The problem with most of these arguments against GS/Cleveland is that they are clearly a double-standard.
What upsets are there in the NBA? Cleveland (3rd seed) beat the 1st and 2nd seeds in consecutive rounds. New Orleans (6th seed) beat Portland (3rd seed). Utah (5th seed) beat OKC (4th seed). Even Golden State was actually the 2nd seed, and beat the first (Houston - a team Golden State also lost the regular season series to). -- It's easy to just say it was inevitable that those two meet, but it wasn't. Cleveland had to completely revamp their game in the playoffs. Golden State had to get a lucky injury to Chris Paul.
Don't like the idea of players orchestrating to join the same team / older dynasties built their teams internally? Look, this is blatantly hypocritical on its face. You wouldn't care if Pat Riley had been the real mastermind behind Miami. Why is it a double standard for the players (the very people most affected)? Moreover, this only really applies to Miami. Cleveland signed Lebron outright because he grew up there, and had to trade a supposed generational talent to get Love. GS, meanwhile, drafted Curry, Green, and Thompson. They traded for Iggy. They WON A CHAMPIONSHIP before they even got KD. They also probably would have still won these championships without him (they only lost to Cleveland when Curry had a bum ankle).
Why don't more teams have a shot? This is only a question that fans of bad teams ask. Boston didn't think they had no chance. Toronto didn't think they had no chance. Even Philly thought it had a chance when the playoffs started. Sure, realistic teams out West probably thought the 2nd round was their ceiling, every team 3-6 had a chance to win in the first round. Why aren't there more than 6 teams? Because most teams aren't actually that good. Hell, more than half the team in each conference make the playoffs. The NBA rewards mediocrity, and that's all some teams are capable of achieving.
What about MLB/NHL? Tom touched on it a little already mentioning that these are low-scoring sports. What he's really getting at is that winning and losing in those sports are far more luck-dependent. That sounds good in theory until your team is good, maybe even really good (Tigers / Red Wings), and yet your team still seems to flame out in the playoffs. It means that when you are rooting for a team in the playoffs, your hopes are resting on the something completely out of your team's control (one bad call, one foul ball instead of a home run, one shot off the crossbar). Personally, I find the randomness in baseball pointless. It's like being a fan of someone playing chutes and ladders.
Can't a good/hot defense change a series in the NBA? Contrary to what you might think, the answer is YES. The most obvious one I remember is Memphis (8th seed and missing two of their top players) beating the seemingly invincible Spurs in 2011.
4 years in a row, same two teams. Isn't there something wrong with that? I've already brought up just how this kind of argument fails the historical test. LA-Boston was a huge boon to the NBA, and brought in tons of fans. GS is basically the new-age version of Showtime. Jordan's Bulls ran roughshod over the league, with almost NO real challenger, but everyone waxes nostalgic about that team like they were drafted by the basketball gods. The 60s Celtics was built entirely because of how poorly the league was run - Cousy was bought when his original team went out of business, Russell was only able to be picked because of a negotiation for the freakin' IceCapades, and by the way they played the same LA team five times during their streak (very much like Cleveland now).
Mitch, I honestly am not trying to rag on you. But there are so many argument made about how the past was so much better for one confusing reason or another. They all miss the point. The past is just the past, and it's just different. I'm not saying everyone should be forced to love the NBA right now, no one should. Professional sports are just games, distractions for the rest of us to find some entertainment in. There doesn't need to be justification for not liking things as they are, it's all just preference. But since it's preference, no one should be making grand statements about "X is bad for the league" when they are really just stating preference. NBA ratings have been doing just fine.
