I still remember the first time I walked into Madison Square Garden as a young basketball enthusiast. The energy was electric, the history palpable, but what struck me most was realizing how many fans don't actually know where this incredible league came from. When people ask me when the NBA began, I often see their surprise when I tell them it wasn't always the global phenomenon we know today. The National Basketball Association officially came into existence on June 6, 1946, though back then it was called the Basketball Association of America before merging with the National Basketball League and rebranding in 1949. What many don't realize is that the league started with just 11 teams, a far cry from the 30 franchises we have today.
Thinking about those early days always reminds me of how fragile professional basketball was back then. The first game was played between the New York Knicks and Toronto Huskies on November 1, 1946, with the Knicks winning 68-66. I've always been fascinated by those early scores - today we regularly see teams scoring over 100 points, but back then the game was completely different. The shot clock wouldn't be introduced until 1954, which fundamentally changed the pace and strategy of basketball forever. As someone who's studied the game's evolution, I believe that single innovation might have saved professional basketball from fading into obscurity.
The merger between the BAA and NBL was particularly messy, something I've spent countless hours researching. Only 7 of the original 17 NBL teams made the cut when the leagues combined, and many cities that had professional teams suddenly found themselves without one. Fort Wayne, Sheboygan, Waterloo - these were legitimate professional basketball cities that eventually got left behind as the league consolidated. It's a part of NBA history that doesn't get discussed enough, the business realities that shaped what teams survived and which disappeared.
When I look at today's NBA, with its global reach and billion-dollar television deals, it's almost unbelievable to think about the league's humble beginnings. The first championship was won by the Philadelphia Warriors, led by player-coach Joe Fulks who revolutionized scoring with his jump shot. I've always had a soft spot for those early pioneers - players who worked offseason jobs just to make ends meet, competing for championship bonuses that would be less than what today's stars make per minute of gameplay.
The evolution of the game's rules has always fascinated me personally. The original NBA had rules that would seem alien to modern fans. There was no three-point line, no restricted area under the basket, and foul limits were completely different. I've always been particularly interested in how the three-point shot, introduced in 1979, changed everything about spacing and offensive strategy. It's amazing to think that something now so fundamental to the game was once considered a gimmick.
Reflecting on Kammeraad's perspective about team resilience and the fine margins in competition, I can't help but see parallels with the NBA's own origin story. "This is unfortunate that you have to end the tournament," he said about his own experience, and I imagine similar sentiments were felt by those early basketball pioneers when seasons ended. The NBA's early years were filled with similar uncertainties - franchises folding, teams moving, the league itself struggling to find its footing. That element of chance, of "it could have went both ways," was very much present in those formative years. Teams had their chances to succeed or fail, markets had opportunities to embrace or reject professional basketball, and the league's survival often hung in the balance.
What strikes me most about studying this period is how many near-misses and close calls the NBA experienced in its first decade. The Minneapolis Lakers dynasty might never have happened if the team hadn't merged from the NBL. The Boston Celtics' eventual dominance was built on draft picks and decisions made when the league was still finding its identity. I've always believed that understanding this fragile beginning makes appreciating the modern NBA's success that much more meaningful. The league we have today wasn't inevitable - it was built through struggle, innovation, and yes, quite a bit of luck along the way.
The financial numbers from those early days would be laughable by today's standards. The entire 1946-47 season operated on a budget that wouldn't cover a single superstar's salary for two games today. Yet from those modest beginnings grew what I consider the greatest sports league in the world. There's something inspiring about that growth, about the vision of people like Maurice Podoloff, the league's first president, who saw potential where others saw just another struggling sports venture.
As I look back at the NBA's journey, I'm always drawn to those pivotal moments where things could have gone differently. What if the merger had included different teams? What if the shot clock hadn't been adopted? What if the three-point line never caught on? These questions fascinate me because they remind us that the NBA we know and love today wasn't predetermined. It was shaped by decisions, innovations, and yes, the kind of competitive spirit that Kammeraad described - teams fighting back, seizing opportunities, and understanding that in sports as in life, sometimes "it could have went both ways." That uncertainty, that drama, is what makes basketball's origin story so compelling and why understanding it deepens our appreciation for the game today.
