Moderators: DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX, 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford
Reignman wrote:CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:Well, more parity in the NFL means the NBA should just adopt a one-game, winner take-all playoff format then. That ought to introduce more parity in the league right?
I'd be ok with that but after watching 82 regular season games I'm pretty sure the fans would want to see more in the playoffs.
Fairview4Life wrote:CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:Well, more parity in the NFL means the NBA should just adopt a one-game, winner take-all playoff format then. That ought to introduce more parity in the league right?
Or go to 11 aside, so that Lebron's impact is greatly diminished.
Fairview4Life wrote:MEDIC wrote:What doesn't happen? Small markets in the NFL & NHL have had competitive teams for years.
It does happen in real life. I'm not sure why you "pro player" types keep making excuses.
What excuses? Saying you have your facts wrong isn't making an excuse. You are arguing that "fixing the system" will increase parity which somehow improves the product and increases overall ticket sales. Basically all of that is factually incorrect. I agree that it sounds reasonable on the surface, but in real life it doesn't seem to be the case. Smart people have actually gone over the numbers and pointed out that competitive balance is very poorly correlated with the particular leagues financial system. Be it a hard cap, or a MLB system, very little of the competitive balance in any league is being driven by that leagues financial system. Beyond that, very little of team success in the NBA is driven by payroll. In the NBA in particular, the vast majority of team success is due to the draft, not how much a team pays for it's roster.
NBA revenues aren't helped by small markets winning more games, unfortunately (although Miami is technically a small market, let's consider it a large market for now). The NBA has produced more revenue than ever when teams like Boston, LA, and NY start winning. The league apparently even sold over 90% of it's tickets last season, while hitting ratings highs and generating record revenues. All while Lebron, Bosh, and Melo douched their way to Miami and NY. When one team is winning, another is losing. So if small markets start winning more often, large markets will be losing. Your thought that those large markets will always retain their ticket buying fans isn't what is important. What's important in that case are the TV ratings, which drop like a stone. That affects the bottom line, much more so than only getting 15k of 19k fans in Charlotte.
I assume by parity what you really mean is every team deserves to have a shot at making a profit and winning a title. That league isn't going to be created by setting the hard cap low enough so that every team can currently make a profit. That just drives more players to team up with other stars in better markets, not less, since non $ factors start becoming more important, relatively. If you want to fix the system to even the $ playing field, the league needs to setup a much more significant revenue sharing plan. There's no way around it.
Centre Court wrote:Why are we comparing the NBA to the NFL? It is virtually impossible for any sport to be like the NFL. The NFL is a revenue machine, fueled by fan passion that is unlike any other.
Thinking that a hard cap will make the NBA like the NFL is like thinking that someday Harvey's will be just like McDonalds if only they offered a rib sandwich.
MEDIC wrote:I can't even begin to agrue these points. You've narrowed your mind to "the way the NBA has historically been managed".
If you're fine with all of the top talent settling in NYC, LA, CHI & MIA, then we have nothing to debate because as a fan that's not want to see.
That seems to be where the NBA is headed & I'm not happy about it.
MEDIC wrote:Reignman wrote:Put it this way, there are fans that like to see the same teams roll over others and they are ok with that, while others would like to see different teams compete year-in / year-out'.
That's what it comes down to, & that's essentially what it comes down to.
I can't believe any "Raptor fan" would be against having a model like the NFL.
Centre Court wrote:Why are we comparing the NBA to the NFL? It is virtually impossible for any sport to be like the NFL. The NFL is a revenue machine, fueled by fan passion that is unlike any other.
Fairview4Life wrote:MEDIC wrote:I can't even begin to agrue these points. You've narrowed your mind to "the way the NBA has historically been managed".
If you're fine with all of the top talent settling in NYC, LA, CHI & MIA, then we have nothing to debate because as a fan that's not want to see.
That seems to be where the NBA is headed & I'm not happy about it.
I'm not really arguing for any direction at this point. All I am saying is that while you personally might not be happy about it, NBA accountants are ok with it. ABC executives love it. Fans seems perfectly fine with it.
Reignman wrote:Indeed wrote:Reignman wrote:Medic, some people just want to see what they want.
Put it this way, there are fans that like to see the same teams roll over others and they are ok with that, while others would like to see different teams compete year-in / year-out.
The NFL has it right and will continue to prosper. The NHL is smart enough to follow suit. Now it's upto the NBA and it's players to determine if they want the sport to grow or if they are happy with the status quo.
People just want to see what they want.
If they want the league to be better, it only has to do with players?
NFL has revenue sharing between owners, and NBA owners have no interest in something like that.
I think both sides need to take a big step back, not only players where you purely focused on.
It has to do with the system which is inter-related with the players.
And here's a fun fact, last season only 2 teams in the NFL lost money (combined $10 mil) before revenue sharing kicked in and made them viable.
Before I continue I hope you can see the difference between 2 teams losing a combined $10 mil vs. the NBA where 22 teams lost a combined $300 mil?
Ok, so what does this tell us about the NFL? It tells us that the business model is viable for the vast majority of teams. Revenue sharing helps level the playing field after-the-fact.
What you're trying to suggest is that you cover-up a broken business model with revenue sharing. That means 5-10 teams will be carrying the rest of the league. the sad part is that the NBA is losing $300 mil on aggregate, which means that you can't cover the problem with revenue sharing in the first place.
I really hope you see the difference here.
knickerbocker2k2 wrote:MEDIC wrote:Reignman wrote:Put it this way, there are fans that like to see the same teams roll over others and they are ok with that, while others would like to see different teams compete year-in / year-out'.
That's what it comes down to, & that's essentially what it comes down to.
I can't believe any "Raptor fan" would be against having a model like the NFL.
It is fine if you want a system that benefits you as a fan of small.midmarket but is another to argue that its actually better for the league as whole when the evidence shows the opposite.
CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:The NBA should just hit the reset button, start up with new rules that completely ban free agency, because realistically, that's the only way small market teams like Toronto will ever stand a chance. Imagine the Raptors if McGrady, Vince, Bosh, and Stoudamire were never allowed to leave. DYNASTY!!!
Indeed wrote:Reignman wrote:Indeed wrote:People just want to see what they want.
If they want the league to be better, it only has to do with players?
NFL has revenue sharing between owners, and NBA owners have no interest in something like that.
I think both sides need to take a big step back, not only players where you purely focused on.
It has to do with the system which is inter-related with the players.
And here's a fun fact, last season only 2 teams in the NFL lost money (combined $10 mil) before revenue sharing kicked in and made them viable.
Before I continue I hope you can see the difference between 2 teams losing a combined $10 mil vs. the NBA where 22 teams lost a combined $300 mil?
Ok, so what does this tell us about the NFL? It tells us that the business model is viable for the vast majority of teams. Revenue sharing helps level the playing field after-the-fact.
What you're trying to suggest is that you cover-up a broken business model with revenue sharing. That means 5-10 teams will be carrying the rest of the league. the sad part is that the NBA is losing $300 mil on aggregate, which means that you can't cover the problem with revenue sharing in the first place.
I really hope you see the difference here.
The sad part is, NBA didn't claim that on the negotiation, and you (who are you?) come and claim that problem? The losing money part is questionable, as it is claimed under `other expenses` (what exactly is that? No one knows).
MEDIC wrote:CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:The NBA should just hit the reset button, start up with new rules that completely ban free agency, because realistically, that's the only way small market teams like Toronto will ever stand a chance. Imagine the Raptors if McGrady, Vince, Bosh, and Stoudamire were never allowed to leave. DYNASTY!!!
Nobody wants that. Under a hard cap situation, that would be impossible.
All most fans want is for the wealth (& by wealth, I mean team success) to be shared. Much like the NFL.
CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:The NBA should just hit the reset button, start up with new rules that completely ban free agency, because realistically, that's the only way small market teams like Toronto will ever stand a chance. Imagine the Raptors if McGrady, Vince, Bosh, and Stoudamire were never allowed to leave. DYNASTY!!!
Reignman wrote:What evidence? The NFL has a hard cap with franchise tag. They turn over playoff teams like none other and they have all of their fanbases fired up because everyone believes they will have a shot at some point in the near future.
That's why they are the biggest revenue generator and NBA could learn quite a few lessons.
Reignman wrote:CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:The NBA should just hit the reset button, start up with new rules that completely ban free agency, because realistically, that's the only way small market teams like Toronto will ever stand a chance. Imagine the Raptors if McGrady, Vince, Bosh, and Stoudamire were never allowed to leave. DYNASTY!!!
Or the players could just agree to shorter contracts and they could have all the "freedom of movement" they want. The owners offered it but the players turned it down.
Why?
Reignman wrote:Indeed wrote:
The sad part is, NBA didn't claim that on the negotiation, and you (who are you?) come and claim that problem? The losing money part is questionable, as it is claimed under `other expenses` (what exactly is that? No one knows).
tbh, I really have not idea on what you're saying. I'm nobody in all of this, you don't buy the $300 mil, that's fine, how about the $160 mil in losses that the union agreed to?
Reignman wrote:CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:The NBA should just hit the reset button, start up with new rules that completely ban free agency, because realistically, that's the only way small market teams like Toronto will ever stand a chance. Imagine the Raptors if McGrady, Vince, Bosh, and Stoudamire were never allowed to leave. DYNASTY!!!
Or the players could just agree to shorter contracts and they could have all the "freedom of movement" they want. The owners offered it but the players turned it down.
Why?