or simply stay with a team are undermining the market. It has led to a massive consolidation of talent. It makes the final two rounds of the Western Conference playoffs fairly entertaining, but renders the Eastern Conference version to a formality of who will lose in the finals.
I’m bored of watching super teams. The league has become far too predictable. There are teams you know will be bad every year, like the Magic, Knicks, Nets, Suns and Kings. A few in the middle might surprise, but only enough so to be a flash in the pan. The entertainment value of the NBA season has completely been lost.
This probably isn’t a popular opinion, but it is one that could spell trouble for the NBA. The NFL regular season has never been at a more unpredictable point. The MLB is producing drama throughout the regular season, well into the postseason. College basketball might have just had its craziest edition of March Madness in five years, with another great season in store. Even the English Premier League is shaping up to have one of the better title races it has had in recent years.
Maybe I will end up watching the Western Conference finals, but that will be about it. Anything before that and after that seems like foregone conclusion.
It has been a wild couple of years in sports in terms of ending title droughts. In 2016, Cleveland won its first championship in any sport in over half a century and the Chicago Cubs broke a 108-year curse by winning the World Series. In 2017, the Houston Astros won their first ever World Series title. 2018 has already seen the Philadelphia Eagles win a long-awaited championship and the Washington Capitals finally bring home the Stanley Cup. Some of the most historic title droughts in all of sports have ended in recent years, begging the question of which cities remain the most tortured for a title. Here is my top ten.
Teams: Lions (NFL), Pistons (NBA), Red Wings (NHL), Tigers (MLB),
Last title: 2008
It has only been a decade since a Detroit team has won a title, but the history of sports success in the Motor City is not a great one. The Lions have famously (or infamously) never won a Super Bowl, or even appeared in one. They also hold the NFL record for most consecutive playoff losses. Baseball is a little more promising because the Tigers have won before, three times actually, but the last World Series victory came in 1984. The Pistons have had some great teams, but have also been one of the worst run NBA franchises in the last ten years. In the NHL, the Red Wings represent the true bright spot. Detroit has hoisted the Stanley Cup twice since the turn of the century. It hasn’t been that long for Detroit, but it might be a while before one of these four teams wins another title.
Teams: Colts (NFL), Pacers (NBA)
Last title: 2006
Only two teams reside in Indianapolis and the Colts have won a title. The Peyton Manning era is still one fans could look back on proudly, but for a long time the Colts were one of the most tortured franchises in the NFL. They have resumed that post since then. For a city as crazy about basketball as Indy, zero NBA titles is a real bummer as well. The Pacers have only reached the NBA finals once in franchise history losing to the Shaq and Kobe Lakers. Both the Colts and Pacers have been competitive in recent years as well, but always end up faltering in the playoffs, leaving a bitter taste in fans’ mouths.
Teams: Hurricanes (NHL), Hornets (NBA), Panthers (NFL)
Last title: 2006
It has also been 12 years since Charlotte has won a title, but they get the edge for having three teams as opposed to Indy’s two. The Hornets have been one of the worst franchises in NBA history. It has been 30 years since the Hornets were founded and the team has never so much as won a division title. Football has treated fans a little better, as the Panthers did reach the Super Bowl back in 2003. They came agonizingly close to beating that Brady guy, but Adam Vinatieri kicked the game-winner as time expired to beat Carolina. The Hurricanes are the only team in Charlotte to win a title. After losing in the 2002 Stanley Cup final, Carolina broke through in 2006 to lift the cup. Still, just one title between three teams over the past 30 years is a poor return.
Teams: Predators (NHL), Titans (NFL)
Last title: N/A
If you also lump in the Memphis Grizzles, the Tennessee would likely move up a few spots on this list. Seeing as Memphis and Nashville are on opposite sides of the state though, it did not seem too fair. Both teams moved to town in 1997, but the Predators came close to bringing home a title in 2017. On the other hand, the Titans made the playoffs in 2017 for the first time in nearly ten years. What holds Nashville back is how new of a sports city it is. It has only had pro teams for 20 years, so the lack of a title is not totally shocking. Only one appearance in a finals setting is more than enough to qualify for this list though.
Teams: Bengals (NFL), Reds (MLB)
Last title: 1990
Oh, where to begin with Cincinnati. For one, the Bengals have been a punch line in the NFL for quite some time. Head coach Marvin Lewis took over in 2003 and has taken the team to the playoffs seven times in his tenure. He is also 0-7 in the postseason. It has been 27 years since Cincy has won a playoff game, the longest active streak in the league. The Bengals weren’t always this way though. In the ’80s, Cincinnati made it to two Super Bowls, both times losing by less than a touchdown to the Joe Montana led 49ers. The Reds haven’t been a whole lot better. Since winning the World Series in 1990, Cincy’s baseball team has only made the playoffs four times. With the Bengals looking like an average team and the Reds in the middle of a rebuild, it could be a while before Cincinnati celebrates another championship.
5. San Diego
Teams: Padres (MLB), Chargers (NFL)
Last title: N/A
Technically, there is only one pro team still in San Deigo, but to not include the struggles of the Chargers in evaluating the drought this city has gone through would be unfair. I actually think the fact the Chargers left makes life as a fan in this city even more torturous. Boasting one of the greatest offenses in NFL history, San Diego never managed to reach a Super Bowl. Its lone appearance was a blowout loss to the 49ers in 1994. Even during the early 2000s, it seemed like the Chargers would finally break through, but never managed to reach the Super Bowl. For the Padres, opportunities for postseason success have been few and far between. In 49 years as a franchise, the Padres have made the playoffs just five times, including two different losses in the World Series. San Diego has long awaited a title and now will have an even tougher time securing one with only the Padres left in town.
It has been 17 years since the largest city in Arizona brought home a sports championship. The Cardinals came agonizingly close in 2009 before falling to the Pittsburgh Steelers in a wild Super Bowl. The Suns haven’t been good in years, but still remember the days of Charles Barkley and Steve Nash fondly. Neither of the ever managed to bring home a title. The Coyotes have never made it to a Stanley Cup final, much less won one. That leaves the Diamondbacks, who won the cities last championship in 2001. It is the only title in the city’s history. The Cardinals won an NFL Championship in 1947, but that was actually while the team was located in Chicago. Only one title between four teams is tough for fans to swallow and it does not seem like any of them are close to a title for a least a few more years.
Teams: Hawks (NBA), Falcons (NFL), Braves (MLB),
Last title: 1995
Between the Hawks, Falcons and Braves, Atlanta has only brought home one title in the history of sports in the city. The Braves broke through in 1995, which isn’t really that long ago, but this city definitely knows what it is like to want a title. The Hawks have never made it to the NBA Finals while in Atlanta. The 2016 Falcons made it to the Super Bowl and blew the largest lead in the history of the game. It marked the second time the Falcons lost in the championship. Looking at the Braves, they lost four other World Series during the ’90s. Had it not been for that World Series in ’95, Atlanta might very well top this list.
Teams: Bills (NFL), Sabres (NHL)
Last title: N/A
Western New York is home to one of the most passionate fan bases in all of sports. The aptly named “Bills Mafia” provides a fun home field advantage whenever the Bills are hosting. Sabres fans have suffered through many years of woeful play on the ice, but still support the team nonetheless. Between these two franchises, Buffalo has appeared in six different championships, winning none of them. The Bills came up short in four consecutive Super Bowls! Talk about torture for fans. The Sabres made two different runs to the Stanley Cup final over the years, but fell short in both. It was the NHL team who made Buffalo’s last championship appearance in 1999. Up until last year, the Bills hadn’t even been to the playoffs since 1999. What holds Buffalo back from the top spot is the fact that the city only has two teams.
21 years ago was the last time a team from the Twin Cities won a title. Minneapolis is home to some of the most tortured fan bases in sports. On one hand, you have the Vikings. The Purple People Eaters lost four Super Bowls from 1969 to 1976. The Vikings have never made it back to the big game since their loss in ’76. It seemed like they would in 1998, with a historically good offense, only to lose in their first playoff game that year. Then there are the Timberwolves. Minnesota finally broke the second longest playoff drought in NBA history in 2018 after 13 years of failing to qualify. In a league where more than half the teams make it to the postseason, that is quite a feat. The Wild haven’t been in town long, but like the Timberwolves, have never even reached the finals. The Twins are the only team in town with a title, but have not returned to the World Series. While Minneapolis has won a title, none of the teams in the city have even reached the championship stage in the 27 years since. This city is starved for a title and well-deserving of the top spot on our list.