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?
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...#ixzz1aakZdNpk
Can I bother you for a link to a small piece/best piece of the "mounds of evidence".
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.
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.
Great, another Buddy Holly argument.
I think this is exactly right. The owners of teams like the Bucks, Kings, Bobcats, Wizards, etc. that have zero chance of a le 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 compe ive balance.
Last edited by Seventyniner; 11-07-2011 at 09:47 PM.
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.
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 les. 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 compe ors. 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 les
1960-1970: Boston Celtics, nine of 10 les
1980-1990: L.A. Lakers, five of 10 les; Celtics three les; Detroit Pistons, two les
1990-2000: Chicago Bulls, six of 10 les; Houston Rockets, two les
2000-2010: Lakers, five of 10 les; San Antonio Spurs, three les
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 les. Read that again: seven of the league's franchises have won more than 80 percent of the league's championships. If you're judging compe iveness by championships won, the NBA has never been compe ive.
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 les in the Stanley Cup era) or the NFL, where the Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers and Packers have almost half of the league's Super Bowl les 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.
This is so bad it's unbelievable and I'm not arguing with you on it.
And yes, I do think the players deserve the money.
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.
BTW, Knicks, having the biggest salary in the league: 0 Finals appearances since '99
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.
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?
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.
The only part they don't like about the NFL-style system is the revenue sharing... and it isn't just Buss...
Sorry about that: http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...ate/index.html
Also, did you go to UNCC?
And that's the only reason you have because there is no correlation in your opinion.
No.
Yes, I'm not making stuff up.
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.
Yes, you are.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
