>The prosperity of this league has been built on dynasties.

For years Boston winning everything held it back, couldn't really generate much national interest when for a decade only one team won.

Of course the 70s had a ton of parity but there were other issues holding the game back at that time.

In the 80s you had teams that won multiple titles but there was always a lot of competition and seldom a string where the same teams were meeting in the finals, let alone the same team winning. You had the Lakers, Celtics, Philly early in the decade, Detroit later and to an extent Houston in the mix. This decade will pretty much pass with the Dubs, LeBron and briefly the Spurs and that's it for the whole time.

>The score of these games and whether or not it's a blowout are
>great talking points in the moment but in the grand scheme of
>things it's a boon to the league.
>
>We're three straight finals in with the same two teams and
>it's arguably winner take all, particularly since Boston has
>the resources to possibly take a quantum leap this summer.

Nobody is scared of Boston, I will bet anything short of my life we see these teams four times in a row.

>This sort of dominance is precisely what breeds higher levels
>of casual interest and viewership. You get a bunch of casual
>fans who don't know dick about the NBA, but they do know that
>they'd like to see the Warriors and Cavs get taken down a peg.

Do the numbers bare any of this out? What you are saying was true of Jordan's Bulls but I am not seeing that transcendental figure here, especially with Bron losing 2/3 so far (and Bron not having the magnetism Jordan did anyway).

>Add to that the offseason intrigue for fallen former standard
>bearers like LA & Philly along with other teams poised to take
>a step toward contention like Minny and there's an awful lot
>to attract more casual eyeballs to the game.

I think you're extrapolating OKP to real life. Don't nobody on the national level GAF if the Sixers can win 40 games and the Lakers can win 35 next year.

>Dominance has always been one of the greatest selling points
>of pro sports.

Again I would have to see numbers that bear that out. Have the Patriots been good for the NFL? I would argue no. The Steelers and Cowboys maybe were. Were the Spurs or Bad Boy Pistons good for the NBA? Not really. The Showtime Lakers and the Bulls were. It depends on the actors involved more than dominance vs parity IMO.

Further you are looking at the casual fall, which is a short-term windfall mostly. The NBA is entrenched enough to have consistent fans and it's tough to keep them happy when 27-29 teams can't even entertain the idea of a championship not only going into a season but for many years to come. This is not an issue in the other three sports.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.