Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread III

Reignman · Post #1081 » by **Reignman** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:37 pm

Bottom line, you can't have a system in place where the only option for less desirable cities is to tank, get lucky and hope for the type of talent that comes around only once or twice a decade in order to be successful.

Less desirable cities should be able to compete for top talent via trades or free agency just like any other team and you'd be a fool to think the system allows that right now.

carlosey · Post #1082 » by **carlosey** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:37 pm

I assume merchandise sales in those markets are also mediocre or lower.

MEDIC · Post #1083 » by **MEDIC** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:42 pm

Reignman wrote:Since the product and system are so inter-related I'm going to say that they are both broken.

That's my whole point. You fix the system & increase parity, the overall product improves & ticket sales overall increase.

You don't have to worry about the huge markets (NY, LA, CHI). They sell themselves. In order to improve attendance overall in the NBA, you have to improve the product in the smaller US cities.

MEDIC · Post #1084 » by **MEDIC** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 pm

As per ESPN stats, the NBA & NHL attendance are very similar overall:

Number of games played
NHL - 743
NBA - 712

Total attendance
NHL - 12,590,958
NBA - 12,181,353

Average capacity per building
NHL - 18,453
NBA - 19,152

Average Attendance
NHL - 16,946
NBA - 17,109

Average Attendance %
NHL - 91.83%
NBA - 89.33%

People in the US have been telling us that the NHL is like a B league in the minds of US sports fans.

If that's the case, the NBA has nothing to brag about. There are big issues to resolve.

Reignman · Post #1085 » by **Reignman** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:01 pm

wow, that's sad. I knew it was close but not that close.

With the globalization of the sport and the low cost of playing it at the grass roots level the NBA should be competing with the big boys (NFL/MLB), not the NHL where less fortunate people can't afford to send their kids to play or where the majority of the U.S. doesn't even get ice.

Fairview4Life · Post #1086 » by **Fairview4Life** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:20 pm

MEDIC wrote:
Reignman wrote:Since the product and system are so inter-related I'm going to say that they are both broken.

That's my whole point. You fix the system & increase parity, the overall product improves & ticket sales overall increase.

This isn't what happens in real life though. It's only what you think should happen.

MEDIC · Post #1087 » by **MEDIC** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:24 pm

Fairview4Life wrote:
MEDIC wrote:
Reignman wrote:Since the product and system are so inter-related I'm going to say that they are both broken.

That's my whole point. You fix the system & increase parity, the overall product improves & ticket sales overall increase.

This isn't what happens in real life though. It's only what you think should happen.

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.

Reignman · Post #1088 » by **Reignman** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:31 pm

Fairview4Life wrote:
MEDIC wrote:
Reignman wrote:Since the product and system are so inter-related I'm going to say that they are both broken.

That's my whole point. You fix the system & increase parity, the overall product improves & ticket sales overall increase.

This isn't what happens in real life though. It's only what you think should happen.

Actually it does happen, the NFL is a testament to that.

As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan I can easily say that a small market can do things easily.

Notice how LA doesn't even have a team and NY isn't all that in the NFL? What about Miami / South Beach, how long have they been **** for in the NFL? The Bears?

It's funny how the big markets in the NFL are on the same playing field as the rest but some of you just won't admit it.

The best team in the NFL right now is Green Bay, yet the Bucks couldn't sign a big name FA if Herb Kohl dumped all his assets to lure that player.

MEDIC · Post #1089 » by **MEDIC** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:34 pm

Look at the variation of championship winners in the NFL over the last 20 years. Many different teams from many different markets:

2010 (Super Bowl XLV) - Green Bay Packers
2009 (Super Bowl XLIV) - New Orleans Saints
2008 (Super Bowl XLVIII) - Pittsburgh Steelers
2007 (Super Bowl XLVII) - New York Giants
2006 (Super Bowl XLVI) - Indianapolis Colts
2005 (Super Bowl XLV) - Pittsburgh Steelers
2004 (Super Bowl XXXIX) - New England Patriots
2003 (Super Bowl XXXVIII) - New England Patriots
2002 (Super Bowl XXXVII) - Tampa Bay Buccaneers
2001 (Super Bowl XXXVI) - New England Patriots
2000 (Super Bowl XXXV) - Baltimore Ravens
1999 (Super Bowl XXXIV) - St. Louis Rams
1998 (Super Bowl XXIII) - Denver Broncos
1997 (Super Bowl XXXII) - Denver Broncos
1996 (Super Bowl XXXI) - Green Bay Packers
1995 (Super Bowl XXX) - Dallas Cowboys
1994 (Super Bowl XXIX) - San Francisco 49ers
1993 (Super Bowl XXVIII) - Dallas Cowboys
1992 (Super Bowl XXVII) - Dallas Cowboys
1991 (Super Bowl XXVI) - Washington Redskins
1990 (Super Bowl XXV) - New York Giants

The NFL is the model of success for NA professional sports. The NFL is a top grade professional league, whereas the NBA is turning itself into a fringe B league.

Reignman · Post #1090 » by **Reignman** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:38 pm

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.

Indeed · Post #1091 » by **Indeed** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:45 pm

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.

MEDIC · Post #1092 » by **MEDIC** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:47 pm

NHL in the last 10 years:

2010-11 - Boston Bruins
2009-10 - Chicago Blackhawks
2008-09 - Pittsburgh Penguins
2007-08 - Detroit Red Wings
2006-07 - Anaheim Ducks
2005-06 - Carolina Hurricanes
2003-04 - Tampa Bay Lightning
2002-03 - New Jersey Devils
2001-02 - Detroit Red Wings
2000-01 - Colorado Avalanche
1999-2000 - New Jersey Devils

Lots of different teams from lots of different markets.

Fairview4Life · Post #1093 » by **Fairview4Life** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:47 pm

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.

Fairview4Life · Post #1094 » by **Fairview4Life** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:47 pm

MEDIC wrote:NHL in the last 10 years:

2010-11 - Boston Bruins
2009-10 - Chicago Blackhawks
2008-09 - Pittsburgh Penguins
2007-08 - Detroit Red Wings
2006-07 - Anaheim Ducks
2005-06 - Carolina Hurricanes
2003-04 - Tampa Bay Lightning
2002-03 - New Jersey Devils
2001-02 - Detroit Red Wings
2000-01 - Colorado Avalanche
1999-2000 - New Jersey Devils

Lots of different teams from lots of different markets.

Now do MLB.

MEDIC · Post #1095 » by **MEDIC** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:49 pm

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.

CeltsfanSinceBirth · Post #1096 » by **CeltsfanSinceBirth** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:54 pm

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?

Fairview4Life · Post #1097 » by **Fairview4Life** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:56 pm

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.

Reignman · Post #1098 » by **Reignman** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:56 pm

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.

Fairview4Life · Post #1099 » by **Fairview4Life** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:57 pm

Reignman wrote:The sad part is that the NBA is losing $300 mil on aggregate...

No it's not.

Reignman · Post #1100 » by **Reignman** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:57 pm

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.