Article: NBA's potiential $16 Billion TV Deal & Possible Expansion

[cd021]

A very interesting article

http://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/7/23/5927745/nba-expansion-seattle-louisville

Bullet points

- The NBA could be expanding (but not officially) to expand to Louisville and Seattle in the near future. The time to do so would be the during the next TV contract. It seems somewhat of a long shot but they mention several "pieces of evidence" to support it.

-The NBA could be seeking a $2 Billion dollar deal from broadcasting partners and could potentially add another TV Partner (possibly Fox)

-Salary cap could sky rocket for the 2016-2017 season (reportedly as high as $80 million)

[http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/7/12/5894073/lebron-james-contract-cavaliers-two-years]

-The NBA is currently making $930 million per season off the current TV deal it could jump to $2 billion per season. $16 billion over an 8 year contract.

-A business owner from Kentucky is a close friend of David Stern and has been working for more than a decade to get an expansion team in Louisville and potentially rename them the Kentucky Colonels (from the ABA).

-The Sonics could also be revived as part of the new TV deal pushing the NBA to 32 teams.




the potential skyrocketing cap would definitely help the Spurs in the retooling efforts post Duncan and Ginobili.

Leonard's 5 year max salary would be would be $19.1 million for the '16-'17 season. The Spurs have would have $38.6 million committed to Anderson, Mills, Diaw (not guaranteed), Leonard, and Splitter.

If the Spurs were to extend Parker, the Spurs would have $53 million to 6 players not including Green and Belinelli.

[xellos88330]

The best thing about adding more teams is the possibility of the league becoming more competitive with more places with money to go to. It could be pretty interesting.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

These pie in the sky projections always make me laugh. What is going to happen to the TV rights deal when GFC II hits sometime in the next 2 to 3 years? For those who aren't aware that this is inevitable, you should read some economic history (serious downturns occur every 7 to 10 years), and take a look at the facts surrounding GFC I and the regulatory holes which were not addressed.

Most of the world's growth since GFC I has been due to money printing by the US and Japanese governments. The world is at an economic crossroads but very few people realise it. GFC II will probably force the issue... and when that happens, people will stop spending money on luxuries - bye bye massive increase in TV deal!

Expansion is a nonsense idea until the global economy is on a sure footing, which it certainly isn't at the moment. I guess the NBA just better hope that GFC II happens a year after they sign their TV deal!

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

There isn't enough talent for 32 teams. More teams with cash to spend and higher salary cap == slightly above average players getting 15 mil per season bullshit that we're already seeing. 26 teams is about right for the NBA.

[apalisoc_9]

Fuck..Please no more teams.

[scanry]

How about shrink the league by removing a few teams like the Kings, Bucks, Magic, Jazz & Twolves.

[Chinook]

In favor of expansion. Would make more sense, and there's plenty of talent to go around. Expansion would lower the cap, however.

Leonard's 2016-2017 salary will be based on his 2015-2016 salary. The only time his cap determines his pay is the first year of the deal. Also, the cap is based on the revenue for the previous season. A 2016-2017 TV deal won't affect the cap until at least 2017-2018.

[Brunodf]

The best thing about adding more teams is the possibility of the league becoming more competitive with more places with money to go to. It could be pretty interesting.
Add more teams=> more teams will suck=> league less competitive

[ffadicted]

TBH I was always hoping the NBA would cut some teams out, but that's just me...

[exstatic]

Who cares about David Stern's friend? David Stern is no longer commissioner!!!

I'm squarely in the anti-expansion camp, and for one reason: 32 teams means 8 4-team divisions instead of 6 5-team divisions. Why is that important? Because they would probably auto-seed the division winners, no matter how sad, into the top 4 playoff slots, and someone would get screwed like we did in 2006 after that re-alignment.

[boutons_deux]

NBA is already stretched past beyond available talent, too many teams, too little coaching/playing/mgmt talent, too many games (B2B crap), 75% of the games are shitty, meaningless.

Playoffs should be top 16 records, not best 8 of each conference.

Owners pushing their business interests, not the fans' or players' or game's interest.

[velik_m]

Who cares about David Stern's friend? David Stern is no longer commissioner!!!

I'm squarely in the anti-expansion camp, and for one reason: 32 teams means 8 4-team divisions instead of 6 5-team divisions. Why is that important? Because they would probably auto-seed the division winners, no matter how sad, into the top 4 playoff slots, and someone would get screwed like we did in 2006 after that re-alignment.

Or (more likely) it means 4 8 team divisions...

[Random5843]

More money but less talent, immigration of international players hid it for a while, but 2 more timberwolves? NO

[superbigtime]

No more expansion teams, good Lord...

NBA should trim the fat and lose the Bucks and Raptors and TWolves. Consider relocating to gone franchises in San Diego, Louisville, St Louis, Seattle but please no more fledgling teams. The league sucks as it is.

[RD2191]

No more expansion teams, good Lord...

NBA should trim the fat and lose the Bucks and Raptors and TWolves. Consider relocating to gone franchises in San Diego, Louisville, St Louis, Seattle but please no more fledgling teams. The league sucks as it is.

[cd021]

No more expansion teams, good Lord...

NBA should trim the fat and lose the Bucks and Raptors and TWolves. Consider relocating to gone franchises in San Diego, Louisville, St Louis, Seattle but please no more fledgling teams. The league sucks as it is.

Toronto has a gowing die hard fan base and could be a top 4 seed this season. The Kings would be a better candidate.

[Mal]

What about penalties for teams that sucks for many years. When was the last time Kings were in playoffs ? 2002?

[Leetonidas]

Fuck no to expansion, we already have enough shitty teams no one cares about, do we really need two more? Seattle should have voted for a new arena tbh

Besides, Silver already came out and said the NBA has no plans for an expansion and no teams are considering relocation

[Leetonidas]

What about penalties for teams that sucks for many years. When was the last time Kings were in playoffs ? 2002?

2006 vs. Spurs iirc.

:lol Nick Van Exel

[xmas1997]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the last expansion each team could only protect a certain number of their players from losing them to the expansion franchises.
This would hurt teams like the Spurs who depend on team ball.
I would only be in favor of it if this part were changed.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Expansion would be fantastic. If you think there's not enough talent, you're probably the kind of dip shit who loves Bonner/Ayers on the team while stashers sit overseas.

Also division leaders make the top 4 seeds doesn't matter if you're team good enough to win the division. If you're a fan of a bubble team who needs to rely on drawing up playoff entry conditions to get in the playoffs. You should focus more on why your team is inferior than rules for redrawing district lines like a dad gum weak ass US congressman.

Finally, GFC II and expansion teams would affect the cap are good points. But on the issue of a Global Financial Crisis hitting and affecting the planned payday. What is the league suppose to do? Would you rather it plan pessimistically? Just expect a similar deal and nothing to change? Growth of the league through expansion into basketball loving cities like Louisville and Seatle just aren't imaginable? And even if they are, the Twolves, Kings, Bucks and any terrible team can never be good, so they should just move and maintain the league status quo? How about being optimistic about plans for the beautiful growth of the league? Hell maybe the league wants a Mexico City or London team? Couldn't that be awesome, if meticulous plans are made for fatigue and any other possible problems? And expansion keeps the cap from growing dramatically in one offseason? Maybe that's part of the leagues plan to maintain the salary cap status quo increase? Is it still safe to be excited about the amount cap space the spurs might be looking at?

[cd021]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the last expansion each team could only protect a certain number of their players from losing them to the expansion franchises.
This would hurt teams like the Spurs who depend on team ball.
I would only be in favor of it if this part were changed.

I think that was for when roster limits were 13, I'd think they would make it 9 players. It was 8 players that could be protected in '04.

[Dunc n Dave]

Previous expansion years had teams protecting only 8 players, so yes, that would hurt the Spurs if it were to happen this year, but with Duncan and Manu surely retiring before this propsed expansion happens, the Spurs would probably be able to protect the guys they really want to hold on to. (Leonard, Parker, Green, Splitter, Mills, Baynes, Duncan & Manu replacements via free agency, etc.)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NBa needs to develop their player development program. if they are intent on drafting HS kids or kids one year removed then they need an environment where they can prepare those them. As it is now players basic skills in ball handling, passing and shooting are piss poor. Adding another 30 players from the bottom of the deck will only make matters worse.

[DMC]

Kentucky Colonels... Sterling would be a shoo in.

[Venti Quattro]

Surely the ABA guys would still get a kickback from this deal. Lucky bastards

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Expansion would be fantastic. If you think there's not enough talent, you're probably the kind of dip shit who loves Bonner/Ayers on the team while stashers sit overseas.

Also division leaders make the top 4 seeds doesn't matter if you're team good enough to win the division. If you're a fan of a bubble team who needs to rely on drawing up playoff entry conditions to get in the playoffs. You should focus more on why your team is inferior than rules for redrawing district lines like a dad gum weak ass US congressman.

Finally, GFC II and expansion teams would affect the cap are good points. But on the issue of a Global Financial Crisis hitting and affecting the planned payday. What is the league suppose to do? Would you rather it plan pessimistically? Just expect a similar deal and nothing to change? Growth of the league through expansion into basketball loving cities like Louisville and Seatle just aren't imaginable? And even if they are, the Twolves, Kings, Bucks and any terrible team can never be good, so they should just move and maintain the league status quo? How about being optimistic about plans for the beautiful growth of the league? Hell maybe the league wants a Mexico City or London team? Couldn't that be awesome, if meticulous plans are made for fatigue and any other possible problems? And expansion keeps the cap from growing dramatically in one offseason? Maybe that's part of the leagues plan to maintain the salary cap status quo increase? Is it still safe to be excited about the amount cap space the spurs might be looking at?

Fair points, but I think what the whole world needs to do is learn the most basic of exponential mathematics Like the quantity doubling time equation, for example: 70/% growth = years to doubling), realise that infinite growth is a nonsense, and plan for the eventuality of a stable state economy. As that applies to the NBA, I think you get the best TV deal you can then think about what that money means to the league, but you have a range of plans from optimistic to pessimistic. I think it would be foolish to start changing things until you have the money in place. Once you have the contract in place GFC II becomes moot.

As for expansion, the NBA is a league dominated by the top players - if you don;t have at least 2 of the top 20, or 3 of the top 3, you don;t really have a hope - so expansion really just means two more crappy teams at the bottom. Personally, I don't see the point. However, it would be nice to have a Seattle team again, so moving one of the moribund franchises there makes sense.

[Venti Quattro]

Remove the bullshit salary cap rules to force owners to be wiser in their spending.

[dg7md]

Kentucky Colonels... Sterling would be a shoo in.

:lol

But seriously, Kentucky would have an OKC-type environment and feel. It's most-certainly a basketball state. They need a team tbh...

[exstatic]

:lol

But seriously, Kentucky would have an OKC-type environment and feel. It's most-certainly a basketball state. They need a team tbh...
No. San Diego is market #28 and has no team. Seattle is #13.

The largest market in KY is Louisville at #49.

[Chinook]

Bring back the Spirit of St. Louis. Best name of any team in history, and Memphis could finally go to the Eastern conference where it belongs.

[DMC]

Bring back the Spirit of St. Louis. Best name of any team in history, and Memphis could finally go to the Eastern conference where it belongs.

What about West Memphis?

[Chinook]

What about West Memphis?

The city?

[james evans]

The best thing about adding more teams is the possibility of the league becoming more competitive with more places with money to go to. It could be pretty interesting.
more teams makes the league less competitive. with 30 teams, it make the league worse than it was decades ago in terms of competition. There are teams that everyone knows are guaranteed wins. 2 more teams would be like the 95-96 season. especially with free agency and team stacking.

[DMC]

The city?

Yeah... West Memphis should have it's own team as should East St Louis.

[xellos88330]

more teams makes the league less competitive. with 30 teams, it make the league worse than it was decades ago in terms of competition. There are teams that everyone knows are guaranteed wins. 2 more teams would be like the 95-96 season. especially with free agency and team stacking.

The reason why I say that the league would be more competitive is because now there is more money in other teams where a superstar player can get paid. It could possibly help the team stacking problem. It would be harder for a franchise to pull in superstars with that much money just waiting for them.

With the superstars starting to become balanced out, there is more competition. Instead of one team full of superstars drubbing a team that freed up cap space for free agency, or tanking, you would possibly only have 1 superstar able to do the drubbing.

[TheyCallMePro]

Expanding beyond the 30 teams the NBA has now would be idiotic. 75% of the teams right now can't even come close to selling out their arenas. In the East, home games resemble graveyards during the regular season.

I understand the TV deal paying out huge dividends, but lets not get carried away here. Just a few years ago the NBA had a lockout because several teams weren't generating any revenue for lack of ticket sales, and that has yet to change. If the owners hadn't won that lockout going away, about 6 NBA franchises would have folded.

If anything the NBA needs to contract. And I guarantee you that's what the players are going to push for in the next lockout, as the small market teams are the one's driving the restrictions on the salary cap and the restrictions on trades and contracts. And as Spurs fans, we should be rooting for the owners, as we are a small market whose owner (Peter Holt) was one of the leading supporters of the 2011 lockout and a strong proponent of the changes that were made.

[superbigtime]

Toronto has a gowing die hard fan base and could be a top 4 seed this season. The Kings would be a better candidate.

Yeah but I just have a soft spot for Sacramento. I thought it was crappy how San Diego got shafted when Sterling bought the team. Toronto, I mean that's a vestige of Stern's 'global' agenda. I recognize that they're somewhat relevant but I just don't care for a east conference canadian team.

[cjw]

In favor of expansion. Would make more sense, and there's plenty of talent to go around. Expansion would lower the cap, however.

Leonard's 2016-2017 salary will be based on his 2015-2016 salary. The only time his cap determines his pay is the first year of the deal. Also, the cap is based on the revenue for the previous season. A 2016-2017 TV deal won't affect the cap until at least 2017-2018.

30 / 32 = 93.75%, so a $4 million hit to the current cap assuming all things being equal. Another team would increase basketball-related revenue so may be a wash before the new TV deal. With the new TV deal, who knows?

Plus on the Kawhi deal, wouldn't his number be locked in based on the max in the first year of his deal? So the 2017-18 number wouldn't cause his pay to jump.

[Chinook]

30 / 32 = 93.75%, so a $4 million hit to the current cap assuming all things being equal. Another team would increase basketball-related revenue so may be a wash before the new TV deal. With the new TV deal, who knows?

Plus on the Kawhi deal, wouldn't his number be locked in based on the max in the first year of his deal? So the 2017-18 number wouldn't cause his pay to jump.

Yes.

[cd021]

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2014/09/08/report-new-deals-set-to-double-nba-tv-revenue-to-more-than-2-billion/

mentions an estimation that the cap could jump $16 million for the 17-18 season (4 seasons from now)

thats not even including the rises in salary cap prior to that point. They cap is projected to rise to around $67 million after next season. That would be about a $ 9 million increase in a span of two season.

[Chinook]

Well, the Spurs are looking at two potential windows for having major cap space. The first one is next summer, provided the old'uns retire. The Spurs will have room for a max player or two above-mid-level players to add to a core of Parker, Green, Leonard, Splitter, Diaw and Mills (and Anderson, LJC, etc).

The second window is in the summer of 2017, where the team will have major money coming off the books (Mills, Diaw and Splitter in the very least). And only Parker, Leonard and potentially Green as being on non-rookie deals (out of players we can reasonably project to be on the team right now). With the cap increases, they may have have room to add two max players.

They may end up doing a hybrid system in which they sign or trade for big contracts in both summers. That would probably be most preferable.

[hater]

wake up the window will be closed when Duncan hangs them

and yes, he did suck in 2012 when I made that thread :lol

[cd021]

wake up the window will be closed when Duncan hangs them

and yes, he did suck in 2012 when I made that thread :lol

Maybe as a legit contender, but it really depends on how next summer goes.