Resuming CBA talks

[Duncan2177]

If It weren't for the owners, the players wouldn't have an opprtunity to play a game for a living. 50/50 split is fair. What's unfair, however, is a bunch of cry baby basketball players crying over their 1% BRI while there are people in the real world without jobs because of the current economic climate.There will be a season, how many of these players do you honestly think have that much saved. I wouldnt be surprised If half are living paycheck to paycheck. They're about to get their last check of the year and the owners know it.

[mavsfan1000]

Hopefully this lockout ends. I prefer the players not getting greedy and just take the deal. But too many of them got families to feed. lol

[Giuseppe]

^The owners caved last time. The players need to see this thru. The owners will roll over in the end.

[Duncan2177]

Let's see, the NBA players are the highest paid athletes in the world and the owners are losing money, how are the players being mistreated again?

[mavsfan1000]

^The owners caved last time. The players need to see this thru. The owners will roll over in the end.
No they won't. It will be the players or no season.

[kjhip1]

you gotta believe 1-3 players are considered "star" players for their team...that leaves what 10-12 players not making the kind of money that would keep them good if a season is lost. There's gotta be alot of players really needing an NBA season to occur..Not to mention how many players will turn into shawn kemp if the lockout goes the entire season..
I cant wait to see players tweeting about how they feel about the proposal that was made tonight..so exciting... :rolleyes

[DJ Mbenga]

marc stein already beleives they will try to decertify. interesting since wornjrhowski says he cant beleive the nba would throw away a season.

[spurs10]

Ask your self how much you'd compromise, on a deal you felt was wrong, if you had 10 million + in your savings account. Too many owners and players have no qualms about taking a year off.....they have plenty of money for them and their children's children. Anyone who didn't get a good idea what Michael Jordan was all about from his acception speech into the HOF wasn't paying attention.

[kjhip1]

Ask your self how much you'd compromise, on a deal you felt was wrong, if you had 10 million + in your savings account. Too many owners and players have no qualms about taking a year off.....they have plenty of money for them and their children's children. Anyone who didn't get a good idea what Michael Jordan was all about from his acception speech into the HOF wasn't paying attention.

How many players do you really think save that much money to take a year off? I think there are many who need the season to happen..and speaking of Jordan, I used to think he was the greatest..but the man is clearly the greediest owner in the league..I mean the man is a global icon getting paid millions and he wants to have his cake and eat it too..The HOF speech as you stated summed him up...he should have taken a page out of DRob's book and thanked everyone else for his career instead of putting them on blast..the man is washed up and still wants to be relevant..hard to do that when your a horrible owner and responsible for the two worse draft picks in the history of the league (Kwame and Morrison)

[DJ Mbenga]

looks like MJ is really going all out. david alridge says stern cannot go above 50 under any circumstances thats why they had this modified 50% deal. it says 51% but the players would need a miracle to ever receive that percentage. this is gonna go to hell soon.

[spurs10]

How many players do you really think save that much money to take a year off? I think there are many who need the season to happen..and speaking of Jordan, I used to think he was the greatest..but the man is clearly the greediest owner in the league..I mean the man is a global icon getting paid millions and he wants to have his cake and eat it too..The HOF speech as you stated summed him up...he should have taken a page out of DRob's book and thanked everyone else for his career instead of putting them on blast..the man is washed up and still wants to be relevant..hard to do that when your a horrible owner and responsible for the two worse draft picks in the history of the league (Kwame and Morrison)
That's what I'm saying. I don't think MJ gives a damn about anybody but himself. Most people used to think well of him until he revealed his true self, and that is what the players are up against.....greed and ego beyond belief. I'm now convinced the players will decertify and this season, at least, will be toast. Today's offer was the best they are going to offer the union, and that includes 2012.

[Bruno]

Stern is doing a great job at dividing players. Players will need to work hard to counter that.

While the latest owners proposal is bad for players, it is way worse for big market owners. With no S/T and a MLE equivalent to the former LLE for taxpayers, big market owners are screwed. Teams like Lakers and Knicks will the biggest losers of this new CBA.

For the 49-51 BRI split proposed by the owners, I do think players will get 51% after few years. It will mainly be because the BRI will raise a lot with a relativity high inflation. Inflation is the easiest way to solve the US debt situation .

[Giuseppe]

Stern is doing a great job at dividing players. Players will need to work hard to counter that.

Just walk away.

[buttsR4rebounding]

^The owners caved last time. The players need to see this thru. The owners will roll over in the end.

When you consider 2 things I respectfully disagree: 1. Even at 50/50 it is misleading. The owners still have a ton of expenses that come off of their 50% whereas the players have primarily their agent's expense. You haven't heard of a single player that has lost money in the NBA. 2. The average NBA player's career is 3 seasons. Many lower level players will never play in the NBA again if the season gets cancelled. IMO, there are 3 or 4 lower level players for every star on the team.

[buttsR4rebounding]

Inflation is the easiest way to solve the US debt situation .

If you have assets to protect and you are not buying metals, oil or Real Estate you are missing the boat, baby.

[DPG21920]

If its true players dropped offer to 51% & owners didn't concede anything they need to decertify.

[Giuseppe]

^Nephew Deepy & I agree.

tee, hee.

[dbreiden83080]

If its true players dropped offer to 51% & owners didn't concede anything they need to decertify.

But if they lose the season what is the offer gonna be then? Stern and the owners will try and low-ball them further probably citing uncertainty over the fans wanting to come back to the NBA off a lost season and likely the economy still being bad... I don't see how the players get a better deal if they lose the season. Owner are not going to get soft on the terms in the next 6 months..

[Giuseppe]

It will be interesting to see how Media plays this now. They've got to be close to panic. They'll drive it the one way that serves their purpose...whores that they are. We'll see what their talking points & marching orders are no later than tomorrow.

[spurs10]

But if they lose the season what is the offer gonna be then? Stern and the owners will try and low-ball them further probably citing uncertainty over the fans wanting to come back to the NBA off a lost season and likely the economy still being bad... I don't see how the players get a better deal if they lose the season. Owner are not going to get soft on the terms in the next 6 months..
No the owners won't offer a better deal. The union will have to decertify and sue the NBA. The union won't have much of a choice, as far as I can see. This will mean the last year of some of the NBA's best going down the tubes. If they don't play this year, think of the marquee names that will be all but done.

[Giuseppe]

"Other items in the new owners’ proposal related to rules for teams paying the luxury tax and for the use of the midlevel exception. Players have said the system issues are just as important as the BRI split"

Thank Christ.

[dylankerouac]

Maybe MJ doesn't want a season to go forward with Kobe being close to six titles. MJ has a lot to lose if Kobe matches his "airness" and this could give him a reason to be a hardliner as MJ may lose endorsements if Kobe equals/surpasses MJs title count.

One might be able to make a case that MJ has more riding on the NBA and lockout than an average owner in terms of his financial future.

[ElNono]

Let's see, the NBA players are the highest paid athletes in the world and the owners are losing money, how are the players being mistreated again?

:blah:blah

The players already offered to offset the loss... they also offered reductions in contract years, etc... the fact is, the problem here is with a spending spree issue which is directly tied to the owners' recklessness, and they want the players to fix for them.

Some people have short memory. It wasn't the players that called themselves "partners" with the owners. It was David Stern himself when he rammed the salary cap during the 80's.

[Giuseppe]

^That's my boy!

[spurs10]

Maybe MJ doesn't want a season to go forward with Kobe being close to six titles. MJ has a lot to lose if Kobe matches his "airness" and this could give him a reason to be a hardliner as MJ may lose endorsements if Kobe equals/surpasses MJs title count.

One might be able to make a case that MJ has more riding on the NBA and lockout than an average owner in terms of his financial future.

He's definitely doing his best to insure there is no basketball season. If they continue to tarnish the image of the NBA, his accomplishments look less impressive and more like WWE belts. If this ends up like hockey, it will probably not rebound until another era altogether (no pun intended).

[ElNono]

For the 49-51 BRI split proposed by the owners, I do think players will get 51% after few years. It will mainly be because the BRI will raise a lot with a relativity high inflation. Inflation is the easiest way to solve the US debt situation .

Well, this is about matching projections. I have doubt as to who creates those projections? If it's the league, and they publish inflated projections, players will never see 51%.

[ElNono]

But if they lose the season what is the offer gonna be then? Stern and the owners will try and low-ball them further probably citing uncertainty over the fans wanting to come back to the NBA off a lost season and likely the economy still being bad... I don't see how the players get a better deal if they lose the season. Owner are not going to get soft on the terms in the next 6 months..

The offer is going to be 47% + flex-cap, as Stern said yesterday. But it might not matter, since that offer is with the union. If the union decertifies (is basically no more), then all bets are off. Owners are going to try to void contracts to gain leverage and players are going to sue on anti-trust grounds over the draft, rookie scale, etc.

Eventually they'll land a judge that will tell them they either get an agreement in place, or the judge himself will draft it without any input from the sides, and taking the last CBA as reference. At that point, both sides will sit their asses and stop with the petty bullshit, because neither side wants to risk a third party deciding what the agreement should be. This is what happened with the NFL, and honestly, it worked well for the union. It doesn't mean it will always work well for them, but it's a risk they might have to take considering owners won't budge.

[spurs10]

The offer is going to be 47% + flex-cap, as Stern said yesterday. But it might not matter, since that offer is with the union. If the union decertifies (is basically no more), then all bets are off. Owners are going to try to void contracts to gain leverage and players are going to sue on anti-trust grounds over the draft, rookie scale, etc.

Eventually they'll land a judge that will tell them they either get an agreement in place, or the judge himself will draft it without any input from the sides, and taking the last CBA as reference. At that point, both sides will sit their asses and stop with the petty bullshit, because neither side wants to risk a third party deciding what the agreement should be. This is what happened with the NFL, and honestly, it worked well for the union. It doesn't mean it will always work well for them, but it's a risk they might have to take considering owners won't budge.
From all I've read and heard, this is going to court. It's hard to imagine losing 4 billion. Neither side will get that back for a long, long time. It's hard to face the facts, but the NBA is over...for some time.

[ElNono]

and lol @ Führer Stern saying that's not an ultimatum...

[ElNono]

I should expand, a judge will look at both the league numbers AND the previous CBA... which is also a reason why owners will probably not want to go through the process.

[ElNono]

After reports that Charlotte Bobcats owner Michael Jordan had become one of the most vocal of hardline owners, union officials were anxious for him to speak up in Saturday night’s meeting. Union officials, just as they wanted to do back at the last labor meeting that Jordan attended on All-Star weekend, were determined to throw back at Jordan many of his old anti-ownership screeds from the 1990s.

As one official said, “He never opened his mouth, not once.”

:lol

[DesignatedT]

Just accept the fuckin deal. Wow.

[Bruno]

Well, this is about matching projections. I have doubt as to who creates those projections? If it's the league, and they publish inflated projections, players will never see 51%.

BRI is calculated each year by an independent accounting firm. The projection of a 4.5% yearly BRI raise is based on how the BRI has raised in the past.

My point is that I think the BRI will raise by more than 4.5% per year in the future because the US government will try to generate some inflation to reduce US debt.

[Nathan89]

If its true players dropped offer to 51% & owners didn't concede anything they need to decertify.

So you think the should decertify over a 1% gap between owners and players?

They definitely should not go lower without getting a lot more player favorable system issues.

[ElNono]

BRI is calculated each year by an independent accounting firm.

This I didn't know. Thanks.

[ElNono]

So you think the should decertify over a 1% gap between owners and players?

They definitely should not go lower without getting a lot more player favorable system issues.

Does it looks like the owners are willing to negotiate further?
I just get the feeling owners are not moving a finger after this. At least the call for this ultimatum sounds like this is the best the union is getting, and it's all going downhill from here.

And they would be right in keeping that position seeing the union has no leverage at the moment. That's why decertification is the only gamble the union has left (outside the NLRB ruling, which has been MIA)

[Nathan89]

Does it looks like the owners are willing to negotiate further?
I just get the feeling owners are not moving a finger after this. At least the call for this ultimatum sounds like this is the best the union is getting, and it's all going downhill from here.

And they would be right in keeping that position seeing the union has no leverage at the moment. That's why decertification is the only gamble the union has left (outside the NLRB ruling, which has been MIA)

The owners don't seem to want to negotiate any further but I think they will have to. The ultimatum they gave the players union is nothing more than a bluff. The owners know the players union would never accept that offer(the next proposed offer) and would be forced to decertify(something neither side wants). So the obvious conclusion to draw from that is that it is a bluff. A bluff that is intended to make the players feel that this is as good as it will get and is about to get way worse. Not only worse but way worse in just three days. What happens in three days that calls for such a drastic change? Nothing. If the story doesn't make sense then it's a bluff.

That being said the players need to call that bluff by waiting past the deadline. Well they should continue negotiating but if the owners resist negotiating the players need not budge to the bluff. That would be stupid to give your opponent more power than they have and cave to a bluff. After the deadline the owners will get the message that the players are united and not folding for any of their bullshit bluffs. Then the owners will be more likely to negotiate. If they don't negotiate then the players have to eventually make their bluff which is decertification. Decertification is a bluff because they don't want the owners to call but it is something that the owners must realize they can't back off of. Because the players can't back off of it is not the time to make such a bluff.

[DPG21920]

So you think the should decertify over a 1% gap between owners and players?

They definitely should not go lower without getting a lot more player favorable system issues.

Yes. The players have made every concession and are losing on the system as well. If they indeed came down on the BRI % and the owners made no concessions on the system, it's worth it to me to decertify.

[mavsfan1000]

The players have much more to lose than the owners if the season is lost. Keep it going owners. The players can screw themselves if they want.

[ElNono]

That being said the players need to call that bluff by waiting past the deadline. Well they should continue negotiating but if the owners resist negotiating the players need not budge to the bluff.

Agree, but this meeting Saturday was called by the union... and the owners already said the next offer is 47%... Barring caving from the players, I think this is heading to the courts, tbh
That will reflect very poorly on Hunter and Fish, but that's that.

[Birn]

The players don't have the votes for decertification. It takes 130 votes just to bring it to a vote and another 240 or so votes to actually make decertification official. The owners would love for the players to try and vote to decertify because they want to see firsthand exactly how the rank and file players feel about this. I guarantee that if the owners latest proposal were submitted to the players for a vote it would be overwhelmingly approved. The rank and file are ready to play and will vote for this thing in a heartbeat. The rank and file know that if they vote to decertify it pretty much will cost them the season. That's totally against their self interest and more for the potential benefit of the superstar players. The union negotiating committee is basically only negotiating for the superstar players and their agents. It's really a disgrace to see the union negotiating committee so openly disrespecting the rank and file players.

When the union finds they don't have the votes to decertify, they have nothing left and will be forced to accept the owners latest proposal which is very fair and reasonable. There will be another months worth of games cancelled by then and hundreds of millions of dollars lost to the players. Thanks for nothing union...hope it was well worth it to you.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Front office officials of two teams say owners returned from Saturday meeting telling staff to prepare for strong possibility of no season.
26 minutes ago

[DPG21920]

:lol very fair and reasonable

[DJ Mbenga]

Adrian Wojnarowski As I hear from players, I will be surprised if there isn't some kind of membership push to take NBA's offer. How big of one? Still unknown.



vague i cant seem to make a guess what will happen. i dont think it will stop the decertification vote. you dont need that many to get it going, getting it approved is the tougher thing. the players went down to 51 the owners came back with the same 50 50 deal just reworded. the players would need a miracle to reach 51% and the 51% is not even 51 its 50 since that 1 percent goes to a retirement or something fund.
i think this is gonna be a big problem. you are dealing with MJ. he is one of the most stubborn competetive guys out there. if he wants somethign he will fight to death for it even if may be wrong to do so.

[Buddy Holly]

So it was fine for the players to bend the owners over a barrel in 1998 but now that the owners want to get a better slice of the pie the players can't accept it? Wait, sorry, not the players, the agents and Billy Hunter.

Fucking nonsense.

[DPG21920]

Again, the BRI is only a part of the issue. The main concern is the system. If that was reasonable players would easily accept 50% BRI.

[DPG21920]

So it was fine for the players to bend the owners over a barrel in 1998 but now that the owners want to get a better slice of the pie the players can't accept it? Wait, sorry, not the players, the agents and Billy Hunter.

Fucking nonsense.

Players more important than the owners. Period.

[DJ Mbenga]

Again, the BRI is only a part of the issue. The main concern is the system. If that was reasonable players would easily accept 50% BRI.

true. i actually like the compromise or what cohen presented for the tax payers MLE. the problem is not allowing sign and trades for tax payers. it becoems a flex cap no matter how you want to word it. get rid of that and the players easily run to 50 50 heck even 49.

[ElNono]

true. i actually like the compromise or what cohen presented for the tax payers MLE. the problem is not allowing sign and trades for tax payers. it becoems a flex cap no matter how you want to word it. get rid of that and the players easily run to 50 50 heck even 49.

the owners feel they have all the leverage and that the union won't have the balls to decertify. There's no way they're giving up all the shit they want for a season at this stage. Let's see how this plays out by wednesday.

IIRC, union members can force a vote on that deal presented, even if union officials don't necessarily want to. So let's see if it happens.

[ElNono]

So it was fine for the players to bend the owners over a barrel in 1998 but now that the owners want to get a better slice of the pie the players can't accept it? Wait, sorry, not the players, the agents and Billy Hunter.

Fucking nonsense.

This is what you were saying when owners bent the players over a barrel in the 80's and instituted the salary cap? It always been a dogfight like this. The difference here is that small team owners are running the show for the league and they don't care if a season goes away.

[baseline bum]

I still don't see how the players bent the owners over in the '99 CBA. The '99 CBA was the difference between Duncan getting $15-30 million a season like Garnett, Jordan, Shaq, and Ewing were pulling in the late 90s vs. the $9.5 million he ended up getting after his rookie scale contract expired.

[DJ Mbenga]

the owners feel they have all the leverage and that the union won't have the balls to decertify. There's no way they're giving up all the shit they want for a season at this stage. Let's see how this plays out by wednesday.

IIRC, union members can force a vote on that deal presented, even if union officials don't necessarily want to. So let's see if it happens.

its more likely they can force a vote for decertification. its only 30% to get the process started. i think its 50% to get the deal approved.

[Mel_13]

So it was fine for the players to bend the owners over a barrel in 1998 but now that the owners want to get a better slice of the pie the players can't accept it? Wait, sorry, not the players, the agents and Billy Hunter.

Fucking nonsense.

That simply didn't happen. The 1999 CBA was a huge victory for the owners. Look it up if you're too young to remember the events of the 98-99 lockout.

[DPG21920]

I just don't get how anyone can side with the owners.

[Giuseppe]

^Me & you, Deepy...on this issue, hand-in-hand, daddy.

[DPG21920]

It's about time.

[Giuseppe]

It's about time.

& I don't wish to upset the applecart, but, I noticed up above you stole my statement about the players concentration on the system instead of the BRI. I said that first.

[Nathan89]

I just don't get how anyone can side with the owners.

I'm siding with the owners on the system issues. Anything to make the league more competitive.

[DPG21920]

I don't side with them on that either. Its not good for the league and plenty of small markets make the playoffs consistently.

[Birn]

I just don't get how anyone can side with the owners.

Because those of us who love our Spurs would like to see them become profitable once again. We don't want them to leave our fine city. A bad CBA like the current system makes it financially impossible for the Spurs to make a profit. Unless there's a real salary cap like in the NFL and NHL, the Spurs will not make it in San Antonio. Holt would be forced to sell and a city like St. Louis or Seattle would get to see Ginobili, Parker, and Duncan perform for their fans. In the alternative, ticket prices would also have to increase substantially thereby making it unaffordable for a lot of fans in SA.

[DPG21920]

not true

[DJ Mbenga]

lol broussard says out of the 8 hrs from the meeting they only met together for 15 minutes.

[Buddy Holly]

Players more important than the owners. Period.

Actually, the owners allow for a league for the players to play in. Owners > Players.

Without the owner's money the players aren't playing.

Sure the players help generate revenue but that doesn't matter if there's no one paying the overhead to run the team.

[Buddy Holly]

Because those of us who love our Spurs would like to see them become profitable once again. We don't want them to leave our fine city. A bad CBA like the current system makes it financially impossible for the Spurs to make a profit. Unless there's a real salary cap like in the NFL and NHL, the Spurs will not make it in San Antonio. Holt would be forced to sell and a city like St. Louis or Seattle would get to see Ginobili, Parker, and Duncan perform for their fans. In the alternative, ticket prices would also have to increase substantially thereby making it unaffordable for a lot of fans in SA.

So the Spurs wouldn't make it in SA but they'd make it in St. Louis? :lol Ok. O_o

And the Spurs are locked in an iron clad lease for another 20 plus years. Good CBA or bad CBA, they're not going anywhere.

Quit being a moron.

[DPG21920]

Without these current group of owners other owners would step up and pay this talent. Without these players, these current owners have franchises worth nothing.

[Buddy Holly]

Without these current group of owners other owners would step up and pay this talent. Without these players, these current owners have franchises worth nothing.

What? I'm not talking about the two groups of owners. I'm talking about owners in general. If there's no owners willing to put up their own money for a team, there's no team, there's no league, there's no players to televise and make popular.

If you think a new league could start up with the current NBPA players and be anywhere as successful as the NBA, you're nuts.

The players need the NBA as much or more than the NBA needs the players to succeed in the long run.

[TDMVPDPOY]

What? I'm not talking about the two groups of owners. I'm talking about owners in general. If there's no owners willing to put up their own money for a team, there's no team, there's no league, there's no players to televise and make popular.

If you think a new league could start up with the current NBPA players and be anywhere as successful as the NBA, you're nuts.

The players need the NBA as much or more than the NBA needs the players to succeed in the long run.

what some of the morons on here fail to recognize, look at the exhibition games thats been played already this off-season, just how many of them games got aired on big tv networks besides the occasional report in the newspapers and youtube clips....

if theres no league, they the stakeholders will just get their money and invest it somewhere else maybe more euro/football games on tv...thats how i see it...

if the nba folds, expect them to ask for a bailout by the govt, then just restart the league with lower wages by attracting any player who wants to play since its better then sitting out and not earning a dime.

[ElNono]

lol broussard says out of the 8 hrs from the meeting they only met together for 15 minutes.

That's because that's how the mediator business works... they stay in separate rooms and the mediator goes back and forth... kindergarten kind of stuff, tbh

[ElNono]

Without the owner's money the players aren't playing.

There would be other owners, with other money. Nobody pays to watch owners run their business.

[Buddy Holly]

what some of the morons on here fail to recognize, look at the exhibition games thats been played already this off-season, just how many of them games got aired on big tv networks besides the occasional report in the newspapers and youtube clips....

if theres no league, they the stakeholders will just get their money and invest it somewhere else maybe more euro/football games on tv...thats how i see it...

if the nba folds, expect them to ask for a bailout by the govt, then just restart the league with lower wages by attracting any player who wants to play since its better then sitting out and not earning a dime.

Yep.

Why wasn't FOX Sports or Versus clamoring to buy the tv rights to those exhibition games featuring top 10-20 NBA talent?!?

Because the players themselves have very little value outside the NBA bubble.

If you took Ben and Jerry's ice cream and stuck it in a brand new carton with a generic, unfamiliar name and sold it in the same stores Ben and Jerry's is sold and the same price and everyone knew it was the same ice cream (taste wise) as what was in the Ben and Jerry carton, the new generic wouldn't sell and would go out of business within a year.

However, if you took a generic, unfamiliar brand ice cream and put it in the Ben and Jerry's carton, sells might dip a bit but they'd remain in business years later.

[ElNono]

Because those of us who love our Spurs would like to see them become profitable once again. We don't want them to leave our fine city. A bad CBA like the current system makes it financially impossible for the Spurs to make a profit. Unless there's a real salary cap like in the NFL and NHL, the Spurs will not make it in San Antonio. Holt would be forced to sell and a city like St. Louis or Seattle would get to see Ginobili, Parker, and Duncan perform for their fans. In the alternative, ticket prices would also have to increase substantially thereby making it unaffordable for a lot of fans in SA.

Maybe the league need to shred a few teams. The question is why do only players have to subsidize the Bobcats of the league. The current revenue sharing from top teams to small teams is the worst in all professional sports. Doesn't look like it's changing much either.

[Buddy Holly]

That's because that's how the mediator business works... they stay in separate rooms and the mediator goes back and forth... kindergarten kind of stuff, tbh

Why then does it take 8 hours to say "Yes" or "No" to 6 different things?

Even the 8-10 hour meetings without the mediator and they'd come back with well they offered this and we said no.

Really? 8 hours for that?

[ElNono]

What? I'm not talking about the two groups of owners. I'm talking about owners in general. If there's no owners willing to put up their own money for a team, there's no team, there's no league, there's no players to televise and make popular.

You'll always find owners in the big markets that want to pay to play. The only reason the owners are still locked out is the small market teams. And part of the reason is the Buss of the league don't want to subsidize the small/failing markets.

[ElNono]

Why then does it take 8 hours to say "Yes" or "No" to 6 different things?

Even the 8-10 hour meetings without the mediator and they'd come back with well they offered this and we said no.

Really? 8 hours for that?

From what I heard, the union had a complete proposal on their own that they brought to the table, including a 51%, plus system adjustments that they feel they needed to have in order to go that low on the BRI. I assume owners mulled over it for a while, then told the mediator what they didn't like. That's when Cohen starts going back and forth with the "wait if" stuff. It obviously takes time, and obviously the owners aren't really budging from their flex-cap and 50% BRI.

[Buddy Holly]

There would be other owners, with other money. Nobody pays to watch owners run their business.

Yeah, in the NBA? No.

What dumbass is going to invest money in a new start up league and pay their players NBA type money and give them NBA type luxuries while building a new brand and starting to from scratch?

No one.

That's like McDonald's folding and you bought their recipes and now you have to replicate their success under the name "Tom's Burgers." Now go over take the market share Burger King, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, etc now have.

You truly have a bad misconception of the business world if you think its a simple solution of "just start a new league with new owners" and problem solved.

[Buddy Holly]

You'll always find owners in the big markets that want to pay to play. The only reason the owners are still locked out is the small market teams. And part of the reason is the Buss of the league don't want to subsidize the small/failing markets.

Ummmm... no. There's a handful of insanely rich owners who don't care about a few percentage points, yes, but that's not the point I was making. Why are you trying to steer the conversation that way?

BTW, an even playing field for all teams makes for a better league. The sooner you realize this the sooner you'll be better off.

[ElNono]

Because the players themselves have very little value outside the NBA bubble.


What? The only reason superstars ain't making a few millions playing somewhere else is that they still have a contractual obligation with the NBA, and that uncertainty impedes them from signing long-term deals somewhere else.

Don't think for a minute that should Kobe, Manu, etc find themselves without a job they wouldn't have their phones ringing non-stop.

Would they make more than what they currently make in the NBA? Probably not. Would they have "little value"? You're out of you mind if you really think that.

[ElNono]

Ummmm... no. There's a handful of insanely rich owners who don't care about a few percentage points, yes, but that's not the point

Sure it is. They were making money in the previous CBA. Of course it's a point.

[ElNono]

What dumbass is going to invest money in a new start up league and pay their players NBA type money and give them NBA type luxuries while building a new brand and starting to from scratch?

Dolan, Cuban, Buss can get a league up and running in no time. You're underestimating big markets. Plus there's already multi-million dollar leagues all around the world.

[Buddy Holly]

What? The only reason superstars ain't making a few millions playing somewhere else is that they still have a contractual obligation with the NBA, and that uncertainty impedes them from signing long-term deals somewhere else.

What American league is willing to offer out of work NBA players millions? Oh, you mean the overseas leagues that are years and years old with a built in fan base and years of branding and investors. Those leagues? Oh.. :lol

p.s.

Since it's a lockout, no player is under any contractual obligation with the NBA, If they sign overseas and want to remain overseas even after the NBA comes back, they can.

If a new league springs up next month and the NBA is still in a lockout, a player can sign with said league and play with them even if the NBA comes back. That's what happens in a lockout, there contracts mean nothing.


Don't think for a minute that should Kobe, Manu, etc find themselves without a job they wouldn't have their phones ringing non-stop.

Where did I say that? :lol


Would they make more than what they currently make in the NBA? Probably not. Would they have "little value"? You're out of you mind if you really think that.

They would have little value. In the NBA, Kobe makes 25 million a year in the NBA bubble. Overseas, they offered him between 6 and 7 million a year.

You see how his value went down tremendously.

[ElNono]

Rudy Fernandez: $4.35 million/season from Real Madrid
Nenad Kristic: $9.8 million for two seasons in CSKA Moscow

Scrubs like RMJ and Bonner probably would have a hard time finding a good job in Europe, but the whole 'players are not worth a damn without the NBA' is baloney.

[Buddy Holly]

Rudy Fernandez: $4.35 million/season from Real Madrid
Nenad Kristic: $9.8 million for two seasons in CSKA Moscow

Yeah, and in the NBA teams over play for that "quality" of talent 2 to 1.

And they're only getting that scratch because they're NBA "status". If they're that "quality" coming from another euroleague team, you bet your ass they're not making that much.

[ElNono]

What American league is willing to offer out of work NBA players millions? Oh, you mean the overseas leagues that are years and years old with a built in fan base and years of branding and investors. Those leagues? Oh.. :lol

Read my previous post.


Since it's a lockout, no player is under any contractual obligation with the NBA, If they sign overseas and want to remain overseas even after the NBA comes back, they can.

Fail. Players are still under contractual obligation with the NBA teams, except for free agents. There's a reason the league wants to void the contracts if the union decertifies. Players that are currently under a deal with a team expose themselves to a breach of contract claim.


If a new league springs up next month and the NBA is still in a lockout, a player can sign with said league and play with them even if the NBA comes back. That's what happens in a lockout, there contracts mean nothing.

Uh? No. You need to read a little more.
A lockout means that paychecks are withheld until the lockout is lifted.


Where did I say that? :lol

Here:

Because the players themselves have very little value outside the NBA bubble.



They would have little value. In the NBA, Kobe makes 25 million a year in the NBA bubble. Overseas, they offered him between 6 and 7 million a year.

You see how his value went down tremendously.

6/7 million a year is still tremendous value compared to any other kind of job. Kobe just isn't worth the last deal he signed, even in the NBA. But that's another topic. The thing is, Buss wouldn't let him walk. He would put together his own league before doing that. He knows what gave him that trillion dollar TV deal.

[ElNono]

Yeah, and in the NBA teams over play for that "quality" of talent 2 to 1.

And they're only getting that scratch because they're NBA "status". If they're that "quality" coming from another euroleague team, you bet your ass they're not making that much.

Maybe. They would still make multi-million dollars, which is the going contract rate for stars there.

[Buddy Holly]

Fail. Players are still under contractual obligation with the NBA teams, except for free agents.

How are they under obligation to their NBA teams during a lockout when they're free and clear to sign with any team they want? Come on man.



Uh? No. You need to read a little more.
A lockout means that paychecks are withheld until the lockout is lifted.

A lockout means much more than just having their paycheck withheld. :lol




Here:

So you prove my point in me not saying it.

Me saying NBA players have very little value outside of the NBA bubble does not equate to "NBA players won't find work.





6/7 million a year is still tremendous value compared to any other kind of job. Kobe just isn't worth the last deal he signed, even in the NBA. But that's another topic. The thing is, Buss wouldn't let him walk. He would put together his own league before doing that. He knows what gave him that trillion dollar TV deal.

Jesus man, your level of reading comprehension is staggering. NBA players have much less value outside the NBA. The NBA name and brand is what gives the players their high value as it is now.

The 12th man makes a million dollars a year in the NBA for christ sakes.

[ElNono]

As a matter of fact the league is also in a bind with a lockout. Because as long as there's a lockout and the union exists, owners can only hire temporary workers (players). Meaning, the league can't just walk away either.

[Buddy Holly]

Maybe. They would still make multi-million dollars, which is the going contract rate for stars there.

The big names would make millions on a annual basis overseas. Well, the big enough names willing to play overseas.

But guess what, there's nearly 400 NBA players. The average NBA player salary for those 400 players is 5 million.

You find me a league in existence now that could honor that.

I'll sit here waiting, patiently. :toast

[Buddy Holly]

As a matter of fact the league is also in a bind with a lockout. Because as long as there's a lockout and the union exists, owners can only hire temporary workers (players). Meaning, the league can't just walk away either.

And a NBA with replacement players would be a helluva lot more successful than NBPA players joining a new league.

NBA players know this, they know their greatest value is tied to the NBA name and brand.

Fans of teams don't live and die by the players, they live and die by the team.

Sure there are a few who will become the fan of the team their favorite player plays on, but they're the rare few, the microscopic exception. Fans are fans of the team first and foremost.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The big names would make millions on a annual basis overseas. Well, the big enough names willing to play overseas.

But guess what, there's nearly 400 NBA players. The average NBA player salary for those 400 players is 5 million.

You find me a league in existence now that could honor that.

I'll sit here waiting, patiently. :toast

Its funny but this is exactly the type of argument the owners do not want to make. You are basially agreeing that the NBA is a monopoly.

They go to court and argue that then they lose their ass. Collusion amongst firms to create a monopoly is bad.

[ElNono]

How are they under obligation to their NBA teams during a lockout when they're free and clear to sign with any team they want? Come on man.

You forget that the union actually had to come out and say players are allowed to. But, players under a contract with a team need to have an opt-out clause in the event the lockout is resolved. Rudy Fernandez, Ibaka, and all those guys have exactly that. I think Kristic was a free agent, so he didn't need to.

That's the reason a lot of players didn't sign in China, since the Chinese federation said they would not allow such opt-out.


A lockout means much more than just having their paycheck withheld. :lol

Of course it's more complicated than that. One thing it doesn't mean is that contracts are null and void.


So you prove my point in me not saying it.

Me saying NBA players have very little value outside of the NBA bubble does not equate to "NBA players won't find work.

Maybe you need to define what do you mean by "very little value".


Jesus man, your level of reading comprehension is staggering. NBA players have much less value outside the NBA. The NBA name and brand is what gives the players their high value as it is now.

Nope. What gives them the value is the fact they're the best players in the world, and thus they make the best league in the world. It used to be called ABA back in the day, or if you want to go really back, the BAA.

But if the league dissolves, there will always be a bunch of current owners that will be willing to put together another league with the same players. They were making money before, there's no reason they wouldn't be making money now.


The 12th man makes a million dollars a year in the NBA for christ sakes.

Nobody pays to watch the 12th man. The only reason the 12th man gets paid as much is because there's a salary cap. It didn't used to be like that. Ask Shaq how much he was making before the 98-99 lockout.

[Buddy Holly]

Its funny but this is exactly the type of argument the owners do not want to make. You are basially agreeing that the NBA is a monopoly.

They go to court and argue that then they lose their ass. Collusion amongst firms to create a monopoly is bad.

Then your presumption is that the NBA is dumb enough to use that as a defense in a anti-trust lawsuit.

What I posted is just a simply observation.

However, aside from that, I doubt the NBPA would win a anti-trust lawsuit. Being the best league in your sport doesn't make you a monopoly.

[ElNono]

And a NBA with replacement players would be a helluva lot more successful than NBPA players joining a new league.

What??????. What replacement players would these be? NBDL players? Are you kidding yourself? Who's going to pay to go watch some scrubs? You and who else?

[ElNono]

The big names would make millions on a annual basis overseas. Well, the big enough names willing to play overseas.

Right.


But guess what, there's nearly 400 NBA players. The average NBA player salary for those 400 players is 5 million.

That's not the player's fault, and that's really the point you're missing.


You find me a league in existence now that could honor that. I'll sit here waiting, patiently. :toast

They don't have to. That's still besides the point.

[ElNono]

This is a star driven league... whoever didn't get the memo yet, need to sit down and think things a little more thoroughly. It isn't the RMJ or Bonner that fill up arenas and get teams the major money tv deals. It isn't the owners either. It's the Duncan, Ginobili, Kobe, Rose, Durant, Lebron, etc of the world. The only reason scrubs get paid what they get paid is that the league decided to cap contracts back in '88, so the actual stars didn't get as much, but since the pie was still growing, the rest was distributed among the other players in the teams.

But the league doesn't want a free market system either. They want to keep (or even lower) the caps on the stars (who make the league), and also trim down the scrubs.

[ElNono]

And good luck filling up arenas and getting billion dollar tv deals with "replacement players". That has to be the most retarded thing I heard all day here.

[ElNono]

BTW, none of these "replacement players" can be signed long term. Lockout forbids that. They can only be temp players, hired game to game. Much like what happened with refs a few years ago.

[spurs10]

And a NBA with replacement players would be a helluva lot more successful than NBPA players joining a new league.

NBA players know this, they know their greatest value is tied to the NBA name and brand.

Fans of teams don't live and die by the players, they live and die by the team.

Sure there are a few who will become the fan of the team their favorite player plays on, but they're the rare few, the microscopic exception. Fans are fans of the team first and foremost.
Who do you think is going to pay to see any scab basketball players. No one is the correct answer. Do you actually ever watch people play basketball? If your logic is correct then just call the Toros the Spurs and watch the amount of people that will pay $100 to see them play. People will not pay to see a team with just anybody playing. How many people want to see a band called the Stones that doesn't have Keith and Mick in it?

[Buddy Holly]

You forget that the union actually had to come out and say players are allowed to. But, players under a contract with a team need to have an opt-out clause in the event the lockout is resolved. Rudy Fernandez, Ibaka, and all those guys have exactly that. I think Kristic was a free agent, so he didn't need to.

That's the reason a lot of players didn't sign in China, since the Chinese federation said they would not allow such opt-out.

That was FIBA that declared teams must offer an opt-out clause not the NBA.

And most players want the opt-out clause because they want to return to the NBA if it comes back this season.




Of course it's more complicated than that. One thing it doesn't mean is that contracts are null and void.

No, they're contracts aren''t null and void, but during the lockout they are not enforceable.



Maybe you need to define what do you mean by "very little value".


VERY LITTLE VALUE IN COMPARISON TO THEIR VALUE INSIDE THE NBA BUBBLE.

It's that simple.

A player making 4-5 million a year in the NBA isn't going to make anywhere near that money outside the NBA.



Nope. What gives them the value is the fact they're the best players in the world, and thus they make the best league in the world. It used to be called ABA back in the day, or if you want to go really back, the BAA.

What? :lol


But if the league dissolves, there will always be a bunch of current owners that will be willing to put together another league with the same players. They were making money before, there's no reason they wouldn't be making money now.

Ohmigod man. If you think it's that simple and easy... :wow




Nobody pays to watch the 12th man. The only reason the 12th man gets paid as much is because there's a salary cap. It didn't used to be like that. Ask Shaq how much he was making before the 98-99 lockout.

What? :lol

I suggest you just stop and quit arguing about a subject you have very little actual knowledge about.

[ElNono]

We can't even sell out the AT&T Center with a washed up Duncan, Manu and Tony these days.

But the Toros will really light up the place

[Buddy Holly]

BTW, none of these "replacement players" can be signed long term. Lockout forbids that. They can only be temp players, hired game to game. Much like what happened with refs a few years ago.

Yeah, replacement players. :bang

[mavsfan1000]

Season is lost imo.

[Buddy Holly]

We can't even sell out the AT&T Center with a washed up Duncan, Manu and Tony these days.

But the Toros will really light up the place

Just stop. My brain hurts from reading your nonsense.

[spurs10]

BTW, none of these "replacement players" can be signed long term. Lockout forbids that. They can only be temp players, hired game to game. Much like what happened with refs a few years ago.
Sorry I missed all your logical responses before I wrote mine.....:toast

[Mel_13]

I suggest you just stop and quit arguing about a subject you have very little actual knowledge about.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001278993/irony6_xlarge.jpeg

[Buddy Holly]

Who do you think is going to pay to see any scab basketball players. No one is the correct answer. Do you actually ever watch people play basketball? If your logic is correct then just call the Toros the Spurs and watch the amount of people that will pay $100 to see them play. People will not pay to see a team with just anybody playing. How many people want to see a band called the Stones that doesn't have Keith and Mick in it?

Reading comprehension.

[Buddy Holly]

What??????. What replacement players would these be? NBDL players? Are you kidding yourself? Who's going to pay to go watch some scrubs? You and who else?

Read the post more carefully next time.

[Buddy Holly]

We can't even sell out the AT&T Center with a washed up Duncan, Manu and Tony these days.

And the Celtics couldn't sell out with Garnett, Allen and Pierce in a top 8 market the year they went to the finals in 2010. Your point?

[ElNono]

That was FIBA that declared teams must offer an opt-out clause not the NBA.

Nope. It was an agreement between FIBA, the NBA and the union.

FIBA announced Friday it would clear NBA players under contract to play in its leagues during the work stoppage, provided the deals they sign come with opt-out clauses.

In a ruling that paves the way for players to earn a paycheck, FIBA agreed with NBA and players' association officials that players are free to sign anywhere but do so at their own risk of injury.


link (http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2011-07/nba-overseas/story/fiba-will-clear-nba-players-to-play-overseas)


And most players want the opt-out clause because they want to return to the NBA if it comes back this season.

No doubt. Although some free agents didn't. See: Kenyon Martin.


No, they're contracts aren''t null and void, but during the lockout they are not enforceable.

I'm glad you finally agree that players under contract are still under contract.


VERY LITTLE VALUE IN COMPARISON TO THEIR VALUE INSIDE THE NBA BUBBLE.

It's that simple.


That we agree with. That said, star players would still get a good share. They're who make the league.


A player making 4-5 million a year in the NBA isn't going to make anywhere near that money outside the NBA.

But that's besides the point. What makes the NBA isn't the 4-5 million a year players. It's the super stars.


What? :lol

What makes the NBA the NBA is that they have the best players in the world. Do you need me to spell it out for you?


Ohmigod man. If you think it's that simple and easy... :wow

Simple and easy? No. But you're truly delusional if you think somebody like Cuban is just simply going to walk away from Dirk, or Dolan from Amare+Carmelo, or Buss from Kobe + Pau, or Arison from Lebron+Wade.

Those are extreme money makers for them. And under an actual non-CBA, free market system, a lot of those guys will be worth a lot more dough.


I suggest you just stop and quit arguing about a subject you have very little actual knowledge about.

What part you don't understand, so I can lecture you a bit? Pre-1998 CBA, thanks to the Bird rule, among other things, max salary contracts kept on growing. Which was the main reason for the lockout. Once max contracts were capped, and seeing that the BRI is a fixed size of the pie, but the pie itself kept on growing, capping the top means the bottom gets more money.

There's obviously other factors, like rookie scale or minimum contracts based on years in the league, but this is simple math really.

[ElNono]

Just stop. My brain hurts from reading your nonsense.

:lol "players can sign anywhere", but FIBA, the NBA and the union have to approve first
:lol nonsense
:lol backpedaling full speed

[ElNono]

Read the post more carefully next time.


And a NBA with replacement players would be a helluva lot more successful than NBPA players joining a new league.

What part did I miss? :lol

:lol nonsense

[ElNono]

And the Celtics couldn't sell out with Garnett, Allen and Pierce in a top 8 market the year they went to the finals in 2010. Your point?

Exactly. Tell me how do you combine that with this asinine comment:


And a NBA with replacement players would be a helluva lot more successful than NBPA players joining a new league.

:lol nonsense

[Buddy Holly]

:lol "players can sign anywhere", but FIBA, the NBA and the union have to approve first
:lol nonsense
:lol backpedaling full speed

They can sign anywhere. Well, that was a bit of a generalized comment. They can sign anywhere that would allow them.

What part of "their contract" isn't enforceable" during the lockout is hard to understand.

The NBA and NBPA knew overseas would be an option for the players so they along with FIBA arranged it so that any NBPA player could sign with a FIBA team and have an opt-out clause. It's not an arrangement that is required. Hence China refusing to.

Hell, George Hill played a game with the local ABA team. The Texas Fuel or something. He didn't sign a contract but he played a game for their team.

Backpedaling? lol Ok....:rolleyes

[ElNono]

If a player under NBA contract agrees to a deal in a FIBA-affiliated league, he first must be cleared to go by the NBA. The league will allow partial clearance, meaning it must be guaranteed the player returns to his NBA team once a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. FIBA will then give its approval once the player has signed a declaration stating he will do so.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2011-07/nba-overseas/story/fiba-will-clear-nba-players-to-play-overseas#ixzz1d0CKdqLx

[Buddy Holly]

What part did I miss? :lol

:lol nonsense

What I said was basically a shitty NBA with replacement players would, even so, be more successful than a new start up league filled with some of the current NBPA players.

You someone interpreting that as me saying an "NBA with scabs would be more successful than an NBA with current NBPA players." is why I asked you to re-read it more carefully.

The NBA's success isn't defined solely by its players. Nor is the success defined by its owners, but only one of those two put their money into it allowing it to run and survive as a league.

The NBA's true success comes from its years of branding and becoming global sports icon. Hell, even the NFL isn't a global league. The NBA is.

[Buddy Holly]

Exactly. Tell me how do you combine that with this asinine comment:



:lol nonsense

Maybe by now you understand what that comment meant.

[ElNono]

They can sign anywhere. Well, that was a bit of a generalized comment. They can sign anywhere that would allow them.


Backpedaling? lol Ok....:rolleyes

:lmao


What part of "their contract" isn't enforceable" during the lockout is hard to understand.

The NBA and NBPA knew overseas would be an option for the players so they along with FIBA arranged it so that any NBPA player could sign with a FIBA team and have an opt-out clause. It's not an arrangement that is required. Hence China refusing to.

Nope. FIBA had to be involved because it's their leagues. The Chinese by refusing to enable opt-out contracts basically ruled themselves out from having non-free agent NBA players. As stated above, any player with a current NBA contracts needs clearance from the NBA to sign any contract overseas, and said contract needs to have an opt-out clause.


Hell, George Hill played a game with the local ABA team. The Texas Fuel or something. He didn't sign a contract but he played a game for their team.

Well, that's the point. Players play in summer leagues and exhibition games every summer. As long as there isn't a contract, they're free to do whatever their contracts allow them to do.

[ElNono]

What I said was basically a shitty NBA with replacement players would, even so, be more successful than a new start up league filled with some of the current NBPA players.

You someone interpreting that as me saying an "NBA with scabs would be more successful than an NBA with current NBPA players." is why I asked you to re-read it more carefully.

Nope. I read you correctly. And I think you're out of your mind.

Let me see... Should I pay $100 to watch Smith, Taylor and Jujuan Charlotte from the NBDL under the NBA label, or pay $100 to watch KG, Kobe and Manu under the ABA label?

What you're saying makes absolutely zero sense.

[Buddy Holly]

Nope. FIBA had to be involved because it's their leagues. The Chinese by refusing to enable opt-out contracts basically ruled themselves out from having non-free agent NBA players. As stated above, any player with a current NBA contracts needs clearance from the NBA to sign any contract overseas, and said contract needs to have an opt-out clause.

Show me the literature that states what you underlined. Thanks.

[ElNono]

Show me the literature that states what you underlined. Thanks.

From nba.com. Don't know how much more official you want it to be:

If a player under NBA contract agrees to a deal in a FIBA-affiliated league, he first must be cleared to go by the NBA. The league will allow partial clearance, meaning it must be guaranteed the player returns to his NBA team once a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. FIBA will then give its approval once the player has signed a declaration stating he will do so.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/07/29/FIBA-clearance/index.html

[Buddy Holly]

Nope. I read you correctly. And I think you're out of your mind.

Let me see... Should I pay $100 to watch Smith, Taylor and Jujuan Charlotte from the NBDL under the NBA label, or pay $100 to watch KG, Kobe and Manu under the ABA label?

What you're saying makes absolutely zero sense.

LOL at your price inflation.

Neither league would demand those prices.

And what arenas are these ABA superstars playing in that would demand such outrageous pricing. l

Come on man. Come on.

[Buddy Holly]

From nba.com. Don't know how much more official you want it to be:

If a player under NBA contract agrees to a deal in a FIBA-affiliated league, he first must be cleared to go by the NBA. The league will allow partial clearance, meaning it must be guaranteed the player returns to his NBA team once a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. FIBA will then give its approval once the player has signed a declaration stating he will do so.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/07/29/FIBA-clearance/index.html

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[ElNono]

LOL at your price inflation. :lol

Neither league would demand those prices.

And what arenas are these ABA superstars playing in that would demand such outrageous pricing. lol

Come on man. Come on.

$100 bucks is inflation???? You haven't gone to a game in a while, have you?

[ElNono]

I normally get fairly good seats, and they don't come under $250/per, tbh...

And those are not even courtside...

[ElNono]

Who do you think will get the better TV deal?

Smith, Taylor and Jujuan Charlotte from the NBDL under the NBA label, or KG, Kobe and Manu under the ABA label?

[Buddy Holly]

$100 bucks is inflation???? You haven't gone to a game in a while, have you?

100 dollars for a current NBA product would not be the same 100 dollars for an NBA with completely new talent across the board nor the same 100 dollars for a new startup league that wouldn't have access to NBA quality arenas in NBA cities nor national tv exposure the likes the NBA would have.

[Buddy Holly]

Who do you think will get the better TV deal?

Smith, Taylor and Jujuan Charlotte from the NBDL under the NBA label, or KG, Kobe and Manu under the ABA label?

The NBA which already has a TV deal and the national and global branding already established and ingrained.

Seriously, come on. And please stop touting three players at the tail ends of their careers as the selling point for this new league you're creating.

The top NBA players have had multiple exhibitions and not a single one was covered by any national tv channel. If they're names and talent are so lucrative, why's that?

[ElNono]

100 dollars for a current NBA product would not be the same 100 dollars for an NBA with completely new talent across the board nor the same 100 dollars for a new startup league that wouldn't have access to NBA quality arenas in NBA cities nor national tv exposure the likes the NBA would have.

tbqh, I expect the NBA to fail so badly that at some point they would be absorbed by the ABA. Some college arenas are good enough to make a good chunk of change. And there's no doubt in my mind who would get the TV deals.

Fact is there isn't a lack of owners out there. Teams like NJ, Detroit all have new owners now. Even MJ recently with the Bobcats. It's still a great product and there's people out there with money that want to get in the game.

[ElNono]

The NBA which already has a TV deal and the branding.

You can't be serious. TWC is voiding that deal with the Lakers tomorrow if there's no star players. They ain't dumb. They can't sell advertisement to a non-audience. They would never make that money back.


Seriously, come on. And please stop touting three players at the tail ends of their careers as the selling point for this new league you're creating.

Okay. I'll go with Rose, Durant and Lebron. It doesn't matter. You're still in the same star-studded boat.


The top NBA players have had multiple exhibitions and not a single one was covered by any national tv channel. If they're names and talent are so lucrative, why's that?

For a number of reasons, including said sport TV channels not wanting to piss off the NBA, seeing an agreement could come at any time.
But you're kidding yourself that allegiances wouldn't switch if there's a long-term superior product out there.

[Buddy Holly]

tbqh, I expect the NBA to fail so badly that at some point they would be absorbed by the ABA. Some college arenas are good enough to make a good chunk of change. And there's no doubt in my mind who would get the TV deals.

So the ABA is going to share dates with college teams? WTF?! Is this league of yours playing in the summer and fall?

And yes, the ABA with its name brand and global presence is going to swallow up the NBA. :lol

Sorry, I use the lol smiley a lot with you but that's because a lot of what you say is LOL worthy.


Fact is there isn't a lack of owners out there. Teams like NJ, Detroit all have new owners now. Even MJ recently with the Bobcats. It's still a great product and there's people out there with money that want to get in the game.

They bought into the NBA not the players. :lol

P.S.

Being overpaid doesn't make you the best talent the world has to offer.

There's so much talent not in the NBA that the NBA wouldn't be full of shit in the long run.

[ElNono]

So the ABA is going to share dates with college teams? WTF?! Is this league of yours playing in the summer and fall?

Do you think college arenas only schedule college basketball games?


And yes, the ABA with its name brand and global presence is going to swallow up the NBA. :lol

What do you think the NBA brand is worth without it's star players? This is from a league that worked hard in marketing individual players over teams.

I just want to get a sense how far the delusion goes.


They bought into the NBA not the players. :lol

They certainly didn't buy into temp player talent. Unless you think they did.


Being overpaid doesn't make you the best talent the world has to offer.

Star players aren't overpaid. As a matter of fact, they're arguably underpaid.


There's so much talent not in the NBA that the NBA wouldn't be full of shit in the long run.

You can go watch the talent that didn't quite make it in the NBA... it's called the NBDL. What do their TV deal looks like? :lol

[Buddy Holly]

You can't be serious. TWC is voiding that deal with the Lakers tomorrow if there's no star players. They ain't dumb. They can't sell advertisement to a non-audience. They would never make that money back.

Firstly, that's a regional deal not national. And second, no doubt the contracts would be renegotiated for less if the NBA suddenly had new players across the board.




Okay. I'll go with Rose, Durant and Lebron. It doesn't matter. You're still in the same star-studded boat.


Yeah and I'm sure you'll pay 100 dollars to see them play in a dingy poorly lit convention hall. Have at it! :toast


For a number of reasons, including said sport TV channels not wanting to piss off the NBA, seeing an agreement could come at any time.

FOX Sports or Versus would piss off the NBA if they broadcasted an exhibition game? lol come on man.


But you're kidding yourself that allegiances wouldn't switch if there's a long-term superior product out there.

Firstly, you do understand we're arguing hypothetical that won't and will not ever happen. Right?

Secondly, the quality of the NBA with their name recognition, branding and owners money would bitch slap any petty attempt at a league by the "ABA" as you so see it.

[Mel_13]

So the ABA is going to share dates with college teams? WTF?! Is this league of yours playing in the summer and fall?

Plenty of arenas are used for NBA and college games now.

[ElNono]

Firstly, that's a regional deal not national. And second, no doubt the contracts would be renegotiated for less if the NBA suddenly had new players across the board.

Why would they need to renegotiate? It's the NBA! They bought into the NBA, didn't they?

:lol backpedaling again



Yeah and I'm sure you'll pay 100 dollars to see them play in a dingy poorly lit convention hall. Have at it! :toast

Sure as heck I'll pay $100 to see all those 3. Fuck, put up a poll and let's see who wouldn't.


FOX Sports or Versus would piss off the NBA if they broadcasted an exhibition game? lol come on man.

But it isn't just 'an exhibition game'. It's a game that's collecting money for the players during a league imposed lockout. You can't be that naive or dumb.


Firstly, you do understand we're arguing hypothetical that won't and will not ever happen. Right?

Of course. I expect the union to either cave or decertify.


Secondly, the quality of the NBA with their name recognition, branding and owners money would bitch slap any petty attempt at a league by the "ABA" as you so see it.

The NBA is *NOTHING* without the star players they marketed over the years. They made that bed, now they have to lay on it.

[TDMVPDPOY]

comparing the nba to a new aba system is like comparing wwe to tna....

[objective]

The idea that a second league could compete with and then destroy the NBA is a farce. It's so laughable that I don't understand why there's so many posts on it.

HOWEVER

If the San Antonio market could ever free itself of it's current obligations to former ABA owners of 25% of their tv revenue like the other old ABA teams, that might be enough in and of itself to make SA a viable market without heavy revenue sharing or a harsh and restrictive hard cap.

But that's not happening.

[Buddy Holly]

Do you think college arenas only schedule college basketball games?

They don't schedule 40 other games during the traditional basketball season. :lol



What do you think the NBA brand is worth without it's star players? This is from a league that worked hard in marketing individual players over teams.

There's what, maybe 10 players that would have name recognition outside the NBA realm. You don't honestly think the average person who's a casual viewer of the NBA gives two licks about Chris Paul or Steve Nash or Carmelo Anthony, do you?

Those are names of players who are stars and household names in the NBA fan realm.

But guess what, the causal viewer or the non-fan still knows the NBA name.

The casual fan isn't going to care enough about Kevin Garnett now playing for the Houston Shippers of the ABA to devote any time or resources.

Sorry, you lose.




They certainly didn't buy into temp player talent. Unless you think they did.

My hypothetical scenario doesn't contain replacement players, remembers. We're discussing two separate leagues.


Star players aren't overpaid. As a matter of fact, they're arguably underpaid.




You can go watch the talent that didn't quite make it in the NBA... it's called the NBDL. What do their TV deal looks like? :lol

You're not that stupid are you? :lol

Seriously, of course substandard leagues aren't going to have the same goodies and status as the current NBA.

But don't you remember, the NBA as it stand no longer exists. It's the new NBA and the new ABA. :lol

Bro, I'm done arguing such outlandish scenarios with you.

If you'd like to get back o talking a bit more realistically, I;m up for that starting tomorrow.

[Buddy Holly]

Plenty of arenas are used for NBA and college games now.

Which arenas share both full NBA home dates and full college home games?

No, not the occasional game or tournament housed in a NBA arena, but both full home game schedules.

[ElNono]

The idea that a second league could compete with and then destroy the NBA is a farce. It's so laughable that I don't understand why there's so many posts on it.

We're entertaining an hypothetical where the NBA wouldn't have star players and would have to compete with a product full of star players.

It's not happening, and we both know it.


HOWEVER

If the San Antonio market could ever free itself of it's current obligations to former ABA owners of 25% of their tv revenue like the other old ABA teams, that might be enough in and of itself to make SA a viable market without heavy revenue sharing or a harsh and restrictive hard cap.

But that's not happening.

You mean McComb is still making out like a bandit?

[Buddy Holly]

Why would they need to renegotiate? It's the NBA! They bought into the NBA, didn't they?

:lol backpedaling again

After every TV contract ends a new one has to be negotiated. The price the network is willing to pay would go down, that's to be expected if the NBA were to introduce new talent to all 30 teams.





Sure as heck I'll pay $100 to see all those 3. Fuck, put up a poll and let's see who wouldn't.

Yeah, I'm sure. I'd pay 10,000,000 dollars to see that game. See how easy that was for me to type out.


But it isn't just 'an exhibition game'. It's a game that's collecting money for the players during a league imposed lockout. You can't be that naive or dumb.

When did I say the players would get paid? I didn't.



The NBA is *NOTHING* without the star players they marketed over the years. They made that bed, now they have to lay on it.

The NBA makes the players, not the other way around. Quit sucking so much player dick. You're making yourself look like Richard Jefferson.

[Buddy Holly]

We're entertaining an hypothetical where the NBA wouldn't have star players and would have to compete with a product full of star players.

10-15 star players does not a product full of star players. :lol

[Mel_13]

Which arenas share both full NBA home dates and full college home games?

No, not the occasional game or tournament housed in a NBA arena, but both full home game schedules.

1. You're backpedaling again. NBA teams have 41 home games and college teams fewer than 20. Scheduling would be no problem. MSG, for example, hosts plenty of college games through the course of the NBA season. Beyond that, most NBA cities have alternate locations better than "dimly lit convention halls". Hell, even San Antonio has the Alamodome.

2. As to your newly formed scenario, FEDEX forum in Memphis is home to the Grizzlies and the University of Memphis.

3. Next?

[Mel_13]

The NBA makes the players, not the other way around. Quit sucking so much player dick. You're making yourself look like Richard Jefferson.

Brilliant repartee.

:rolleyes

[Buddy Holly]

1. You're backpedaling again. NBA teams have 41 home games and college teams fewer than 20. Scheduling would be no problem. MSG, for example, hosts plenty of college games through the course of the NBA season. Beyond that, most NBA cities have alternate locations better than "dimly lit convention halls". Hell, even San Antonio has the Alamodome.

2. As to your newly formed scenario, FEDEX forum in Memphis is home to the Grizzlies and the University of Memphis.

3. Next?

How is that backpedaling? I asked for the answer your gave me.

Did I make a claim that no NBA team shares an arena with a college program then say "ok, maybe they do." aka backpedal.

No. I just asked if there was one. And there is, thanks for informing me,

[Buddy Holly]

Brilliant repartee.

:rolleyes

It was a joke. Get a sense of humor.

However, I think you'd agree that the NBA makes the players and not the other way around.

Would Kobe or Jordan be the stars they are if they played for the Jacksonville Giants of the ABA?

It's the NBA name that validated who they were/are and their talents. Bottom line.

[ElNono]

They don't schedule 40 other games during the traditional basketball season. :lol

Why would it need to be 40 games and why would it need to be during the traditional basketball season?

And why not if it gives them a good chunk of money? It's not like they have games every day.


There's what, maybe 10 players that would have name recognition outside the NBA realm. You don't honestly think the average person who's a casual viewer of the NBA gives two licks about Chris Paul or Steve Nash or Carmelo Anthony, do you?

But the casual viewer doesn't fill the arena. It's the fan that does. And the fan pays to watch Chris Paul or Steve Nash or Carmelo Anthony. Certainly way more than 10 players.


Those are names of players who are stars and household names in the NBA fan realm.

But guess what, the causal viewer or the non-fan still knows the NBA name.

And your point is? It only takes one or two NBA games with a bunch of scrubs to tune out. It's only a matter of time until they find where the stars are playing.


The casual fan isn't going to care enough about Kevin Garnett now playing for the Houston Shippers of the ABA to devote any time or resources.

How did this turn into "the casual fan"??? :lol

The casual fan doesn't make the bulk of revenues in the NBA. It's the actual fans that put through thick and thin, that buy season tickets, merchandise, etc etc etc.


My hypothetical scenario doesn't contain replacement players, remembers. We're discussing two separate leagues.

It doesn't matter. Those owners paid full price that included star talent. Simply put, those franchises are not worth what they were paid for without those star contracts on board.

Not to mention, you don't create a new batch of star talent overnight.


You're not that stupid are you? :lol

What part are you not understanding? If not for max contract caps, how much do you think a Lebron or Kobe is worth for Miami or LA?

That's exactly why there's a luxury tax, and we're in this lockout. The actual market value of some of these guys are much more than what they're getting paid.


Seriously, of course substandard leagues aren't going to have the same goodies and status as the current NBA.

But don't you remember, the NBA as it stand no longer exists. It's the new NBA and the new ABA. :lol

It doesn't have to be 'substandard'. That's your premise. That said, I don't think an alternate league will pan out of this labor dispute. I don't think the players need to go there to get what they want.


Bro, I'm done arguing such outlandish scenarios with you.

If you'd like to get back o talking a bit more realistically, I;m up for that starting tomorrow.

We can go in circles all day long. Bottom line, the NBA product are the star players: FACT. No such players = no product = no NBA.

[Mel_13]

How is that backpedaling?

:rollin

Your first post clearly suggested that sharing an arena would be difficult, if not impossible. When challenged, you changed the parameters to require an actual example of a shared arena.

You're really not very good at this, which is ok. What's so funny is that you actually believe that you're making any sort of coherent case in this thread.

[Buddy Holly]

We can go in circles all day long. Bottom line, the NBA product are the star players: FACT. No such players = no product = no NBA.

These NBA players aren't stars without the NBA. Bottom line.

[Mel_13]

It was a joke. Get a sense of humor.

However, I think you'd agree that the NBA makes the players and not the other way around.

Would Kobe or Jordan be the stars they are if they played for the Jacksonville Giants of the ABA?

It's the NBA name that validated who they were/are and their talents. Bottom line.

If it was a joke, it was crude and not the least bit funny.

There is little you've said in this thread that I would agree with, least of all that the NBA makes the players.

[ElNono]

After every TV contract ends a new one has to be negotiated. The price the network is willing to pay would go down, that's to be expected if the NBA were to introduce new talent to all 30 teams.

Why? Your contention is that talent is irrelevant. The NBA brand is what matters.

Or you're backpedaling from that?


Yeah, I'm sure. I'd pay 10,000,000 dollars to see that game. See how easy that was for me to type out.

Just goes with the rest of the garbage you've been posting, tbh...


When did I say the players would get paid? I didn't.

But they did get paid. You don't have to say it for it to happen.


The NBA makes the players, not the other way around.

So, tell me, why is the NBA cancelling games instead of playing temps?

[ElNono]

10-15 star players does not a product full of star players. :lol

There's more than 10-15 star players.

[Mel_13]

These NBA players aren't stars without the NBA. Bottom line.

LeBron James, for example, was a media superstar long before he ever played in the NBA. I can cite examples going back to the 1950s.

[Buddy Holly]

:rollin

Your first post clearly suggested that sharing an arena would be difficult, if not impossible. When challenged, you changed the parameters to require an actual example of a shared arena.

You're really not very good at this, which is ok. What's so funny is that you actually believe that you're making any sort of coherent case in this thread.

Wasn't backpedaling.

My original comment was directed at Elnono who said there were tons of college arenas that could be used for his ABA teams. I have never heard of a college arenas that shared their court with NBA games.

You than made a statement that then caused me to question which you answered.

Again, where did I backpedal?

[Buddy Holly]

There's more than 10-15 star players.

Maybe we have a different definitions of star player.

A star player can lead a team on the court as well as sell a team off the court.

Very very few in the NBA.

[ElNono]

1. You're backpedaling again. NBA teams have 41 home games and college teams fewer than 20. Scheduling would be no problem. MSG, for example, hosts plenty of college games through the course of the NBA season. Beyond that, most NBA cities have alternate locations better than "dimly lit convention halls". Hell, even San Antonio has the Alamodome.

MSG has enough time to host a full NBA season, college games, music concerts, hockey games...

But they wouldn't have room to host a multi-million dollar league full of stars :rolleyes

[Mel_13]

Wasn't backpedaling.

My original comment was directed at Elnono who said there were tons of college arenas that could be used for his ABA teams. I have never heard of a college arenas that shared their court with NBA games.

You than made a statement that then caused me to question which you answered.

Again, where did I backpedal?

Already answered.

see the first part of post #1384.

[Buddy Holly]

LeBron James, for example, was a media superstar long before he ever played in the NBA. I can cite examples going back to the 1950s.

A media superstar because he was groomed as an NBA player in middle school.

Without the NBA, there are no stars. Sorry.

Lebron isn't getting SI coverage in middle school and high school if his end result is college basketball or the Euroleague.

[ElNono]

Maybe we have a different definitions of star player.

A star player can lead a team on the court as well as sell a team off the court.

Very very few in the NBA.

More than 10-15. Plus there's not a single owner that can do the same.

[Buddy Holly]

MSG has enough time to host a full NBA season, college games, music concerts, hockey games...

But they wouldn't have room to host a multi-million dollar league full of stars :rolleyes

No, because the NBA owned Knicks play in MSG. :rolleyes

[ElNono]

No, because the NBA owned Knicks play in MSG. :rolleyes

And? What makes you think Dolan wouldn't own an ABA team?

[Mel_13]

A media superstar because he was groomed as an NBA player in middle school.

Without the NBA, there are no stars. Sorry.

Lebron isn't getting SI coverage in middle school and high school if his end result is college basketball or the Euroleague.

:rollin

You actually believe that stuff. Hilarious.

[Buddy Holly]

More than 10-15. Plus there's not a single owner that can do the same.

Owners? We're not talking about the owners. We're talking about NBA versus players.

You seem to put way too much value into the players. Way too much. As if you were one. :lol

[ElNono]

Lebron isn't getting SI coverage in middle school and high school if his end result is college basketball or the Euroleague.

He would if he played for the ABA star-studded league.

[ElNono]

Owners? We're not talking about the owners. We're talking about NBA versus players.

No, we're talking about star players.


You seem to put way too much value into the players. Way too much. As if you were one. :lol

And you seem to backpedal or change the subject rather quickly when you get called out on your nonsense :lol

:lol "casual viewers"

[Buddy Holly]

:rollin

You actually believe that stuff. Hilarious.

So if no premier professional US basketball league existed, Lebron is getting his high school games covered by ESPN?

Lebron wasn't a media star because he was a good basketball player, it was because he was destined to be a future NBA star.

Without the popularity of the NBA, the players talent is meaningless.

How many future WNBA players get their high school games televised?

[ElNono]

There will always be a professional US basketball league... that's the point your missing...

If you are arguing that there won't be a professional US basketball league if it's not called the NBA, then you need to back that up.

[Buddy Holly]

And? What makes you think Dolan wouldn't own an ABA team?

What? In what world would the NBA allow one of their owners to own a team that belong to their biggest competition? :lol

[ElNono]

What? In what world would the NBA allow one of their owners to own a team that belong to their biggest competition? :lol

In the world where the NBA cannot afford not to have a team in a market like New York. You really aren't good at this. :lol

[Buddy Holly]

There will always be a professional US basketball league... that's the point your missing...

If you are arguing that there won't be a professional US basketball league if it's not called the NBA, then you need to back that up.

Obviously, If it were called the ABA or CBA or NABA or And1 or whatever.

The popularity of the league determines the value of its players.

If the NBA were the MLS of America, no one would give two shits about most of the "star" players.

In Europe, soccer players are gods, they're rock stars who make untold millions from contracts and endorsements.

In America, not so much.

[Mel_13]

So if no premier professional US basketball league existed, Lebron is getting his high school games covered by ESPN?

Lebron wasn't a media star because he was a good basketball player, it was because he was destined to be a future NBA star.

Without the popularity of the NBA, the players talent is meaningless.

How many future WNBA players get their high school games televised?

So many pages into this and you still don't grasp the fundamental point.

The talent of the players is what makes the league popular.

[Mel_13]

Obviously, If it were called the ABA or CBA or NABA or And1 or whatever.

The popularity of the league determines the value of its players.

If the NBA were the MLS of America, no one would give two shits about most of the "star" players.

smh

[ElNono]

The popularity of the league determines the value of its players.

And what determines the popularity of the league when the product *ARE* the star players?


If the NBA were the MLS of America, no one would give two shits about most of the "star" players.

Exactly my point. Shit talent = shit league. The MLS sucks because the actual star talent is everywhere else, where the best leagues are.

[ElNono]

The talent of the players is what makes the league popular.

:lol

[Buddy Holly]

So many pages into this and you still don't grasp the fundamental point.

The talent of the players is what makes the league popular.

But the NBA's marketing and showcasing of said talent is what makes the product popular in the first place.

If America had no desire for basketball as they don't with soccer or female basketball, it wouldn't matter how talented they were.

Why isn't the NFL or football popular world wide? I mean, the NFL has the best talent possible but no one cares outside of north america.

[Buddy Holly]

Exactly my point. Shit talent = shit league. The MLS sucks because the actual star talent is everywhere else, where the best leagues are.

No, MLS sucks because America has no interest in soccer. The MLS could line each team with the worlds best talent, they're stilling going to be a very distance 5th in the ranking of America's sports leagues.

[Mel_13]

But the NBA's marketing and showcasing of said talent is what makes the product popular in the first place.

It's the talent that is marketed. It's the talent that comes first. It's the talent that is the indispensable element.

[Buddy Holly]

smh

You're right.

I'm right.

Your opinion is no more correct than my opinion.

We could have a 10 page back and fourth about which ice cream flavor is better. It doesn't matter.

Shake your head all you want but in the end neither of us is any more correct in our beliefs.

[ElNono]

But the NBA's marketing and showcasing of said talent is what makes the product popular in the first place.

You can't "market and showcase said talent" if you don't have said talent to begin with.


If America had no desire for basketball as they don't with soccer or female basketball, it wouldn't matter how talented they were.

Why isn't the NFL or football popular world wide? I mean, the NFL has the best talent possible but no one cares outside of north america.

But this is a completely different topic. That's actual interest in the sport. People outside of the US just aren't interested in football.

On the other hand, where there is interest, the talent, particularly star talent, is what makes the leagues more popular. You see this with soccer, basketball, and every other massive sport out there.

[Mel_13]

You're right.

I'm right.

Your opinion is no more correct than my opinion.

We could have a 10 page back and fourth about which ice cream flavor is better. It doesn't matter.

Shake your head all you want but in the end neither of us is any more correct in our beliefs.

How quaint. You exist in a world where all beliefs and opinions are equal, regardless of foundation.

You're really not very good at this.

[Buddy Holly]

It's the talent that is marketed. It's the talent that comes first. It's the talent that is the indispensable element.

But if there's no national stage to showcase those talents, they're useless.

It's like saying American Idol is so popular because they showcase the best talent. That's not the case at all.

[ElNono]

No, MLS sucks because America has no interest in soccer. The MLS could line each team with the worlds best talent, they're stilling going to be a very distance 5th in the ranking of America's sports leagues.

But they wouldn't rank 5th worldwide. Everybody around the world would tune in to watch. As a matter of fact, every time a star studded Euro team shows up to play a few friendlies in the US, they play on a packed arena, and with TV coverage. Not only that, they get paid a shitload of money to come play (look at both Real Madrid and Barcelona this summer).

And ultimately, you're missing the point. The interest for basketball is already there. Even at the college level. So that point is really moot.

[Buddy Holly]

How quaint. You exist in a world where all beliefs and opinions are equal, regardless of foundation.

You're really not very good at this.

And you exist in a world where opinions can be validated with tangible proof.

What world is that may I ask? :rolleyes

[ElNono]

But if there's no national stage to showcase those talents, they're useless.

So your point is that without the NBA there's no national stage?

Your contention is that if the NBA were to decide to close it's doors, interest in professional basketball would cease to exist?

I'd like to hear the explanation for that :lol

[Buddy Holly]

So your point is that without the NBA there's no national stage?

Your contention is that if the NBA were to decide to close it's doors, interest in professional basketball would cease to exist?

I'd like to hear the explanation for that :lol

No, you're getting hung up on the use of the letters N-B-A.

As long as there is a public demand for professional basketball, there will always be a premier league, whatever the name of said league be.

Anyway, it's late. I'm shutting down. I think we can both agree, we need the NBA to come back already. :lol

[Mel_13]

But if there's no national stage to showcase those talents, they're useless.

There's an appetite for basketball in America. The NBA didn't create that appetite. The NBA didn't create the national stage. They're merely the beneficiary of federal protections that give them a monopoly on the best talent.

[ElNono]

No, you're getting hung up on the use of the letters NBA.

As long as there is a public demand for professional basketball, there will be a main league, whatever the name of said league be.

And why, pray tell, would be a public demand for professional basketball?

What is it exactly that draw fans to invest time and money, or turn on their TV's for when watching professional basketball?

Is it to watch the "NBA brand"? Owners? sub-par talent?

[Mel_13]

And you exist in a world where opinions can be validated with tangible proof.

What world is that may I ask? :rolleyes

This thread for starters.

You really, really aren't very good at this.

[ElNono]

Anyway, it's late. I'm shutting down. I think we can both agree, we need the NBA to come back already. :lol

This we agree with :lol

[Mel_13]

No, you're getting hung up on the use of the letters N-B-A.

As long as there is a public demand for professional basketball, there will always be a premier league, whatever the name of said league be.

You just made the case against yourself.

[ElNono]

You just made the case against yourself.

:lol

He's all yours... time for bed for me.

[objective]

You mean McComb is still making out like a bandit?

My math was slightly wrong, but it's explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABA-NBA_merger#Spirits_of_St._Louis).

Basically, the Spurs and other ABA teams pay 1/7th of their television revenues for the rest of time to the owners of the St. Louis ABA franchise.

It's costing the Spurs now about 5+ million every single year.

[benefactor]

Buddy Holly...showing up late...with the not so good goods.

[DPG21920]

My God, BH. Don't you ever learn. This was like the generic Internet battle you see all GNSF have except you've been here for awhile and should know better :lol

People like you (not that you're a bad person in real life) are what enables this NBA PR machine. I really hope you haven't been spreading this stuff around because you could be damiging the cause worse than Chris Farley in Black Sheep. Vote for Donley!

[Seventyniner]

I think we can all agree that an NBA with replacement players wouldn't be nearly as popular as it has been with the stars.

However, the star players haven't exactly been raking in ticket and TV money with their exhibitions since the lockout started. They're rather disorganized.

The marketing is extremely important. How many times have you seen NFL (and even NBA) players start doing well in the pros having come from obscure schools? They had been talented all along, but didn't have the hype that the big-school players did, so they didn't get recognition until they made a name for themselves in the pros. A chance they wouldn't have had without the league and its marketing machine.

The truth must be somewhere in between: it takes BOTH elite-level talent AND a single, well-run marketing machine to make a top-level league. Which one is more important? I say neither; it's a chicken-and-egg argument.

[DPG21920]

Not in the real world it isn't. Again, boiled down as simply as you can, there are more capable owners and marketing people than there is nba talent. Owners by themselves have nothing. Without the players the owners have shells worth nothing. The players without this current crop of owners take a hit, but rest assured new owners would step up to the plate. It's the reason so called terrible franchises are selling for an all time high.

It's not fair to say "look at the games these players are organizing, how'd those turn out?"

They are doing this stuff on the fly and for the sake of working out. IF they decided to blow things up rest assured even though it would be a struggle to create a new NBA, it could be done. Without these players, there is no chance for these owners to maintain the current NBA.

[ElNono]

My math was slightly wrong, but it's explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABA-NBA_merger#Spirits_of_St._Louis).

Basically, the Spurs and other ABA teams pay 1/7th of their television revenues for the rest of time to the owners of the St. Louis ABA franchise.

It's costing the Spurs now about 5+ million every single year.

Oh yeah, that's the Silna brothers. I thought McComb was getting dough on top of that.

[Bruno]

NBA is a league that is more star-oriented and less franchise-oriented than MLB or NFL. Because of that, I think creating a new basketball league would be doable. After few years, it would be at least as big as the current NBA.

[dbestpro]

NBA is a league that is more star-oriented and less franchise-oriented than MLB or NFL. Because of that, I think creating a new basketball league would be doable. After few years, it would be at least as big as the current NBA.

This is one of the few times that I couldn't disagree more with you. I really do not think that people who have followed the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, and Spurs would be so quick to follow another team in a pseudo league because a few stars would be in that league.

The majority of college stars would still want the NBA becaue that is their dream. The heritage and tradition of the NBA cannot be trancended by a league of guys who are good at dunking, but have little use for team play. Might as well watch the globetrotters.

The most important issue would be the TV contract. In the beginning they might get some good ratings out of curiosity, but in the end it would do no better than the WNBA.

[Bruno]

This is one of the few times that I couldn't disagree more with you. I really do not think that people who have followed the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, and Spurs would be so quick to follow another team in a pseudo league because a few stars would be in that league.

The majority of college stars would still want the NBA becaue that is their dream. The heritage and tradition of the NBA cannot be trancended by a league of guys who are good at dunking, but have little use for team play. Might as well watch the globetrotters.

The most important issue would be the TV contract. In the beginning they might get some good ratings out of curiosity, but in the end it would do no better than the WNBA.

First, you made a strange assumption that a new league would be a "pseudo league", with some "guys who are good at dunking, but have little use for team play". You can create a new league as serious as the NBA.

Second, the whole NBA heritage is quite small. There are two and a half legendary teams (Celtics, Lakers and Jordan's Bulls) and one legendary arena (Madison Square Garden). The NBA doesn't have an iconic moment like the NFL has with the Superbowl. The whole "heritage and tradition of the NBA" argument is also hurt when the central team of last year was Miami, a team with little past and whose success was based on having three stars.

[DPG21920]

Not to mention with the hard line stance the owners are taking no one will want to play for them. I think people over estimate the players motivation. They want to play against the best talent and where the money is. The talent would follow the new league.

[TimmehC]

The logistical challenges of setting up a new league are ridiculous, and it would probably take over a year to get everything finalized, IF they can finance everything and find personnel to run the teams. That said, more power to them if they want to go that route.

[DPG21920]

No ones saying it would be easy. Just making the (what should be very obvious) point that the players are the critical component.

[Dex]

First, you made a strange assumption that a new league would be a "pseudo league", with some "guys who are good at dunking, but have little use for team play". You can create a new league as serious as the NBA.

Second, the whole NBA heritage is quite small. There are two and a half legendary teams (Celtics, Lakers and Jordan's Bulls) and one legendary arena (Madison Square Garden). The NBA doesn't have an iconic moment like the NFL has with the Superbowl. The whole "heritage and tradition of the NBA" argument is also hurt when the central team of last year was Miami, a team with little past and whose success was based on having three stars.


This is also a gross oversimplification, though. People didn't follow Miami "just because they had three stars". There have been lots of teams with three stars....hell, the Spurs were one of them during their big run, and that still didn't draw any major public attention outside of the SA metro.

The reason the Heat's popularity got so magnified is because you had the three biggest stars of the last free-agent class all jumping on the same ship, including one of the biggest names the game has seen in the past decade. There hasn't been a combination of talent in the NBA like this in a long time, and people like to see their teams put it to the test.

This was also exaggerated by the way their chose to join forces....The Decision, the big Heat rally, "not 3 not 4 not 5 not 6"....that drew the public's eye, and it's not because people want to see the Heat win. I'd venture to say the reason the majority of people tune into Heat games is to see them lose.

Would a new league draw an audience? Sure, if it was the only basketball to watch, people would tune in to watch it. But it would take a long long time to develop the same kind of attention that the NBA already has with its 61-year tenure. There is a reason why people follow the same team for years and decades, despite who is on the roster and who is acting as coach. People keep talking about this being a star's league or a dynasty league, but how does that explain the filled arenas for those ~20 teams who aren't loaded with talent and haven't even sniffed a championship in 20+ years?

You seem to act like it would be easy for every fan to just shift their allegiance on a whim. Would they do it? Yes, if they didn't have a choice. Would they like it? I think not. I can only speak personally, but I don't care about seeing a bunch of stars with a new team name...I want to see the Spurs that I grew up with, contenders or not, and I imagine that a lot of people (the non-bandwagoners, anyways) feel the same way.

[Bruno]

This is also a gross oversimplification, though. People didn't follow Miami "just because they had three stars". There have been lots of teams with three stars....hell, the Spurs were one of them during their big run, and that still didn't draw any major public attention outside of the SA metro.

The reason the Heat's popularity got so magnified is because you had the three biggest stars of the last free-agent class all jumping on the same ship, including one of the biggest names the game has seen in the past decade.

I agree with you that it was a gross oversimplification but it doesn't change the fact that none of the reason why Heat has drawn so much interest are related to the franchise heritage or tradition. Heat are quite a proof that you can create a lot of interest, that is to a lot of money, only by the players.



Would a new league draw an audience? Sure, if it was the only basketball to watch, people would tune in to watch it. But it would take a long long time to develop the same kind of attention that the NBA already has with its 61-year tenure. There is a reason why people follow the same team for years and decades, despite who is on the roster and who is acting as coach. People keep talking about this being a star's league or a dynasty league, but how does that explain the filled arenas for those ~20 teams who aren't loaded with talent and haven't even sniffed a championship in 20+ years?

I would say that people go to arenas because they like basketball and because NBA is filled with the best players and not because of some kind of fidelity to a franchise.

Just take the example of the Bobcats. It's a new team, in a realistically small market and that has never been good. Their attendance numbers are higher than historical teams like Sixers, Bucks, Nets or Pacers:
http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2011



You seem to act like it would be easy for every fan to just shift their allegiance on a whim. Would they do it? Yes, if they didn't have a choice. Would they like it? I think not. I can only speak personally, but I don't care about seeing a bunch of stars with a new team name...I want to see the Spurs that I grew up with, contenders or not, and I imagine that a lot of people (the non-bandwagoners, anyways) feel the same way.

Well, I don't think loyal hardcore fans are what generate money in the NBA. If it were the case, Stern wouldn't have done what he has done with the Sonics or what he wants to do with the Kings.

[ElNono]

IIRC, a major amount of NBA revenue comes straight from gate receipts, and so loyal fans (I don't know about hardcore) are a big part of the money income.

That said, whether allegiances stay or not, really doesn't matter as much to the league itself. Oklahoma embraced the Thunder and made them theirs. You might stop watching if the NBA folds the tent in San Antonio and moves somewhere else. But it's quite likely somebody else in that other place is ready to take your place.

Interest in basketball isn't really the issue here. It's there, and it's a $4 billion business.

[Dex]

I would say that people go to arenas because they like basketball and because NBA is filled with the best players and not because of some kind of fidelity to a franchise.

Just take the example of the Bobcats. It's a new team, in a realistically small market and that has never been good. Their attendance numbers are higher than historical teams like Sixers, Bucks, Nets or Pacers:
http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2011

Charlotte is a basketball town, though, and the only other real draw they have is the Panthers. They were itching for a team ever since the Hornets pulled out, and seem genuinely glad to have one again. If they were to bring NBA back to Seattle, you'd probably see a similar resurgence now that people realize what they are missing.

Philadelphia, New Jersey/NY, and Indianapolis all have other sports, teams, and interests to detract from the NBA-going crowd, and Milwaukee...well, Milwaukee is just Milwaukee. I wouldn't want to go to their games either. :lol


Well, I don't think loyal hardcore fans are what generate money in the NBA. If it were the case, Stern wouldn't have done what he has done with the Sonics or what he wants to do with the Kings.

You may have a point there, but that's still taking a microcosm occurrence and putting it up to a macrocosm scale. I find it hard to believe that 6+ decades of basketball history and heritage can be that easily dismissed, and people will just move on. In my opinion, fanhood IS heritage. Most people choose their team by their family ties, or their hometown, or some combination of existing factors. If they didn't, fans would constantly just be switching teams to whatever team has the most talent, or the best chances, and everybody would be Laker and Heat fans right now, instead of despising them (outside of LA and Miami).

Not arguing that it could be done, but I just think it would take a long time for that new tree to establish its roots before you could build a treehouse in it. Why do that when you have a perfectly good tree already standing?

It comes down to what you pay for when you go to an NBA game. Are you paying to see the name on the front of the jersey, or the name on the back?

[baseline bum]

There is a reason why people follow the same team for years and decades, despite who is on the roster and who is acting as coach.


There are two reasons most people who follow teams long-term do: (1) the team is in the fan's hometown or (2) the team is someone like the Lakers or Celtics who consistently have superstar players and win a lot. Both can be duplicated minus the history.



People keep talking about this being a star's league or a dynasty league, but how does that explain the filled arenas for those ~20 teams who aren't loaded with talent and haven't even sniffed a championship in 20+ years?


They come to see the other team's stars. That's what it was like in the mid-to-late 80s at Hemisfair Arena.



You seem to act like it would be easy for every fan to just shift their allegiance on a whim. Would they do it? Yes, if they didn't have a choice. Would they like it? I think not. I can only speak personally, but I don't care about seeing a bunch of stars with a new team name...I want to see the Spurs that I grew up with, contenders or not, and I imagine that a lot of people (the non-bandwagoners, anyways) feel the same way.

San Antonio is where my allegiance lies; if the Spurs packed up and left for Anaheim, I would instantly stop following them. If the Spurs were gone and a rival league like the ABA sprung up with comparable talent and a San Antonio team, I wouldn't hesitate to support them instead.

[Seventyniner]

IIRC, a major amount of NBA revenue comes straight from gate receipts, and so loyal fans (I don't know about hardcore) are a big part of the money income.

According to this: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7194222/basketball-related-income-affects-nba-lockout-talks, ticket revenue is 29% of BRI. I didn't see in there what percentage TV money is.

I think, though, that TV/internet streaming money is going to go up over time as the league seeks to get more worldwide fans, while ticket revenues have a ceiling.

Therefore, if the TV money gets big enough, attendance won't matter as much. After all, many more companies can advertise to you as you watch a game on TV than when you go to the arena, and even people that regularly go to games probably watch more games on TV than they attend.

[Dex]

There are two reasons most people who follow teams long-term do: (1) the team is in the fan's hometown or (2) the team is someone like the Lakers or Celtics who consistently have superstar players and win a lot. Both can be duplicated minus the history.

San Antonio is where my allegiance lies; if the Spurs packed up and left for Anaheim, I would instantly stop following them. If the Spurs were gone and a rival league like the ABA sprung up with comparable talent and a San Antonio team, I wouldn't hesitate to support them instead.


Location can determine a reason to watch, but history broadens and strengthens that fanbase. I agree that I will support any team that plays for San Antonio, but I wouldn't feel the same way about it (not at first, anyways). The reason I am a fervent Spurs fan is because I am San Antonio-born and they are the first team I ever remembered watching. It seems like starting a new league means that every team would have to re-establish that hardcore fanbase. You won't have fans of that team who have been lifelong fans until 10-20 years from now, and that seems like a pretty big loss, even if it is just in principal. Maybe fiscally it would work, but I'm getting sick and tired of these idiots fighting over their millions anyways.


They come to see the other team's stars. That's what it was like in the mid-to-late 80s at Hemisfair Arena.

Personally, I go to see my team. Sure, the big games tend to be more exciting, but I'll go watch the Spurs play the Clippers just as quick as I would go to see them play the Lakers. Maybe that's just me.

[ElNono]

According to this: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7194222/basketball-related-income-affects-nba-lockout-talks, ticket revenue is 29% of BRI. I didn't see in there what percentage TV money is.

I think, though, that TV/internet streaming money is going to go up over time as the league seeks to get more worldwide fans, while ticket revenues have a ceiling.

Therefore, if the TV money gets big enough, attendance won't matter as much. After all, many more companies can advertise to you as you watch a game on TV than when you go to the arena, and even people that regularly go to games probably watch more games on TV than they attend.

Thanks. I thought it was a bit bigger than that, but there's no doubt that the business is shifting. With HDTV, 65" TV/home theaters and internet anywhere, it's getting difficult to justify $12 beers and $100+ tickets + parking fees.

[Bruno]

Not arguing that it could be done, but I just think it would take a long time for that new tree to establish its roots before you could build a treehouse in it. Why do that when you have a perfectly good tree already standing?


Well there is a lockout, so there is a problem with the tree. Creating a new league should be players last option if they can't find an agreement with NBA owners.

Regarding gate receipts, I think a huge part of it is now coming from luxury suites. All the franchises have pushed to get modern arenas that feature a lot of space for VIP fans.

[baseline bum]

Personally, I go to see my team. Sure, the big games tend to be more exciting, but I'll go watch the Spurs play the Clippers just as quick as I would go to see them play the Lakers. Maybe that's just me.

I was there to see my team too, but I was a pretty strong minority in the arena at the time.

[Dex]

I was there to see my team too, but I was a pretty strong minority in the arena at the time.

Yeah, didn't mean to come off as accusing you would do otherwise. :toast

I just really want Spurs basketball back. :depressed

[mathbzh]

The majority of college stars would still want the NBA becaue that is their dream.
College stars would follow the money.

[baseline bum]

Yeah, didn't mean to come off as accusing you would do otherwise. :toast

I just really want Spurs basketball back. :depressed

Nah, I didn't take it that way. :lol I just think the majority of people in arenas are bandwagoners who don't care a lot about the team unless they're doing really well.

[DJ Mbenga]

last chance it seems:

Adrian Wojnarowski The NBA and NBPA are seriously discussing setting up a meeting for Tuesday to try and reach agreement on a labor deal, league source tells Y

[tenbeersbold]

I couldn't believe this is in the "better" contract deal that's on the table now.
WTF???

"A 10 percent escrow tax will be withheld from player salaries, to ensure that player earnings do not exceed 50 percent of league revenues. An additional withholding will be applied in Year 1 “to account for business uncertainty” stemming from the lockout."

Umm,yeah I'm gonna let you hold 10% of my salary while you fiddle the numbers at the end of every year to come and take a big chunk of that 10% thereby ensuring that the players are gonna get more like 40% instead of the "generous" 50% being offered

Every player in the NBA is gonna have 10% of their salary held in escrow(gee I wonder who's gonna profit from the interest on that acct) and then just fer kicks we're gonna tack on an unspecified additional amount the first year to make you guys pay for the lockout.

I'd be running to the court to de-certify if I was an NBA player
This is just WRONG

[Nathan89]

I don't side with them on that either. Its not good for the league and plenty of small markets make the playoffs consistently.

You don't know if more balance is good or bad for the league long-term. The system changes suggested by the owners does not eliminate all advantages of the big market teams. Therefore the big market teams will still win the bulk of the championships. The small market teams need a legitimate chance to build a championship team. This isn't baseball where in any given series anyone can win or football where there is only one game elimination.

[Mel_13]

I couldn't believe this is in the "better" contract deal that's on the table now.
WTF???

"A 10 percent escrow tax will be withheld from player salaries, to ensure that player earnings do not exceed 50 percent of league revenues. An additional withholding will be applied in Year 1 “to account for business uncertainty” stemming from the lockout."

Umm,yeah I'm gonna let you hold 10% of my salary while you fiddle the numbers at the end of every year to come and take a big chunk of that 10% thereby ensuring that the players are gonna get more like 40% instead of the "generous" 50% being offered

Every player in the NBA is gonna have 10% of their salary held in escrow(gee I wonder who's gonna profit from the interest on that acct) and then just fer kicks we're gonna tack on an unspecified additional amount the first year to make you guys pay for the lockout.

I'd be running to the court to de-certify if I was an NBA player
This is just WRONG

An escrow tax has been part of the CBA since at least 1999.

[DPG21920]

You don't know if more balance is good or bad for the league long-term. The system changes suggested by the owners does not eliminate all advantages of the big market teams. Therefore the big market teams will still win the bulk of the championships. The small market teams need a legitimate chance to build a championship team. This isn't baseball where in any given series anyone can win or football where there is only one game elimination.

Disagree completely, but frankly I'm tired of arguing things that have been out there for a while with mounds of evidence pointing to a position contrary to the one you have.

[ElNono]

last chance it seems:

Adrian Wojnarowski
The NBA and NBPA are seriously discussing setting up a meeting for Tuesday to try and reach agreement on a labor deal, league source tells Y

Srsly? :lol

[ElNono]

Stern: Srsly, this time we won't troll
Hunter: Srsly?
Stern: #realtalk

[DPG21920]

An escrow tax has been part of the CBA since at least 1999.

I think he's probably more alarmed at the provision for the "first year additional %".

[DPG21920]

Also, :lmao at Steve Blake trying to call players and push them to vote on this proposal. Steve. Blake. No one cares what you think you scrub.

[Dex]

Stern: Srsly, this time we won't troll
Hunter: Srsly?
Stern: #realtalk

http://www.rearrange-inc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/no-wai001.jpg

[DJ Mbenga]

Srsly? :lol

it seems your cynicism is founded. writers say more votes to decertify than accept and they wont even bring it up to vote.

[Seventyniner]

Stern: Srsly, this time we won't troll
Hunter: Srsly?
Stern: #realtalk

:lol

I'd love to see Stern and Hunter's heads on the O RLY and YA RLY owls.

Shows how old I am: the first several dozen times I heard teenagers saying "real talk", I thought they were saying "real tall," and this a couple years after the slang was "real loud." Where does this come from?

[benefactor]

last chance it seems:

Adrian Wojnarowski The NBA and NBPA are seriously discussing setting up a meeting for Tuesday to try and reach agreement on a labor deal, league source tells Y
:jack

[Nathan89]

Disagree completely, but frankly I'm tired of arguing things that have been out there for a while with mounds of evidence pointing to a position contrary to the one you have.

:lol Mounds of evidence of the success of the NBA having more disparity over the long-term.

Can I bother you for a link to a small piece/best piece of the "mounds of evidence".

[Mel_13]

:lol Mounds of evidence of the success of the NBA having more disparity over the long-term.

Can I bother you for a link to a small piece/best piece of the "mounds of evidence".

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215976/Expert_Virtually_No_Correlation_Between_Payroll_An d_Win_Percentage#ixzz1aakZdNpk

[DPG21920]

Thanks, Mel. I said I was tired of arguing and there are many more arguments other than the one you posted as well. It is stunning to me how effective the NBA PR machine is. Stunning.

This NBA_Labor Twitter account is unbelievably ridiculous.

[Nathan89]

I don't side with them on that either. Its not good for the league and plenty of small markets make the playoffs consistently.


http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215976/Expert_Virtually_No_Correlation_Between_Payroll_An d_Win_Percentage#ixzz1aakZdNpk

Apparently there is no correlation so it won't impact the league.

As for the link I feel there is a range of factors that can offset the results. Perhaps teams that spend less make wiser decisions to compensate for the disadvantage of having less money to spend. Hard to argue there is no advantage to having more money to spend. Also the league may not be judging parity based on win percentage. Maybe they want more parity based on different teams in the 2nd round, conference finals, or finals more often.

[DPG21920]

Great, another Buddy Holly argument.

[Seventyniner]

As for the link I feel there is a range of factors that can offset the results. Perhaps teams that spend less make wiser decisions to compensate for the disadvantage of having less money to spend. Hard to argue there is no advantage to having more money to spend. Also the league may not be judging parity based on win percentage. Maybe they want more parity based on different teams in the 2nd round, conference finals, or finals more often.

I think this is exactly right. The owners of teams like the Bucks, Kings, Bobcats, Wizards, etc. that have zero chance of a title want a system that allows them to compete with the elites, and Holt probably likes this too because the Spurs will be have-nots pretty soon.

In the NFL, the last 10 Super Bowls have each had a different representative from the NFC. NFL teams can go very quickly from 3-13 to 10-6 to 13-3 and a NFC/AFC championship game appearance. This is exactly what the small-market NBA owners want: the ability to go from bad to good very quickly, giving fans legitimate hope of a deep playoff run every year.

The problem with this is that in the NFL, the playoffs are single elimination, so the inevitable upsets ensure a measure of parity. 7-game playoff series are far more often won by the better team.

Basically, a system like this requires short and/or unguaranteed contracts to generate loads of player movement, preventing dynasties unless the front office is really good (Patriots).

Edit: found this article: http://www.thetwomangame.com/2011/11/one-among-them/ through TrueHoop. This illustrates my point, that among the owners the have-nots outnumber the haves, and want to see any future dynasty crushed in the name of competitive balance.

[Nathan89]

Nope, payroll has no correlation according to a link you support. Thus the only reason to support the players is because you think the players deserve the money. Not because it will impact the balance of the league resulting in lower ratings.

[DPG21920]

The NBA is not the NFL. It is completely different in every way imaginable and what works in the NFL, IMO, would not work in the NBA. Again, this has been hashed out numerous times.

Also, http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...ate/index.html


There is another leg to the league argument, of course, and that is that it must alter the CBA to ensure that more teams can have a chance to win titles. Some folks agree with that contention, saying the league has become a collection of haves in Miami and L.A. and Chicago whose advantages will only grow with time because of their ability to go into the luxury tax year after year to acquire and to keep players.

This argument, though, ignores six decades of history.

The Lakers and Knicks and Celtics have always had a leg up on their competitors. The NBA has always been a league of dynasties, with few teams able to break through and challenge the hegemony of the dominant franchises.

A recap:
1950-1960: Minneapolis Lakers, four of 10 titles
1960-1970: Boston Celtics, nine of 10 titles
1980-1990: L.A. Lakers, five of 10 titles; Celtics three titles; Detroit Pistons, two titles
1990-2000: Chicago Bulls, six of 10 titles; Houston Rockets, two titles
2000-2010: Lakers, five of 10 titles; San Antonio Spurs, three titles

You'll notice the 1970-1980 decade is missing. That was the only period in league history that can truly be considered democratic. Eight different teams won championships: the Celtics, Knicks, Bucks, Lakers, Warriors, Blazers, Bullets and Sonics. That would seem to be the kind of parity the league is now seeking. And the league was so popular that its Finals games had to be shown on tape delay. To be fair, there were other factors at play then -- the league was overwhelmed by the perception of white fans that its black players were all on drugs, for one. But the bottom line is the bottom line -- in the most egalitarian 10-year stretch in league history, no one watched on television, and people hated the on-court product.

In the NBA's 60-plus years of existence, seven franchises: Boston, the Lakers, the Bulls, the Spurs, the Philadelphia/Golden State Warriors, the Syracuse/76ers franchise and the Pistons -- have won a combined 53 titles. Read that again: seven of the league's franchises have won more than 80 percent of the league's championships. If you're judging competitiveness by championships won, the NBA has never been competitive.

Personally, I'm fine with that. The NBA is no different from baseball (the Yankees have almost one-fifth of all of baseball's world championships in their storied history), or hockey (the Canadiens have one-fourth of the National Hockey League's titles in the Stanley Cup era) or the NFL, where the Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers and Packers have almost half of the league's Super Bowl titles since 1966.

But maybe the league doesn't literally mean compete for championships. Maybe it is referring to having the opportunity to make the playoffs on a regular basis.

Since the last lockout (1998), though:

• The lower-budget Spurs have made more postseasons (13) than the Lakers (12);
• The Jazz have been in more playoffs (9) than the Knicks (5);
• The Pacers have been in more playoffs (9) than the Bulls (6);
• The Hornets have been in just as many playoffs (8) as the Celtics.

[DPG21920]

Nope, payroll has no correlation according to a link you support. Thus the only reason to support the players is because you think the players deserve the money. Not because it will impact the balance of the league resulting in lower ratings.


Great, another Buddy Holly argument.

This is so bad it's unbelievable and I'm not arguing with you on it.

[DPG21920]

And yes, I do think the players deserve the money.

[ElNono]

In the past 12 years:

Spurs: 4 Finals appearances
Pistons: 2 Finals appearances
Cavaliers: 1 Final appearances

That's 7/12 seasons where a small market team made the Finals.

Sometimes it isn't money, it's lucking out with the right talent and hitting your stride at the right time.

[ElNono]

BTW, Knicks, having the biggest salary in the league: 0 Finals appearances since '99

[Mel_13]

I think this is exactly right. The owners of teams like the Bucks, Kings, Bobcats, Wizards, etc. that have zero chance of a title want a system that allows them to compete with the elites, and Holt probably likes this too because the Spurs will be have-nots pretty soon.

In the NFL, the last 10 Super Bowls have each had a different representative from the NFC. NFL teams can go very quickly from 3-13 to 10-6 to 13-3 and a NFC/AFC championship game appearance. This is exactly what the small-market NBA owners want: the ability to go from bad to good very quickly, giving fans legitimate hope of a deep playoff run every year.

The problem with this is that in the NFL, the playoffs are single elimination, so the inevitable upsets ensure a measure of parity. 7-game playoff series are far more often won by the better team.

Basically, a system like this requires short and/or unguaranteed contracts to generate loads of player movement, preventing dynasties unless the front office is really good (Patriots).

The NBA likes to point at the NFL model as justification for the system changes that they want the players to accept. I find it rather disingenuous of them, however, that they are not willing to move towards NFL-style revenue sharing. The revenue sharing in the NFL is a critical contributing factor to the parity seen in that league.

The owners want the players to accept the limitations on free agency faced by NFL players, but they appear unwilling to accept the revenue sharing that the NFL imposes on it's owners. I'd be more sympathetic to the position of the NBA owners if they were a tad bit less hypocritical.

[Seventyniner]

The NBA is not the NFL. It is completely different in every way imaginable and what works in the NFL, IMO, would not work in the NBA. Again, this has been hashed out numerous times.

Also, http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...ate/index.html

There's the difference between you and the hawkish owners: they seem to think that an NFL-like system *would* work for the NBA, otherwise they wouldn't be so draconian in their demands.

That link doesn't work, but I'd like to read it. Mind reposting it?

[Seventyniner]

The NBA likes to point at the NFL model as justification for the system changes that they want the players to accept. I find it rather disingenuous of them, however, that they are not willing to move towards NFL-style revenue sharing. The revenue sharing in the NFL is a critical contributing factor to the parity seen in that league.

The owners want the players to accept the limitations on free agency faced by NFL players, but they appear unwilling to accept the revenue sharing that the NFL imposes on it's owners. I'd be more sympathetic to the position of the NBA owners if they were a tad bit less hypocritical.

Are there enough owners in favor of an NFL-style system to override people like Buss? I think many owners would love an NFL-style system, but maybe not enough to push their agenda through.

[ElNono]

Are there enough owners in favor of an NFL-style system to override people like Buss?

The only part they don't like about the NFL-style system is the revenue sharing... and it isn't just Buss...

[DPG21920]

There's the difference between you and the hawkish owners: they seem to think that an NFL-like system *would* work for the NBA, otherwise they wouldn't be so draconian in their demands.

That link doesn't work, but I'd like to read it. Mind reposting it?

Sorry about that: http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/david_aldridge/10/17/morning-tip-labor-update/index.html

Also, did you go to UNCC?

[Nathan89]

And yes, I do think the players deserve the money.


And that's the only reason you have because there is no correlation in your opinion.

[DPG21920]

No.

[DPG21920]

:lol Between you and Buddy Holly, I'm sure you could come up with an amazing back and forth full of things that are completely not factually. The rate at which you both will back-peddle would be a sight to behold.

[Nathan89]

Yes, I'm not making stuff up.

[Mel_13]

Are there enough owners in favor of an NFL-style system to override people like Buss? I think many owners would love an NFL-style system, but maybe not enough to push their agenda through.

Buss just signed a 20yr/3 billion dollar cable deal to broadcast Laker games. I doubt that a majority vote of the other owners could force him to put that money in a pot with all broadcast revenues to be shared equally.

There will be some revenue sharing in the NBA, but it will never be like the NFL. The richest NFL owners, led by the owners of the NY Giants, agreed to share all TV revenue over 50 years ago. That's why individual NFL teams don't have local TV deals. The NBA evolved differently and the big market teams aren't going to give up their money machines.

The small market teams know they can't solve their problems with concessions from their richer fellow owners, so they're looking to solve their problems by forcing drastic changes on the players.

[DPG21920]

Yes, you are. :lol You say something. I tell you I disagree because what you say is just made up and there is plenty of info to refute you. You ask for proof. It's provided. You then completely ignore you are wrong and try to back-peddle like the link I showed that contradicted what you said somehow made my argument wrong :lol