Resuming CBA talks

[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.... , 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.... , 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.

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/71...-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/71...-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.

I just really want Spurs basketball back.

[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.

I just really want Spurs basketball back.

Nah, I didn't take it that way. 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?

[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, 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

[DJ Mbenga]

Srsly?

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