"Only way to avoid 'super teams' is to impose a hard cap."

[BadMofoPimp]

Cry all you want, but a capless system will never happen because a capped system is the best system and obviously it works. Thus, I reckon that people should create a capless NBA2k13 season to fulfill their capless fantasy. Debate over. Capped system already won years ago. Your Welcome -BMP

When logic fails resort to trolling. You haven't changed from last summer.

"The NBA has a salary cap, therefore its the best system"

The OP was about imposing a Hard Cap, not a capless system. Thus, I agree with a hard cap. Hence, I am not the one trolling.

[Don Draper]

The OP was about imposing a Hard Cap, not a capless system. Thus, I agree with a hard cap. Hence, I am not the one trolling.

Doesn't matter. You aren't making coherent posts. You're just repeating the same make-believe facts and generalizations knowing full well you have no intention of discussing or debating anything. That's trolling in my book bro.

[BadMofoPimp]

The OP was about imposing a Hard Cap, not a capless system. Thus, I agree with a hard cap. Hence, I am not the one trolling.

Doesn't matter. You aren't making coherent posts. You're just repeating the same make-believe facts and generalizations knowing full well you have no intention of discussing or debating anything. That's trolling in my book bro.

You aren't making coherent posts either. You have posted hypothetical facts about a capless system while trashing my posts and not debating anything. That is trolling in my book, bro.

[Don Draper]

You aren't making coherent posts either. You have posted hypothetical facts about a capless system while trashing my posts and not debating anything. That is trolling in my book, bro.

lol Go back and reread what you posted in the last few pages and the responses you were given. Making up facts just like last summer.

[bbms]

I like the idea, if teams are allowed to exceed the cap for players that only played for one franchise. Impose loyalty and rewards teams that draft well.

[BadMofoPimp]

lol Go back and reread what you posted in the last few pages and the responses you were given. Making up facts just like last summer.

I am sorry. When is creating a post only to trash other peoples posts not considered trolling. Please read your posts. You have not debated me, but only trashed every post or idea I had. You haven't debated nothing but instead have only been an aggressive poster who seeks to put down those who disagree with you. At least I just voice my opinion instead of singling you out until now. You don't even give anyone the benefit of debate without trashing them. Plese go back and re-read your posts.

[BadMofoPimp]

I think there needs to be a thread with a poll.

Cap vs Capless system. We will see how many agree with which side then.

[clevceltics]

I like the idea, if teams are allowed to exceed the cap for players that only played for one franchise. Impose loyalty and rewards teams that draft well.

Are you including draft day trades in this mix? Those trades would have a impact on this solution. For example Kobe being drafted by Charolette, Rondo and Deng by the Suns.

[nykballa2k4]

Why does no one ever respond to this post I make. Can someone please respond.

People talk about how SO much more parity the NFL has than the NBA.

Since 2000, 21 out of the 30 NBA teams have made it to a Conference Finals series,
Since 2000, 23 out of the 32 NFL teams have made it to a Conference Championship game.

In the last 10 seasons, there have been 7 different NFL teams to win the Super Bowl.
In the last 10 seasons, there have been 6 different NBA teams to win the NBA title.

What's your explanation for that? I thought the NFL had so much more parity than the NBA?

Sample size. The problem is the Lakers are now on their 3rd dynasty of the last 3 decades(and if we went 80's we could do more). First it was Magic/Kareem for EARLY 90's, after 2 years off, Shaq and Kobe came in 96, but it was really Shaq and Eddie Jones then. 2000's and late 90s were Shaq/Kobe, then Kobe/Pau, now Dwight Howard is their best player.

Dynasties occur across sports. 3 well selected talents and a great front office will do that for you. The problem for the NBA is it is recurring with the same markets. The disparity of championships from Celtics/Lakers compared to everyone else is a differential that is unparalleled in all of sports.

Knicks WOULD be right there, but we have been lucky enough to have the worst front office of all time. We had one good run with Walt and Reed, that was IT. Our team finds new ways to fail each year.

With Max contracts, whoever has the superstar(s) who exceed that value the most will be the favorites to win a ring. If I am stuck with the "pay joe johnson the max, make a longshot run at a title, vs a possible 5 year rebuild" I am stuck overpaying.

[eatyourchildren]

What would a poll accomplish? It's apparent from this thread people can't even figure out what factors actually determine parity.

[Don Draper]

The CBA's existence already establishes that players choices can be limited for the betterment of the league. Debating over whether limitations should be imposed is moot, since (unless you think the entire CBA should be thrown out) they clearly should be.

The problem is the assumption that limiting player choice is better for the league. What are you basing this on? There are many models that are successful without these limitations, so I'm not sure how you draw such a conclusion.

The only debate is what balance of limitations results in the most money for a majority of owners as well as the most money for the majority of players (the role players, not your superstars). I believe that long-term growth for both sides requires a system where good management is rewarded and star players have less power, and that's the point of view I'm making suggestions from. Conversely, you believe (as far as I can tell, feel free to correct me) that super teams are better for the league - and there are definitely some compelling arguments to be made for this. That's ultimately where the debate lies: what balance of limitations makes the most money for both sides.

I simply believe that price floors and ceilings are bad for the league. I wouldn't call myself pro "superteam", but I do realize that "superteams" have fueled the increasing popularity of basketball worldwide (Lakers, Celtics, Dream Team, Miami Heat, etc).

The system now rewards teams in desirable markets and divas, and

This is false. The system actually tries to do the opposite. Ever heard of revenue sharing? Draft lottery? Rookie Scale? Bird rights? These are all designed to help low revenue/less desirable markets. I don't understand how anyone can claim this system rewards large markets.

I think that will ultimately be less profitable for the league than a system that rewards balanced teams built well on an even playing field.

Nothing in the NBA's history tells me this would be the case. Most of the NBA's popularity came during the reign of dominant teams. Look at the NBA Finals ratings post-Kobe/Shaq and pre-Boston's big 3. It's not a fluke that the ratings plummeted in the absence of dominant teams.

By limiting James to those two choices in the manner I've proposed you enable more teams to potentially compete, which broadens the fan base and gets communities more engaged without costing the average NBAPU member their average salary.

More teams competing =/= larger fan base. Where are you getting this from?

Sure the stars might lose out on some endorsement dollars (somewhat offset in the increase in salary), but they aren't the major voting bloc of the union. On the other side, small market teams make up a bigger voting bloc than the big markets do.

Who brings most of the money? Stars or role players? Big markets or small markets?

There are two ways to increase revenue for small market teams: allow them to compete for big names on a more even playing field or introduce heavy revenue-sharing. Some teams will prefer the former (the entrepreneurial bunch who think they can do better than the average small market team) and others who will want the latter (those who think they are better off taking an equal slice of a big pie than going at it alone).

I prefer the latter without a salary cap. The former isn't possible

[DiscoLives4ever]

One of the biggest problems in this thread is competing definitions of "parity".

1) Parity is a different team winning each season (or some variety thereof)

2) Parity is every team competing based only on management and not market or depth of the owner's pockets

I'm for number 2. Option 1 is impractical and would actually be bad for the the league. People want dynasties... but they also want an equal chance that their team could form a dynasty.

[smith2373]

In the last 10 seasons, there have been 7 different NFL teams to win the Super Bowl.
In the last 10 seasons, there have been 6 different NBA teams to win the NBA title.

What's your explanation for that? I thought the NFL had so much more parity than the NBA?

Keep looking backwards. You'll find that the NBA has the same short list of teams winning, while the NFL has different ones. Here's some numbers to compare:

15 NFL teams have won a championship since 1980. The most common championship team over that period was the 49ers, with 4 titles. Overall, 20 different franchises have won multiple championships since 1960. 4 teams have never played in the Super Bowl.

10 NBA teams have won a championship since 1980. The most common championship team over that period was the Lakers, with 10 titles. Overall, 12 different franchises have won multiple championships since 1960. 9 teams have never played in the Finals.

The appeal of the NFL isn't that great teams somehow don't exist. It's that every franchise has the chance to build a great team, and that your team's location and market size is not a major disadvantage in building that team.

Well of course its much easier to go back to the 60's considering how dominating the Celtics were in that time period plus the Bulls in the 90's.

My point still stands, in recent years, the NBA & NFL have been pretty close in terms of parity.

And GTFO with that every NFL can build great a team stuff because the same applies to the NBA. OKC & San Antonio both have great teams. Denver & Indiana have both been able to build really good teams. It's absolute blasphemy that you guys want to punish teams with great front offices just because of teams with horrible front offices failures of not being able to put a worthy team around their star players (Orlando, Cleveland, New Orleans) or a team that consistenly makes bad trades or a team that is awful at drafting.

[BadMofoPimp]

Draper needs to explain how "revenue sharing" could happen in a capless system.

Lets say a team like the Bucks are only generating $20 million in revenue to pay for players in a capless system since they have less fans because their team has no superstars since they are all in the Big City markets.

And, The Lakers are generating about $200 mil because they have all the best players. But, the Lakers salary is like $180 million and they still have bills.

Where is this so called revenue sharing in a capless system with no salary rules to make sure there is money left over to even share?

That is why dreaming up fictitious ideas of parity in a capless system is unproven success. It just won't happen here in the USA. Europe has soccer amongst nations, thus the teams generate revenue within their own country. USA is a different animal and there is theory of a capless system for the NBA would spell success for all 31 teams and any small market.

The reason this will never happen is because all 31 teams are partial owners of the NBA as a whole. The players don't own crap. They are paid employees. Thus, each team wants a chance to compete with any other team. Having a cap system in place creates an opportunity for a team to at least have a player for a few years that could put fans into the expensive arena's seats. How hard is that to understand?

[Little Digger]

All the NBA needs to do to prevent superstars from lumping together is to lift the max cap on what each individual player can make per year..

Lebron signs for 50 million + and his team has to sign nothing but role players to fill out the roster..Superstars get spread throughout the association..


The salary cap and the new luxery tax penalties will protect the payroll structure for the owners.

[BadMofoPimp]

All the NBA needs to do to prevent superstars from lumping together is to lift the max cap on what each individual player can make per year..

Lebron signs for 50 million + and his team has to sign nothing but role players to fill out the roster..Superstars get spread throughout the association..


The salary cap and the new luxery tax penalties will protect the payroll structure for the owners.

I like this idea. Keep a cap of $60 mil, but no individual player cap. Nice.

[DiscoLives4ever]

The problem is the assumption that limiting player choice is better for the league. What are you basing this on? There are many models that are successful without these limitations, so I'm not sure how you draw such a conclusion.

I don't believe limiting player choice is - by itself - better for the league. However, I do think that the right limitations can lead to a more widely competitive league which engages the communities of more local markets and brings in more casual fans who enjoy seeing their local team succeed as well as those who want good basketball. A system which keeps super teams from forming will force teams to build more balanced rosters to compete.

I simply believe that price floors and ceilings are bad for the league. I wouldn't call myself pro "superteam", but I do realize that "superteams" have fueled the increasing popularity of basketball worldwide (Lakers, Celtics, Dream Team, Miami Heat, etc).

Like I said, there are arguments that support the super team model. I think it's inaccurate to attribute the popularity increases to super teams though. The NBA has had a phenomenal marketing team for the last 30 years or so, and I believe they would have succeeded in selling balanced teams just as well as they did super teams. Look at how quickly people sided with the owners in the lockout or forgot about the Tim Donaghy scandal to see just how effective the league is at changing perceptions to what they want.

This is false. The system actually tries to do the opposite. Ever heard of revenue sharing? Draft lottery? Rookie Scale? Bird rights? These are all designed to help low revenue/less desirable markets. I don't understand how anyone can claim this system rewards large markets.

A lot of those measures have helped, but some have backfired. I mentioned revenue sharing already. Draft Lottery and Rookie Scale contracts help everyone equally. Bird rights have become twisted to the point where they encourage players to demand trades. All those things didn't help Denver keep Anthony, or give Utah confidence in keeping Williams.

Nothing in the NBA's history tells me this would be the case. Most of the NBA's popularity came during the reign of dominant teams. Look at the NBA Finals ratings post-Kobe/Shaq and pre-Boston's big 3. It's not a fluke that the ratings plummeted in the absence of dominant teams.

Finals ratings definitely took a drop, but what happened to the average revenue of the leagues teams? I couldn't find this data in a quick search, so it could definitely have dropped as well but I think we need to take into account other factors as well. Ratings of a finals popularity can indicate to some degree the popularity of the league, but at the end of the day it's the profitability of small- and mid-market franchises that determines whether the league is growing or shrinking.

More teams competing =/= larger fan base. Where are you getting this from?

Going off of regional fans, the top metro areas have a population of ~55 million and account for 7 teams. The remaining 23 have a population over 65 million. Assuming non-regional fans just want to see good basketball (or what the league's marketing machine tells them is good basketball) then that means there is nearly a 20% increase in potential fans outside the large markets

Who brings most of the money? Stars or role players? Big markets or small markets?

Like I mentioned before, the NBA's marketing team brings in the most money. If LA was forced to build a balanced level of scrubs around Kobe and he was fighting towards the championship, they would sell the drama of him doing just that. There's always a storyline that can be made, and the league will find ways to sell it.

I prefer the latter without a salary cap. The former isn't possible

I believe the former is possible (and have made suggestions to do so), but I can understand why you might believe differently. Time will tell, since the guys with all the data (league/owners) will ultimately do what is best for them and their books.

[DiscoLives4ever]

Draper needs to explain how "revenue sharing" could happen in a capless system.

I don't think Draper is proposing that (he can correct me if I'm wrong). All he's been saying is that parity (definition 1 that I posted earlier) is greatest recently in leagues without a cap.

[eatyourchildren]

Large markets aren't rewarded by the system. Large markets are just rewarded by reality. What you guys are proposing is just handicapping the field. If things were free market, there probably wouldn't be as many teams as there are.

Revenue-sharing is de facto proof that large market teams are propping up the rest. Thank us, small market teams, for allowing you to exist and be somewhat profitable. And we thank you for having someone to play (and beat).

I say we go Euro Soccer model.

[eatyourchildren]

Draper needs to explain how "revenue sharing" could happen in a capless system.

I don't think Draper is proposing that (he can correct me if I'm wrong). All he's been saying is that parity (definition 1 that I posted earlier) is greatest recently in leagues without a cap.

BadMofo's math is awful.