Who do you support?

[dacrusha]

They are big because they designed a system 20+ years ago that allowed most teams in the league to compete. That allowed fanbases to have hope that "this year could be our year". That lead to more people tuning in, which lead to a HUGE tv deal with amazing gate receipts which the NFL used to market their product on a large scale.

You can go to the boondocks anywhere in North America and you will find NFL fans because they've used their strenght of market share to market their product on a grand scale.

That bolded part does not follow and is not what happened. Local fanbases hoping this year is the year is not why people started watching football on TV in huge numbers. Gate receipts are also only a small fraction of the TV deal in the NFL. They could play in front of an empty stadium and still not worry about profit.

How do you think the NFL got that monster TV deal in the first place? A lot of it is history with football and America, but the NFL did a great job of getting the masses excited. It wasn't always like that, I watched the NFL in the 80's.

The hard cap played a huge role in the NFLs success. If you look at the contenders prior to 1990 and then the turnover of contenders post-1990 there's an obvious difference.

Gambling and fantasy football are the main reason for the NFL's popularity in the past 10-15 years. 10s of billions of dollars are wagered on NFL games around the world every year and the U.S. gambling rate on the NFL is nearly triple the rate of the NBA.

You go to a sports bar and no one gives a damn about NFL players/teams any more... all they care about is the spread. Don't want to go to a bar? NFL Sunday Ticket is the perfect media outlet for these gamblers to watch every game, all the time.

David Stern missed out on this opportunity in the 80s and 90s by scaring the gambling populace way.

[Reignman]

The gambling came after 1990 and that's when things started to take off for the NFL. Gambling is a symptom of what happened.

Edit: I'm talking about gambling / fantasy becoming so huge with the NFL, I'm aware it was there prior to 90.

Remember, there's more money to be made when there's parity and that's what lures people to put their money on the line.

[Jeepescu]

dollars are wagered on NFL games around the world

You certainly mean around the USA, the NFL is completely unknown outside the US borders. Now basketball is becoming a global phenomenon with paying viewers around the planet.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I'm slowly gravitating towards the owners on this one.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32504/the-moment-the-talks-fell-apart

Bonner has to lie his ass off to cover up the fact that the stars hijacked the negotiations.

The players are trying to racialize the issue to bend support to their side. When all else fails, play the race card.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

I'm slowly gravitating towards the owners on this one.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32504/the-moment-the-talks-fell-apart

Bonner has to lie his ass off to cover up the fact that the stars hijacked the negotiations.

The players are trying to racialize the issue to bend support to their side. When all else fails, play the race card.

Look writers like that joker are so in bed with their sources they're willing to talk themselves into, "they are right because they are black, owners are wrong because they are white" positions. Funny how, they forget the white players and MJ. And really telling how these "journalists" leave MJ out when convenient and only include him when bring his past up as pro labour vs Abe Polin, and ignorehis point of view as a small market owner.

Right now, this writer made a poor decision, imo, and really sucked at his job today. He's not always bad, but this Owners as slave owners, and Players as freedom fighters when in actuality everyone is rich. And Players could always go where they wanted if they were willing to take less money. They didn't have to hold telethons. And wasnt ESPN behind it too, and aren't they the same "whiter media" that usually broadcasts it. Are they based in Bristol or Harlem? I don't get it.

In Mia it only got fishy because, 1) the decision was such a jerk off move, 2) they claimed to be about to win 7 championships before one practice, and celebrate like they had won the title in July - 3) LeBron shoulder checked his coach, acted like a baby, cracked under pressure, and threw the fans poverty in their face when confronted with his failure.... but no, maybe it was all because a black man decided for himself what team he wanted to play for in FA, just like every player before him. What got people upset was suspicions of collusion as all three were repped by he same company, and MIA instead of trying to compete to keep Wade, actually divested contracts to strip team, as their strategy.

But I guess if I was in bed with the players and agents I may have a bad day at work, let my guard down, and soil my profession with a last ditch hail mary 4th quarter half court race card induction.

Also, what kind of journalist, would seek Bonner for comment, and not the people the Stern told him were there at the time. Why not ask Kessler, Kobe, Peirce, Fisher, Garnet, Stern, Silver, Holt ask them if it happened? What is this garbage? Why not ask me, I wasn't there either.

[G.A. Clone]

Seriously, if they wanted to get a deal done, they should go 55%/45% BRI (in favour of the players), and guaranteed contracts are 3-4-5 years (with the 5th option being assigned to a franchise player or what Stern said in an interview recently). Lower the Cap number teams can go over and increase the amount that needs to be paid once you go over the tax. Also reduce the players salaries by a bit (not sure what's considered a bit).

That way, players still get a good percentage of revenue if the league is doing great, while owners are discouraged to overspend (and if they do, they won't be tied to a contract for too long).

If those are the glaring issues they're stuck on, I can't see why they won't agree on the BRI favouring players, while the contract length/max. amount favouring the owners. Seems to be a good compromise.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Seriously, if they wanted to get a deal done, they should go 55%/45% BRI (in favour of the players), and guaranteed contracts are 3-4-5 years (with the 5th option being assigned to a franchise player or what Stern said in an interview recently). Lower the Cap number teams can go over and increase the amount that needs to be paid once you go over the tax. Also reduce the players salaries by a bit (not sure what's considered a bit).

That way, players still get a good percentage of revenue if the league is doing great, while owners are discouraged to overspend (and if they do, they won't be tied to a contract for too long).

If those are the glaring issues they're stuck on, I can't see why they won't agree on the BRI favouring players, while the contract length/max. amount favouring the owners. Seems to be a good compromise.

Honestly, I would like to see that and I think you are right. What I think is some in the NBA may see that, but some owners may think, why give in if we don't have to. Fisher even said there are all sorts of opinions. why not remain firm and wait till NBPA is forced to confront players as a whole and not 30, here and 30 there and tell them what's on the table. Owners probably think as soon as that happens, the players will vote to play. There's 400 affected, versus 30 affected, and some of those 30 lose money playing, while all 400 lose money sitting, and many can't afford it.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Oh, maybe I'm expecting too much from bloggers, but how lazy is this

But even the hardest-bitten journalists in the hallway allowed that it could, finally, be deal day.

since when did journalists become sources. They report events, last time I checked, they aren't experts, they hold tape recorders. How lazy is it to use other speculation in their work, as a source and to pretend in proves anything. Ugh. Is it too much to ask for quality work. Only David Aldridge and Beat guys are getting threw this ordeal with my respect still intact. Even the once great Woj is now just and echo for his agent sources. the reason you don't see a breakdown, and review of facts and reasoned analysists is that these guys know that owners and league officials aren't their sources, players, friends of players, and agents are and they don't want to bite the hands that feed them, so we get this garbage that we've been getting lately. Stern the "Bully" . Spare me. Stern reps 30 owners, they agree, Stern agrees.

Sorry for the rant. I will now watch football.

[OAKLEY_2]

G.A. Clone wrote:Seriously, if they wanted to get a deal done, they should go 55%/45% BRI (in favour of the players), and guaranteed contracts are 3-4-5 years (with the 5th option being assigned to a franchise player or what Stern said in an interview recently). Lower the Cap number teams can go over and increase the amount that needs to be paid once you go over the tax. Also reduce the players salaries by a bit (not sure what's considered a bit).

That way, players still get a good percentage of revenue if the league is doing great, while owners are discouraged to overspend (and if they do, they won't be tied to a contract for too long).

If those are the glaring issues they're stuck on, I can't see why they won't agree on the BRI favouring players, while the contract length/max. amount favouring the owners. Seems to be a good compromise.



Honestly, I would like to see that and I think you are right. What I think is some in the NBA may see that, but some owners may think, why give in if we don't have to. Fisher even said there are all sorts of opinions. why not remain firm and wait till NBPA is forced to confront players as a whole and not 30, here and 30 there and tell them what's on the table. Owners probably think as soon as that happens, the players will vote to play. There's 400 affected, versus 30 affected, and some of those 30 lose money playing, while all 400 lose money sitting, and many can't afford it.

Completely agree. The fact that some players are complete j___ks doesn't sway me from the fact that fans go to see "them" not the owners, not the stadium, not the pizza. At the end of the day a healthy league is important to both sides. The stars should be able to give a lot back while the owners shouldn't screw over all the players just for the better ROI that escapes them because of their flawed business model and corporate leveraged behaviour.

Want a healthy league? Have a hard cap. Have significant cuts to the big stars salaries. Improve pensions for lunch bucket players. Get ride rid of sign and trade. Do not guarantee first rounders entry level salaries. Act against rules that encourage big 3 teams.

[40 Guzzle]

I'm not sure if anyone is paying attention to the landscape of college athletics but there is going to be major conference re-alignment and the way things are shaping up the Big East is going to be SOL

Even a basketball powerhouse like Kansas will be left out in the cold simply because their football program offers nothing to a megaconference

NCAA football has very little parity & no fantasy presence

the point is this, football drives the bus in the United States, period.

whether there's a hard cap, soft cap, no cap at all, guaranteed or non-guaranteed contracts....

Football will always be #1

so I wouldnt be too sure how their CBA really factors into their popularity

[LascelleL]

Surprised but not surprised by overwhelming support for owners. Weird how they're seen as the good guys when they're the ones that **** up their business with bad spending and bad investments; who gets thrown under the bus? Paying fans with increased ticket prices and players who are the lifeblood of the whole industry.

Everyone hates unions unless they belong to one.. jealousy abound.

This...it still boggles my mind that people are siding with the owners when they're the ones that have **** up with bad business decisions.

[Tenacious_C]

Surprised but not surprised by overwhelming support for owners. Weird how they're seen as the good guys when they're the ones that **** up their business with bad spending and bad investments; who gets thrown under the bus? Paying fans with increased ticket prices and players who are the lifeblood of the whole industry.

Everyone hates unions unless they belong to one.. jealousy abound.

This...it still boggles my mind that people are siding with the owners when they're the ones that have **** up with bad business decisions.

The bad business decision was the previous CBA. They are trying to fix it. If you think the current arrangement is fair, all the power to you. I think most feel that things aren't fair. This will be a wake up call for the players because I don't think America really cares about this.

[TdotO]

well it appears that after a lengthy discussion with the arbitraitor, that the players once again has ruined the start of the season! Honestly I get the vibe that all the players want is to feel as though they had "gotten one over" the owners!!! The owners are negotiating on the stance of what is good for them as owners and the league to remain profitable and continue to be able to pay the players hansomely, whereas the players are simply looking for their own skins and who cares about anything else.

JUST GET THE DAMN THING DONE....stupid A$$ players!!!!

[disoblige]

Surprised but not surprised by overwhelming support for owners. Weird how they're seen as the good guys when they're the ones that **** up their business with bad spending and bad investments; who gets thrown under the bus? Paying fans with increased ticket prices and players who are the lifeblood of the whole industry.

Everyone hates unions unless they belong to one.. jealousy abound.

This...it still boggles my mind that people are siding with the owners when they're the ones that have **** up with bad business decisions.

Yes it's owner's/GM's fault when players regress after their new contracts.

[ruckus]

Surprised but not surprised by overwhelming support for owners. Weird how they're seen as the good guys when they're the ones that **** up their business with bad spending and bad investments; who gets thrown under the bus? Paying fans with increased ticket prices and players who are the lifeblood of the whole industry.

Everyone hates unions unless they belong to one.. jealousy abound.

This...it still boggles my mind that people are siding with the owners when they're the ones that have **** up with bad business decisions.

Yes it's owner's/GM's fault when players regress after their new contracts.

It is. It completely is. The purpose of the GM is to make personnel decisions. Bad personnel decisions reflect completely on the GM. No one held a gun to Colangelo's head to sign Turk for $53 Mil. The Magic didn't have to give Rashard a $110 Mil contract. Is Joe Johnson really a MAX player?

[Avenger]

I support the PA but i want a hard cap, too bad its off the table. The hardcap in Hockey is working out pretty well for the players, i believe they make the most BRI % of all the 4 sports. Baseball without a salary cap is the worst deal for the players. If i were the players i would accept a hardcap in exchange for atleast 53% of BRI.

and hockey is headed for another lockout next season, with a hard cap comes a hard floor and many of the teams are forced to spend that amount and they cant afford it.

the hard floor is not a problem in the NBA, even the poorest of teh poor franchises in Basketball will be able to spend to the hard cap and still make money or at worst break even.

I don't know why fans of a basketball team in a city like Toronto would ever oppose a hardcap, its the only way there will be a championship contender here.

[disoblige]

It is. It completely is. The purpose of the GM is to make personnel decisions. Bad personnel decisions reflect completely on the GM. No one held a gun to Colangelo's head to sign Turk for $53 Mil. The Magic didn't have to give Rashard a $110 Mil contract. Is Joe Johnson really a MAX player?

These players were signed by close to their market value during free agency.

GM does make mistakes on evaluating players- they are just humans. However in order to compete, the system requires a "perfect" GM. It is common in the nba that mistakes can cost a franchise to suffer for many years because they can't simply get out of it.

[DarrylFlicking]

This.
I support the players.

Out of all the Millions of Basketball players in the world these are the top 400.

What is the average salary of the top 400 movie actors/actresses
What is the average salary of the top 400 lawyers
What is the average salary of the top 400 doctors
What is the average salary of the top 400 accountants

For example, John Stumpf (Wells Fargo) made 18m as a banker in 2010. That being near the top for that profession, and not too far from the NBA's top earners, we can project out. The 400th banker will be making much, much more than the $473k that is the nba league minimum. The average salary at Goldman is 900k, and that's just one bank (with thousands of employees).

[5DOM]

Banking industry is much bigger than the NBA, so I don't see the issue here.
And the average salary at Goldman is definitely not 900k.

[DHK]

I support those go with logic and rationale..Which side is that?