Gary Sutton

And conversely, if you have a few teams that finish the season with, let's say, around 60 wins, and then conversely, you have other teams that finish the same season with around 20, 25 wins, you have high variance and low parity.

So from an interest season standpoint, when you look at the data and plot it out by year before the 84, 85 season, when the NBA put the salary cap in place, you really don't see an interest season parity problem.

Parity did drop for the last, I would say, three seasons before the salary cap.

So maybe in defense of the league, they were looking at those three data points and came to the conclusion that, oh, we have a potential problem here that we need to solve.

But three data points don't make a trend.

Three data points is more noise than anything else.

So when you pan out,

and look at the data more holistically, when you look at parity, interest season parity by year leading up to the salary cap, and you look at the same data after the salary cap, interest season parity actually got noticeably worse after the salary cap was implemented.

Regardless of how you want to measure it.

So the data otherwise looks the same.

So I don't think the NBA, at least from an intra-season standpoint, intra-season parity, I don't think the NBA really had a problem to begin with.

And if they did, they definitely didn't solve it by...

implementing a salary cap.

Or, like I said a moment ago, they might have been looking at those last few data points and trying to head off a problem, right?

Which, again, that's not how I would have approached it.

And if I were part of the Players Association...

I wouldn't have gone along with it if that was your argument and you've got just a small number of data points and you're thinking we have a problem here.

No, take a step back and look at the data more holistically and see what the real trend is.

But that's from an intra-season parity perspective.

You also have intra-season, right, where...