Jump to content

22-23 NBA Season Thread


DG_ThenNowForever

Recommended Posts

At the end of the day, the players are the ones most responsible for these dramatic increases in franchise values.  No stadiums get built without players to play in them, nobody pays for parking without players to watch, no TV network buys rights without players to broadcast, etc.

 

Maybe the salary cap shouldn't be based solely on "revenue", but should also somehow include the value that the players are adding to these teams.  When you think about how much the owners profit when they sell the team, that increase is ultimately made off of the sweat of the players, who are not getting any cut of it.

 

I have no idea how to actually cut them in, but it seems like they're not getting all that they deserve.

  • Like 3

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I have no idea how to actually cut them in, but it seems like they're not getting all that they deserve.

 

Right now players get 50% of revenues, and owners the rest. So 400 dudes get half of the revenues, and 32 ownership teams (so no maybe at most 100 people?) and the front office staff get the rest. Front office staff salary averages are an ocean away from player salaries, so that ends up being a lot of money the owners pocket each season. And they don't have a salary cap either.

 

So I think some options for the next CBA, expected 2024, could include:

- players get a higher cut (55%?)

- players get a portion of team sales

- players have (even more) free agency

 

I don't know exactly what concessions are possible, but we see the hissy fit every time a star is a healthy scratch. While the NBA isn't a gate-driven league, it is a TV-driven league. And those ratings don't work if star players don't show up.

 

I think of all the sports league, the NBA is the most susceptible to players splitting off and starting their own league. It would take a huge effort to make that happen, but a player-owned league is a really interesting concept.

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

- players get a portion of team sales

- players have (even more) free agency

 

Owners are the ones taking the "risk" (lololol) and I have no problem with them profiting, but I do have a problem with the inequities between their profits and what goes back to the people making it happen (players).  Office staff (marketing directors, sales agents, etc.) get salaries in line with the market, which is fine.  While there's certainly standouts, they're more/less replaceable.  Good GMs are rewarded handsomely, but even they are only good when the players they acquire perform to expectations.

 

Is some jabroni that came off the bench for the Suns for 3 seasons as responsible for the billions-of-dollars increase in the franchise's value as someone like LeBron - who never even played for the team?  Probably not.  But in this instance, I don't have any good way of quantifying who was worth what.

 

So my hare-brained plan (probably better suited for the "fix things that may or may not be broken" thread), is - when a franchise is sold, some percentage of the true profit gets distributed to every player that played for the franchise during that ownership's tenure, based on the amount of time they were with the team during that period.  Like a royalty check.  I don't have the time to do the math and see what they actually equates to in this case, but it's a start to a conversation.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, who do you think said:

"I'm sorry that you people bought tickets to see me load manage my pampered stars tonight. If you don't like it, petition for a shorter schedule (where we might not even come to town at all)." What a c-nt.

Warriors are the 6 seed right now, and still don't feel the need to take the regular season seriously.  Screw'em. 

Even if they have to  deal with the play-in, will it shock anyone if the make it back to The Finals? 

  • Yawn 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DoctorWhom said:

Warriors are the 6 seed right now, and still don't feel the need to take the regular season seriously.  Screw'em. 

Even if they have to  deal with the play-in, will it shock anyone if the make it back to The Finals? 

 

There's still nobody in the west that's clearly better when healthy and rolling, but the play-in would really be pushing it. The Lakers (as the defending champs) and Nets were the resident spooky play-in teams the past two seasons and neither made it out of the first round. Going back a bit further, the 07 Heat won 44 games in their mailed-in (and injury-plagued) title defense, and they got swept. At some point you've just dug too deep a hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, who do you think said:

"I'm sorry that you people bought tickets to see me load manage my pampered stars tonight. If you don't like it, petition for a shorter schedule (where we might not even come to town at all)." What a c-nt.

 

I'd prefer a playoff in all sports where players are healthy and on top of their game.  I don't thin it takes 80-something games (or 162) to figure out who the top teams are and who should qualify for the playoffs.  Even NFL probably only needs 14 - certainly not 17.

 

As a consumer, it angers the F out of me that this stuff happens and there's no refunds given.  During the HR chase of 1998, a group of us went to Pittsburgh to see Cardinals vs Pirates, and McGwire took the day off.  We were college kids and that was a huge sum of money for us at the time, and you can imagine how pissed we were. 

 

But now I get it.  We know more about the long term effects of playing these sports day-in and day-out, whether on joints, brains, or whatever - and I don't blame the players at all for wanting more days off.  But the problem is that the leagues inherently contradict themselves.  Pro sports only exists to get people to pay to watch, which requires players worth paying to see.  However, those players are paid to win championships and sell merch, which means that they only really care about the playoffs.  So I'm not sure how you fix it.  There's no way to legislate playing time, no matter what threats are made.  The only possible answer is to shorten seasons, but even then, the top teams that are pretty much guaranteed to make the playoffs will still take days off.

 

Glenn Rivers actually publicly calls some games "scheduled losses".  I can't believe a coach would actually say such a thing, especially with all the gambling implications.  But yeah - the Sixers actually circle "scheduled losses" on their internal team calendar.

  • Like 2

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.