The off season wild card

8305 · Post #1 » by **8305** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:05 pm

The NBA owners want monumental changes. They want to make money (a novel idea) and they want more parity in the league. More parity will probably lead to more profits. The NFL has parity and they have a hard cap. This concept in my opinion is the best solution to the combination of League problems that need to be addressed.

If you get a hard cap its a cinch it will be set at a level well below the combined salary of most every upper echelon NBA team. So what happens then? No one knows the answer but a decent core of players on rookie contracts could be a much better place to be than we imagine today.

DWCP2 · Post #2 » by **DWCP2** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:52 pm

The problem with a hard cap is that teams have guaranteed contracts while the NFL has salaries and signing bonuses.

But there is a way around it though. The creation of a decentigrating hard cap. Say year one set it at 80 million, year 2 at 75 million, and year 3 at 70 million allowing teams to adjust vs. having to panic and make XYZ trades just to get underneath.

Post #3 » by **Miller4ever** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:06 pm

Something to solve the issues of the franchise-hopping major players are doing now is to institute a franchise tag.

MUpacersSIC · Post #4 » by **MUpacersSIC** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:39 pm

I saw an article were it mentioned quaterback salaries should not be included in the Hard Cap. I think it would be interesting if the NBA allowed the highest paid player on each team to not have to be included in the cap number. However, in that case players would still be making big money. So maybe not the best idea.

8305 · Post #5 » by **8305** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:00 am

There are probably many ways a you could approach a hard cap. In the end you need to eliminate the current dynamic that seems to demand that a team that truly wants to compete for a championship having a salary number 20 mil or so over the luxury tax threshold. I think the owners get this and I'm not sure the majority of them are going to be sympathetic to the five or six franchises setting the current price of admission for championship aspirations.

Boneman2 · Post #6 » by **Boneman2** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:21 am

don't forget revenue sharing. Every single source of revenue, except ticket sales & concessions, should be split evenly to promote equality.

When a team gets 20 mill a season for naming rights, it should go into a kitty and split amongst the teams. No team deserves an advantage when it comes to marketing. Also they should have revenue sharing in merchandising too.

Revenue sharing is essential, the only downfall is some owners will deem it necessary to contract a small number of poorly functioning franchises, to minimize their losses.

8305 · Post #7 » by **8305** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:47 am

I can't see revenue sharing doing anything to promote parity. You lose fan bases when a team can see they are years away from being competitive. The Pacers being a good example of this. Create a model that promotes talent being better dispersed throughout the league and now you have the potential to grow revenue.

Wizop · Post #8 » by **Wizop** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:06 pm

the NFL splits regular ticket sales with the visiting team. only suite sales and the premium on club seats is not split. preseason TV is also not split. Colts have been lucky to get preseason games on national TV which is a big extra.

revenue sharing is the model the disperses talent.

8305 · Post #9 » by **8305** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:12 pm

Wizop wrote:the NFL splits regular ticket sales with the visiting team. only suite sales and the premium on club seats is not split. preseason TV is also not split. Colts have been lucky to get preseason games on national TV which is a big extra.

revenue sharing is the model the disperses talent.

Sorry, I just don't see how revenue sharing disburses talent. Talent get allocated when bad teams have the highest draft picks and when good teams against the cap have to allow good players to walk to stay under the cap. Revenue sharing helps the small market team remain profitable and have the money to sign free agents. But without the hard cap there wouldn't be any free agents.

Wizop · Post #10 » by **Wizop** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:46 pm

if you are saying that revenue sharing is not by itself enough and a harder cap is needed, the NBA certainly agrees with you.

captaincrunk · Post #11 » by **captaincrunk** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:14 pm

Miller4ever wrote:Something to solve the issues of the franchise-hopping major players are doing now is to institute a franchise tag.

Or contract the players to the league as a whole instead of teams, and let the teams negotiate with the league on who they get. They're effectively doing this anyway with their NBPA. They can already be traded to any team essentially. Might as well just make the situation we already have official.

Just thinking outside the box.

Boneman2 · Post #12 » by **Boneman2** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:30 pm

Herb Simon quotes... out of the Star

"I'm a little concerned about the gravitation away from the smaller teams,'' Simon said. "If Green Bay can win (an NFL) championship with 100,000 population, then we should be able to win a championship, too.''

"We need to even the playing field and do something about the disparity in revenues,'' Simon said. "It shouldn't be only the large markets who win championships. So I think the owners are very united on the tack we want to take to make the system fairer for everybody.''

"Money still matters a great deal,'' Simon said. "That's why you see the people who can spend the most money have the most talent right now.''

Majority rules....

Post #13 » by **Grang33r** » Tue Mar 1, 2011 1:41 am

Miller4ever wrote:Something to solve the issues of the franchise-hopping major players are doing now is to institute a franchise tag.

While the franchise tag won't fix everything, it's not the perfect solution, something has to be done about all these super power teams. Is there even 6 serious contenders to win the title this year?

Boneman2 · Post #14 » by **Boneman2** » Tue Mar 1, 2011 2:23 am

I will admit that I am satisfied with the compensation New York and New Jersey were forced to give, same with Boston when they got Allen and Garnett.

The reason you'd want to have franchise tags is to prevent the Miami's and LA's of grand theft larceny. Everbody knows about Miami, but LA is worse ( Shaq in his prime/ Pau/ DHoward???), hell even Kobe threatened to play in Europe if he didn't get to play in LA. What did they give up for Kobe.....? Vlade.

The Lakers owe so many teams because they have rarely had to give value in trades. They always come out on top because of their market, and it has got to change. The NFL is proof that parity will grow your league exponentially.

LA still owes Orlando for Shaq, and now they want Howard too.... greedy bastards.