Jeff Zucker 'Would Like NBA To Exert Influence' Over Load Management

[Pickled Prunes]

What is more valuable.

A limited edition product of 100 or a limited edition product of 25?

Well sports like everything else works the same way. The less you have of something the more it is worth (TV rights, tickets, etc).

Now in sports you get EXTRA value in that with less games to separate teams margins for error drop. So players are less likely to sit games that impact playoff seeding because they don't have an excessive amount of games to make up for losses.

So with less games teams can charge more for the games, the players will be healthier (better product), and the players will play harder (games mean more). Thus win win win for the league. Even better for the NBA, career totals aren't important stats to virtually anyone (sorry Bill Simmons) so the drop in games won't impact meaningful stats that people follow. 300 HRs matters in baseball, 30k points in basketball...it's cool but it's not remotely the same.

It all depends on what people are willing to pay for your product. If nba games are selling out they only have 2 options to increase profit. Play more games or increase prices. I don’t think people want to pay more and that would not be received well, just like with the nfl they pay top dollar already because the market dictates it. That’s why the NBA won’t shorten the season significantly. The only thing I could see is somehow getting to 70 games and eliminating all back to backs and discouraging load management by fines

58 would be ideal obviously. Everybody facing each other twice. Every matchup counts as a potential tie breaker as you basically can't afford losing to any team twice. That's real pressure and would be great for the regular season atmosphere.

The answer is simple... and I've said this before:

1) When the next CBA rolls around put a minutes restriction on all NBA contracts. Somewhere around 2400 minutes for the regular season. The team/player can determine whether to limit the number of games played or the MPG but only about 10% of players play more than that now.

2) Lower max contracts by at least 5%. (10% would be better) This will be hard for players to swallow, but if you remove over 25% of the games the BRI will take a nosedive. Their paychecks will take a hit either way, and since the goal is to get the stars more rest, the pay cut shouldn't effect the average and below NBA players. If you want to work less than you should get paid less. (To be fair, it is the media complaining, not the players.)

3) Add a roster spot to account for the rest games.

4) Require 72 hours notice for non-injury related rest games and mandate that a team may only "rest" one player per game.


And after all that... since the players will not agree to a lesser paycheck, either by reducing the max or eliminating games... the media should shut up about it!

[Pickled Prunes]

#21

What is more valuable.

A limited edition product of 100 or a limited edition product of 25?

Well sports like everything else works the same way. The less you have of something the more it is worth (TV rights, tickets, etc).

Now in sports you get EXTRA value in that with less games to separate teams margins for error drop. So players are less likely to sit games that impact playoff seeding because they don't have an excessive amount of games to make up for losses.

So with less games teams can charge more for the games, the players will be healthier (better product), and the players will play harder (games mean more). Thus win win win for the league. Even better for the NBA, career totals aren't important stats to virtually anyone (sorry Bill Simmons) so the drop in games won't impact meaningful stats that people follow. 300 HRs matters in baseball, 30k points in basketball...it's cool but it's not remotely the same.

It all depends on what people are willing to pay for your product. If nba games are selling out they only have 2 options to increase profit. Play more games or increase prices. I don’t think people want to pay more and that would not be received well, just like with the nfl they pay top dollar already because the market dictates it. That’s why the NBA won’t shorten the season significantly. The only thing I could see is somehow getting to 70 games and eliminating all back to backs and discouraging load management by fines

58 would be ideal obviously. Everybody facing each other twice. Every matchup counts as a potential tie breaker as you basically can't afford losing to any team twice. That's real pressure and would be great for the regular season atmosphere.

The answer is simple... and I've said this before:

1) When the next CBA rolls around put a minutes restriction on all NBA contracts. Somewhere around 2400 minutes for the regular season. The team/player can determine whether to limit the number of games played or the MPG but only about 10% of players play more than that now.

2) Lower max contracts by at least 5%. (10% would be better) This will be hard for players to swallow, but if you remove over 25% of the games the BRI will take a nosedive. Their paychecks will take a hit either way, and since the goal is to get the stars more rest, the pay cut shouldn't impact the average and below NBA players. If you want to work less than you should get paid less. (To be fair, it is the media complaining, not the players for the most part.)

3) Add a roster spot to account for 'rest' games.

4) Require 72 hours notice for non-injury related rest games and mandate that a team may only "rest" one player per game.


And after all that... since the players will not agree to a lesser paycheck, either by reducing the max or eliminating games... the media should probably shut up about it!

[Pickled Prunes]

[dhsilv2]

It all depends on what people are willing to pay for your product. If nba games are selling out they only have 2 options to increase profit. Play more games or increase prices. I don’t think people want to pay more and that would not be received well, just like with the nfl they pay top dollar already because the market dictates it. That’s why the NBA won’t shorten the season significantly. The only thing I could see is somehow getting to 70 games and eliminating all back to backs and discouraging load management by fines

58 would be ideal obviously. Everybody facing each other twice. Every matchup counts as a potential tie breaker as you basically can't afford losing to any team twice. That's real pressure and would be great for the regular season atmosphere.

The answer is simple... and I've said this before:

1) When the next CBA rolls around put a minutes restriction on all NBA contracts. Somewhere around 2400 minutes for the regular season. The team/player can determine whether to limit the number of games played or the MPG but only about 10% of players play more than that now.

2) Lower max contracts by at least 5%. (10% would be better) This will be hard for players to swallow, but if you remove over 25% of the games the BRI will take a nosedive. Their paychecks will take a hit either way, and since the goal is to get the stars more rest, the pay cut shouldn't impact the average and below NBA players. If you want to work less than you should get paid less. (To be fair, it is the media complaining, not the players for the most part.)

3) Add a roster spot to account for 'rest' games.

4) Require 72 hours notice for non-injury related rest games and mandate that a team may only "rest" one player per game.


And after all that... since the players will not agree to a lesser paycheck, either by reducing the max or eliminating games... the media should probably shut up about it!

Max deals are a % of the cap, if the cap drops then so would the max. No need to drop it here, though I still don't believe long term cuttin games would cut revenue.

[Pickled Prunes]

58 would be ideal obviously. Everybody facing each other twice. Every matchup counts as a potential tie breaker as you basically can't afford losing to any team twice. That's real pressure and would be great for the regular season atmosphere.

The answer is simple... and I've said this before:

1) When the next CBA rolls around put a minutes restriction on all NBA contracts. Somewhere around 2400 minutes for the regular season. The team/player can determine whether to limit the number of games played or the MPG but only about 10% of players play more than that now.

2) Lower max contracts by at least 5%. (10% would be better) This will be hard for players to swallow, but if you remove over 25% of the games the BRI will take a nosedive. Their paychecks will take a hit either way, and since the goal is to get the stars more rest, the pay cut shouldn't impact the average and below NBA players. If you want to work less than you should get paid less. (To be fair, it is the media complaining, not the players for the most part.)

3) Add a roster spot to account for 'rest' games.

4) Require 72 hours notice for non-injury related rest games and mandate that a team may only "rest" one player per game.


And after all that... since the players will not agree to a lesser paycheck, either by reducing the max or eliminating games... the media should probably shut up about it!

Max deals are a % of the cap, if the cap drops then so would the max. No need to drop it here, though I still don't believe long term cuttin games would cut revenue.

Sure, but if you keep 82 games you can't have 30% of your cap in a suit for 30% of your games and remain competitive in the West. I understand that TOR did it last season in the East, but they barely got through the East and then faced a broken down GSW. HOU and POR wouldn't have made the playoffs if Harden and Lillard missed 20+ games.

And yes, BRI would drop significantly if the number of games was reduced. It's not just money at the gate. The TV money is huge.

[dhsilv2]

The answer is simple... and I've said this before:

1) When the next CBA rolls around put a minutes restriction on all NBA contracts. Somewhere around 2400 minutes for the regular season. The team/player can determine whether to limit the number of games played or the MPG but only about 10% of players play more than that now.

2) Lower max contracts by at least 5%. (10% would be better) This will be hard for players to swallow, but if you remove over 25% of the games the BRI will take a nosedive. Their paychecks will take a hit either way, and since the goal is to get the stars more rest, the pay cut shouldn't impact the average and below NBA players. If you want to work less than you should get paid less. (To be fair, it is the media complaining, not the players for the most part.)

3) Add a roster spot to account for 'rest' games.

4) Require 72 hours notice for non-injury related rest games and mandate that a team may only "rest" one player per game.


And after all that... since the players will not agree to a lesser paycheck, either by reducing the max or eliminating games... the media should probably shut up about it!

Max deals are a % of the cap, if the cap drops then so would the max. No need to drop it here, though I still don't believe long term cuttin games would cut revenue.

Sure, but if you keep 82 games you can't have 30% of your cap in a suit for 30% of your games and remain competitive in the West. I understand that TOR did it last season in the East, but they barely got through the East and then faced a broken down GSW. HOU and POR wouldn't have made the playoffs if Harden and Lillard missed 20+ games.

And yes, BRI would drop significantly if the number of games was reduced. It's not just money at the gate. The TV money is huge.

And with less games the TV money would go up, long term. That's where they get the lost gate revenue back.

[DoItALL9]

Didn't they already expand the rosters to 17 guys?

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

[DoItALL9]

Maybe opponents should just make sure to beat the teams that rest their "Stars". I'd bet they'd do it less if they did.

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

[Deivork]

Even as a viewer I firmly believe the sensation of regular season games would be increased by less games played. Many games are flat out boring compared to the massive amount of other available games. If there weren't as many, I'd enjoy watching Memphis or Washington every now and then. But as it stands, I don't even have enough free time to watch these teams too.

SPOT ON

[IgorK]

Even as a viewer I firmly believe the sensation of regular season games would be increased by less games played. Many games are flat out boring compared to the massive amount of other available games. If there weren't as many, I'd enjoy watching Memphis or Washington every now and then. But as it stands, I don't even have enough free time to watch these teams too.

SPOT ON

This is why NFL is so much more interesting to watch. Every single game counts.

[Pickled Prunes]

Max deals are a % of the cap, if the cap drops then so would the max. No need to drop it here, though I still don't believe long term cuttin games would cut revenue.

Sure, but if you keep 82 games you can't have 30% of your cap in a suit for 30% of your games and remain competitive in the West. I understand that TOR did it last season in the East, but they barely got through the East and then faced a broken down GSW. HOU and POR wouldn't have made the playoffs if Harden and Lillard missed 20+ games.

And yes, BRI would drop significantly if the number of games was reduced. It's not just money at the gate. The TV money is huge.

And with less games the TV money would go up, long term. That's where they get the lost gate revenue back.

Nike should make less shoes... then they could sell them for more money!

Sounds nice, but business rarely works that way. TNT would have the same number of games, so theirs no increase there. Local broadcasts would lose a ton of games and that's just a loss. Most smaller markets rarely sell out as it is, so ticket prices don't have a lot of upwards mobility. Season ticket prices would certainly go down. Owning/renting an empty arena is expensive. Getting community support for new arenas or upgrades would get tougher. Local businesses would all suffer, vendors would suffer, fans would suffer.... and all because 30-40 guys play a few more minutes than the media would like them to.

It's easier than that: Cap their minutes and take it out of their checks. The top 15% of players lose a little income or everyone loses a little income. It's really not a tough decision.

[dhsilv2]

Sure, but if you keep 82 games you can't have 30% of your cap in a suit for 30% of your games and remain competitive in the West. I understand that TOR did it last season in the East, but they barely got through the East and then faced a broken down GSW. HOU and POR wouldn't have made the playoffs if Harden and Lillard missed 20+ games.

And yes, BRI would drop significantly if the number of games was reduced. It's not just money at the gate. The TV money is huge.

And with less games the TV money would go up, long term. That's where they get the lost gate revenue back.

Nike should make less shoes... then they could sell them for more money!

Sounds nice, but business rarely works that way. TNT would have the same number of games, so theirs no increase there. Local broadcasts would lose a ton of games and that's just a loss. Most smaller markets rarely sell out as it is, so ticket prices don't have a lot of upwards mobility. Season ticket prices would certainly go down. Owning/renting an empty arena is expensive. Getting community support for new arenas or upgrades would get tougher. Local businesses would all suffer, vendors would suffer, fans would suffer.... and all because 30-40 guys play a few more minutes than the media would like them to.

It's easier than that: Cap their minutes and take it out of their checks. The top 15% of players lose a little income or everyone loses a little income. It's really not a tough decision.

TNT would get the same number of games, but they get a BIGGER PERCENTAGE of them. Nike creates products at different price points, the NBA someday might be able to do the same with G league, they can do more of those games

Of course the tv deal with the SAME games for TNT would be worth more if there were less NBA games. That's the most common sense thing there is.

Honestly if an arena can't fill those missing games with events...that city shouldn't have an nba team. NFL teams manage to have far bigger stadiums for a 16 game season...use your head!

[spree2kawhi]

Sure, but if you keep 82 games you can't have 30% of your cap in a suit for 30% of your games and remain competitive in the West. I understand that TOR did it last season in the East, but they barely got through the East and then faced a broken down GSW. HOU and POR wouldn't have made the playoffs if Harden and Lillard missed 20+ games.

And yes, BRI would drop significantly if the number of games was reduced. It's not just money at the gate. The TV money is huge.

And with less games the TV money would go up, long term. That's where they get the lost gate revenue back.

Nike should make less shoes... then they could sell them for more money!

Sounds nice, but business rarely works that way. TNT would have the same number of games, so theirs no increase there. Local broadcasts would lose a ton of games and that's just a loss. Most smaller markets rarely sell out as it is, so ticket prices don't have a lot of upwards mobility. Season ticket prices would certainly go down. Owning/renting an empty arena is expensive. Getting community support for new arenas or upgrades would get tougher. Local businesses would all suffer, vendors would suffer, fans would suffer.... and all because 30-40 guys play a few more minutes than the media would like them to.

It's easier than that: Cap their minutes and take it out of their checks. The top 15% of players lose a little income or everyone loses a little income. It's really not a tough decision.

European soccer works that way though. I don't like it, but every game is a crazy event. They make money too.

[dhsilv2]

And with less games the TV money would go up, long term. That's where they get the lost gate revenue back.

Nike should make less shoes... then they could sell them for more money!

Sounds nice, but business rarely works that way. TNT would have the same number of games, so theirs no increase there. Local broadcasts would lose a ton of games and that's just a loss. Most smaller markets rarely sell out as it is, so ticket prices don't have a lot of upwards mobility. Season ticket prices would certainly go down. Owning/renting an empty arena is expensive. Getting community support for new arenas or upgrades would get tougher. Local businesses would all suffer, vendors would suffer, fans would suffer.... and all because 30-40 guys play a few more minutes than the media would like them to.

It's easier than that: Cap their minutes and take it out of their checks. The top 15% of players lose a little income or everyone loses a little income. It's really not a tough decision.

European soccer works that way though. I don't like it, but every game is a crazy event. They make money too.

NCAA men's basketball is similar. The tourney is massive money by itself.

[Pickled Prunes]

And with less games the TV money would go up, long term. That's where they get the lost gate revenue back.

Nike should make less shoes... then they could sell them for more money!

Sounds nice, but business rarely works that way. TNT would have the same number of games, so theirs no increase there. Local broadcasts would lose a ton of games and that's just a loss. Most smaller markets rarely sell out as it is, so ticket prices don't have a lot of upwards mobility. Season ticket prices would certainly go down. Owning/renting an empty arena is expensive. Getting community support for new arenas or upgrades would get tougher. Local businesses would all suffer, vendors would suffer, fans would suffer.... and all because 30-40 guys play a few more minutes than the media would like them to.

It's easier than that: Cap their minutes and take it out of their checks. The top 15% of players lose a little income or everyone loses a little income. It's really not a tough decision.

TNT would get the same number of games, but they get a BIGGER PERCENTAGE of them. Nike creates products at different price points, the NBA someday might be able to do the same with G league, they can do more of those games

Of course the tv deal with the SAME games for TNT would be worth more if there were less NBA games. That's the most common sense thing there is.

Honestly if an arena can't fill those missing games with events...that city shouldn't have an nba team. NFL teams manage to have far bigger stadiums for a 16 game season...use your head!

And LA lost both of their NFL teams for years because they couldn't Justify spending on an arena... and the Sonics are no longer... because the city couldn't justify the expense. I don't need to use my head; I can do this math on my fingers!

Yes, if there are fewer games you can charge more for some things, but not everything. If you take away 33% of the games than income from every source would need to increase by an average of 33%. The already $8 hotdog isn't going to sell in the same volume at $12. But that's in the venue. The local business would have 12 fewer high traffic nights with no direct way to recoup their losses. So the next time an arena improvement bond comes up they vote "no" and we have more Seattle's.

TNT advertisers would need to spend at least 150% to make up for the loss of local advertising. It's more complicated than than just charging more. Every person or company has a bottom line. Increase the advertising rates and a lot ad advertisers would drop out.

But clearly I can't change your mind because you've already decided that less is somehow more.... but it isn't, it is less.

[dhsilv2]

Nike should make less shoes... then they could sell them for more money!

Sounds nice, but business rarely works that way. TNT would have the same number of games, so theirs no increase there. Local broadcasts would lose a ton of games and that's just a loss. Most smaller markets rarely sell out as it is, so ticket prices don't have a lot of upwards mobility. Season ticket prices would certainly go down. Owning/renting an empty arena is expensive. Getting community support for new arenas or upgrades would get tougher. Local businesses would all suffer, vendors would suffer, fans would suffer.... and all because 30-40 guys play a few more minutes than the media would like them to.

It's easier than that: Cap their minutes and take it out of their checks. The top 15% of players lose a little income or everyone loses a little income. It's really not a tough decision.

TNT would get the same number of games, but they get a BIGGER PERCENTAGE of them. Nike creates products at different price points, the NBA someday might be able to do the same with G league, they can do more of those games

Of course the tv deal with the SAME games for TNT would be worth more if there were less NBA games. That's the most common sense thing there is.

Honestly if an arena can't fill those missing games with events...that city shouldn't have an nba team. NFL teams manage to have far bigger stadiums for a 16 game season...use your head!

And LA lost both of their NFL teams for years because they couldn't Justify spending on an arena... and the Sonics are no longer... because the city couldn't justify the expense. I don't need to use my head; I can do this math on my fingers!

Yes, if there are fewer games you can charge more for some things, but not everything. If you take away 33% of the games than income from every source would need to increase by an average of 33%. The already $8 hotdog isn't going to sell in the same volume at $12. But that's in the venue. The local business would have 12 fewer high traffic nights with no direct way to recoup their losses. So the next time an arena improvement bond comes up they vote "no" and we have more Seattle's.

TNT advertisers would need to spend at least 150% to make up for the loss of local advertising. It's more complicated than than just charging more. Every person or company has a bottom line. Increase the advertising rates and a lot ad advertisers would drop out.

But clearly I can't change your mind because you've already decided that less is somehow more.... but it isn't, it is less.

Teams leave because other cities will subsidize them...

If a city feels that having a team is such an economic boom for them they'll PAY FOR IT, that completely counters your argument.

[Pickled Prunes]

TNT would get the same number of games, but they get a BIGGER PERCENTAGE of them. Nike creates products at different price points, the NBA someday might be able to do the same with G league, they can do more of those games

Of course the tv deal with the SAME games for TNT would be worth more if there were less NBA games. That's the most common sense thing there is.

Honestly if an arena can't fill those missing games with events...that city shouldn't have an nba team. NFL teams manage to have far bigger stadiums for a 16 game season...use your head!

And LA lost both of their NFL teams for years because they couldn't Justify spending on an arena... and the Sonics are no longer... because the city couldn't justify the expense. I don't need to use my head; I can do this math on my fingers!

Yes, if there are fewer games you can charge more for some things, but not everything. If you take away 33% of the games than income from every source would need to increase by an average of 33%. The already $8 hotdog isn't going to sell in the same volume at $12. But that's in the venue. The local business would have 12 fewer high traffic nights with no direct way to recoup their losses. So the next time an arena improvement bond comes up they vote "no" and we have more Seattle's.

TNT advertisers would need to spend at least 150% to make up for the loss of local advertising. It's more complicated than than just charging more. Every person or company has a bottom line. Increase the advertising rates and a lot ad advertisers would drop out.

But clearly I can't change your mind because you've already decided that less is somehow more.... but it isn't, it is less.

Teams leave because other cities will subsidize them...

If a city feels that having a team is such an economic boom for them they'll PAY FOR IT, that completely counters your argument.

Ummm, I don't believe you understand my argument. Seattle didn't think that keeping the Sonics around for 41 games was worth the investment and your argument is that they would have made more money if it was only 29 games?

Sure, OKC was willing to spend to bring an NBA team to town, but will they feel the same when it's time for renovations and the number of game has been cut back? I don't know what will be in their hearts and minds when that time comes... but I do know they will make less money.

[dhsilv2]

And LA lost both of their NFL teams for years because they couldn't Justify spending on an arena... and the Sonics are no longer... because the city couldn't justify the expense. I don't need to use my head; I can do this math on my fingers!

Yes, if there are fewer games you can charge more for some things, but not everything. If you take away 33% of the games than income from every source would need to increase by an average of 33%. The already $8 hotdog isn't going to sell in the same volume at $12. But that's in the venue. The local business would have 12 fewer high traffic nights with no direct way to recoup their losses. So the next time an arena improvement bond comes up they vote "no" and we have more Seattle's.

TNT advertisers would need to spend at least 150% to make up for the loss of local advertising. It's more complicated than than just charging more. Every person or company has a bottom line. Increase the advertising rates and a lot ad advertisers would drop out.

But clearly I can't change your mind because you've already decided that less is somehow more.... but it isn't, it is less.

Teams leave because other cities will subsidize them...

If a city feels that having a team is such an economic boom for them they'll PAY FOR IT, that completely counters your argument.

Ummm, I don't believe you understand my argument. Seattle didn't think that keeping the Sonics around for 41 games was worth the investment and your argument is that they would have made more money if it was only 29 games?

Sure, OKC was willing to spend to bring an NBA team to town, but will they feel the same when it's time for renovations and the number of game has been cut back? I don't know what will be in their hearts and minds when that time comes... but I do know they will make less money.

Wait...

Who is seattle?

Who is OKC?

Are you talking about the city, the nba team as a business, or the owner as the "investor"?

[Pickled Prunes]

Teams leave because other cities will subsidize them...

If a city feels that having a team is such an economic boom for them they'll PAY FOR IT, that completely counters your argument.

Ummm, I don't believe you understand my argument. Seattle didn't think that keeping the Sonics around for 41 games was worth the investment and your argument is that they would have made more money if it was only 29 games?

Sure, OKC was willing to spend to bring an NBA team to town, but will they feel the same when it's time for renovations and the number of game has been cut back? I don't know what will be in their hearts and minds when that time comes... but I do know they will make less money.

Wait...

Who is seattle?

Who is OKC?

Are you talking about the city, the nba team as a business, or the owner as the "investor"?

The Cities... but I couldn't really be talking about the team or ownership because the Thunder and Sonics are the same franchise. Seattle failed to pass a bond to renovate Key Arena; OKC went all in. OKC did it in large part for the 41 days of tourism dollars. Every game lost is lost revenue for the city. TNT upping their ad spot costs doesn't help NBA cities a bit.

But that is just a piece of the pie. What you need to understand is that TNT having the same number of games and a higher percentage of games really looks great for TNT. The same with ESPN. Maybe that's why those media outlets seem to be pushing for this. But either way, it is likely that National TV money increases. It is even possible (though unlikely) that teams break even on gate money with a healthy ticket price increase. And jersey sales could be pretty steady since so much of that is online. But concessions along with local TV and business revenue would fall off a cliff.

[dhsilv2]

Ummm, I don't believe you understand my argument. Seattle didn't think that keeping the Sonics around for 41 games was worth the investment and your argument is that they would have made more money if it was only 29 games?

Sure, OKC was willing to spend to bring an NBA team to town, but will they feel the same when it's time for renovations and the number of game has been cut back? I don't know what will be in their hearts and minds when that time comes... but I do know they will make less money.

Wait...

Who is seattle?

Who is OKC?

Are you talking about the city, the nba team as a business, or the owner as the "investor"?

The Cities... but I couldn't really be talking about the team or ownership because the Thunder and Sonics are the same franchise. Seattle failed to pass a bond to renovate Key Arena; OKC went all in. OKC did it in large part for the 41 days of tourism dollars. Every game lost is lost revenue for the city. TNT upping their ad spot costs doesn't help NBA cities a bit.

But that is just a piece of the pie. What you need to understand is that TNT having the same number of games and a higher percentage of games really looks great for TNT. The same with ESPN. Maybe that's why those media outlets seem to be pushing for this. But either way, it is likely that National TV money increases. It is even possible (though unlikely) that teams break even on gate money with a healthy ticket price increase. And jersey sales could be pretty steady since so much of that is online. But concessions along with local TV and business revenue would fall off a cliff.

Look, cities don't really matter to the nba. Basketball arenas are far more useful than football ones and the NFL has had zero issue.

Again we have the biggest sport in the US and by FAR with 16 games a year! It dominates. The fact we're even debating this is comical. The NFL more than proves the idea. The nba is killing itself with all these games.

The nba is a premium product, it is being sold like it isn't. It is being sold the same as it was in the 50's when it wasn't premium but was a novility and need volume to generate revenue.