buzzcut

2018 NBA "Off"Season-Because It's Always On

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

I've got a better system: no salary cap. Done.

 

No salary cap = no revenue sharing = no Milwaukee Bucks, no New Orleans Pelicans, no Denver Nuggets, etc.  Hell - even the 76ers, despite one of the largest markets, aren't immune to the effects a bad decade can have, and ranked near the bottom during the process.  Even if teams re-invested only 50% of revenue into player salaries, and not even factoring in league-wide shared revenue, the Lakers and Knicks could each put $200M into salaries (siginicantly more if they felt like it), while the Bucks are looking at $90

 

Not sure how accurate this is, but this is what Google told me.  I think the 2018 version would be tilted even more in favor of the major teams, because of the ad patches.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193704/revenue-of-national-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of the simplest solution possible... that still allows for fans to have some reason to come out.  Not having a salary cap means that the crappy small market teams need to work even harder to squeeze every last dime out of people, which would probably result in them pricing out their fans and partners.  

 

When I was a kid we used to go to Sixers games even though they were terrible because it only cost $6 for a cheap seat at the Spectrum on Sundays.  Now, there's no chance... no chance in hell that I'm spending >$60 on a cheap seat to see a crap - or even mediocre team.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how "small market" owners fleece local jurisdictions for arenas, I'm really not all that concerned about their financial well being. If captains of industry like Dan Gilbert can't afford to compete as NBA owners, then maybe he shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

No salary cap = no revenue sharing = no Milwaukee Bucks, no New Orleans Pelicans, no Denver Nuggets, etc.  Hell - even the 76ers, despite one of the largest markets, aren't immune to the effects a bad decade can have, and ranked near the bottom during the process.  Even if teams re-invested only 50% of revenue into player salaries, and not even factoring in league-wide shared revenue, the Lakers and Knicks could each put $200M into salaries (siginicantly more if they felt like it), while the Bucks are looking at $90

 

Not sure how accurate this is, but this is what Google told me.  I think the 2018 version would be tilted even more in favor of the major teams, because of the ad patches.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193704/revenue-of-national-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

Do low population and low growth areas like New Orleans and Milwaukee really deserve NBA teams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Digby said:

What I don't get about the cap smoothing fight is that the CBA guarantees the players X amount of basketball income anyway, right? So if the smooth cap led to a couple years of inflated profits for the suits, they would have had to cut a check to the players' union besides and everyone would still get their cut. Instead, most players wrecked their shots at a ring for this generation, and the only guys who ultimately came out ahead are Evan Turner et al. But I am not a labor lawyer.

Would it be in escrow and interest go directly to the players? Most reports at the time and after make zero mention of if the players would get the interest gained from smoothing.  Plus, 10% of salaries are already placed in escrow due to the league waiting to judge revenue streams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 5:15 AM, truepg said:

 

The narrative? The second best player in the league joined a team with the best record of all time, also a team he was within one win of beating in the WCF. That's it right there.

 

Definitely soft. I don't understand, how someone can put it any other way.

 

Oh ok let me rephrase it, then. It’s a :censored:ing stupid narrative believed by people who are mostly morons. 

 

I dont even so much mind fans fans who say stuff like this. I mean, whatever. Fans are mostly dumb, and nobody really holds the fans opinions that strongly. But when you have fellow players, who are FAR inferior to Durant, talking that kind of disrespect? That’s whats so damn soft about this league now. Everyone just runs their mouths because they can’t do it any other way. That’s some garbage right there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

No salary cap = no revenue sharing = no Milwaukee Bucks, no New Orleans Pelicans, no Denver Nuggets, etc.  Hell - even the 76ers, despite one of the largest markets, aren't immune to the effects a bad decade can have, and ranked near the bottom during the process.  Even if teams re-invested only 50% of revenue into player salaries, and not even factoring in league-wide shared revenue, the Lakers and Knicks could each put $200M into salaries (siginicantly more if they felt like it), while the Bucks are looking at $90

 

Not sure how accurate this is, but this is what Google told me.  I think the 2018 version would be tilted even more in favor of the major teams, because of the ad patches.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193704/revenue-of-national-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

 

Ok, so... Would this really be such a bad thing? Do we really need teams like the Bucks and Kings? (Also remember that I say that as someone who’s home market is Sacramento). I kinda feel like if there’s one sport that could eliminate a whole swath of teams and not actually lose anything tangeable (outside of a few in-arena dollars in places like Orlando, maybe), it’s the NBA. I’d kinda rather see ten “super” competitive teams than see a handful of great teams, a full middle of the league of also-rans, and ten or so dumpster fires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Oh ok let me rephrase it, then. It’s a :censored:ing stupid narrative believed by people who are mostly morons. 

 

I dont even so much mind fans fans who say stuff like this. I mean, whatever. Fans are mostly dumb, and nobody really holds the fans opinions that strongly. But when you have fellow players, who are FAR inferior to Durant, talking that kind of disrespect? That’s whats so damn soft about this league now. Everyone just runs their mouths because they can’t do it any other way. That’s some garbage right there. 


A stupid narrative? That's what actually took place, not anyone's opinion. It takes a huge amount of homerism and moronism to neglect the fact that it's a soft move.

 

And since when the opinions of fans - those, whose pockets the league is kept afloat with - aren't held that strongly? At least not by Durant, who has been sensitive to respond to them, even with burner accounts.

I mean, it's a business and he is free to do what he wants, but if you make that kind of a move, be ready to face and take all the crap that will come your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Oh ok let me rephrase it, then. It’s a :censored:ing stupid narrative believed by people who are mostly morons. 

 

I dont even so much mind fans fans who say stuff like this. I mean, whatever. Fans are mostly dumb, and nobody really holds the fans opinions that strongly. But when you have fellow players, who are FAR inferior to Durant, talking that kind of disrespect? That’s whats so damn soft about this league now. Everyone just runs their mouths because they can’t do it any other way. That’s some garbage right there. 

If Durant wants to be respected by his peers again, maybe he should leave the Warriors and join a team that actually needs him to win anything.

 

And, honestly, Durant is the last player you can ever use the "nobody cares what the fans think" argument for. This is a guy who got caught making burner accounts on social media in order to argue with fans. He absolutely cares what the fans think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Ok, so... Would this really be such a bad thing? Do we really need teams like the Bucks and Kings? (Also remember that I say that as someone who’s home market is Sacramento). I kinda feel like if there’s one sport that could eliminate a whole swath of teams and not actually lose anything tangeable (outside of a few in-arena dollars in places like Orlando, maybe), it’s the NBA. I’d kinda rather see ten “super” competitive teams than see a handful of great teams, a full middle of the league of also-rans, and ten or so dumpster fires. 

Not too long ago, people would have asked "do we really need teams like the Warriors?" in these types of conversations. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Do low population and low growth areas like New Orleans and Milwaukee really deserve NBA teams?

 

Probably not, but you need teams to have a league, and I think it's good for any league to have a national presence (insert NHL joke here) though sometimes that seems to only accomplish creating more venues for the glamour teams to go on display (meaning, putting a MLB team in Florida only serves to give more people a chance to see the Yankees, rather than a team of their own.)

 

13 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Ok, so... Would this really be such a bad thing? Do we really need teams like the Bucks and Kings? (Also remember that I say that as someone who’s home market is Sacramento). I kinda feel like if there’s one sport that could eliminate a whole swath of teams and not actually lose anything tangeable (outside of a few in-arena dollars in places like Orlando, maybe), it’s the NBA. I’d kinda rather see ten “super” competitive teams than see a handful of great teams, a full middle of the league of also-rans, and ten or so dumpster fires. 

 

Of course not - the league would be in no better or worse shape if you contracted a few teams, but at the end of the day, you do need teams to have a league.  I don't know what the magic number is, but you can't run a successful league with teams only in LA, NY, BOS, CHI, PHL, HOU, DAL, SF,... MIA?  SEA?  Starting to struggle here.

 

Each league has too many teams.  Many of which are holdovers from when the leagues started back in the day, and those cities haven't grown at the same rate as some other ones. 

 

38 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

Not too long ago, people would have asked "do we really need teams like the Warriors?" in these types of conversations. Just saying.

 

Is that true?  If so, I'd wager it's because of the horrible branding that they had for a long time, which coincided with poor performance.  If they played up SF rather than "GS", and never had the dumb robo-warrior identity, I doubt anyone would have said that.  That's too big a market to be left out.

 

 

Even if you trimmed the league down, I'd bet that the revenue differences between the top teams and the new bottom would be pretty dramatic.  You'd have to really want to own a team, and be ridiculously wealthy (even by owner standards) to want to own a team in a lower-end market, because you simply wouldn't make money - and that ain't right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't know what the magic number is, but you can't run a successful league with teams only in LA, NY, BOS, CHI, PHL, HOU, DAL, SF,... MIA?  SEA?  Starting to struggle here.

 

Every time a smaller team gets far in the playoffs, people say "Uh oh, ABC/FOX/NBC is really going to hate this matchup!" We love to yelp about how those teams make for terrible ratings, yet somehow when the salary cap issue comes up, they're suddenly essential teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, the league will make what it calls "a sports gambling announcement".

 

We'll see what that means at 2pm EDT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope nobody's taking Shaq seriously. Kobe is 39 years old and tore his Achilles late in his career. I think he's fine with his ESPN gig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it's even on the radar for Kobe.  But I could kinda see him saying "LeBron, you can up your ring count, but not without upping mine!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.