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

[BadMofoPimp]

The NFL pools revenue because the LEAGUE is the draw, there is no one or two teams that draw that money. The NBA doesn't pool because INDIVIDUAL TEAMS are the draw and not just the league itself.

Individual teams could be a great draw if the NBA was properly marketed as a fairly competitive league. But, the NBA is marketed like the WWE or how Vince McMahon markets his gimmicks.

[Agenda42]

The 98 Bulls are not a fair representation of how much player costs are in 2012, that's obvious.

The exact numbers are of course going to be different from 15 years ago. However, the idea that you could only afford to put scrubs alongside your star if you eliminated the max contract is incorrect, and that's why I brought up the '98 Bulls.

In an environment without artificial restrictions on salary, superstar players taking home half the money is a natural outcome of their value on the basketball court. Players that are currently used to making $10M a year would end up receiving much less in order to accommodate those star player contracts.

The NFL pools revenue because the LEAGUE is the draw, there is no one or two teams that draw that money. The NBA doesn't pool because INDIVIDUAL TEAMS are the draw and not just the league itself.

I don't see how that's relevant to the question of what revenue sharing model produces better competitive balance.

[DanTown8587]

The NFL pools revenue because the LEAGUE is the draw, there is no one or two teams that draw that money. The NBA doesn't pool because INDIVIDUAL TEAMS are the draw and not just the league itself.

Individual teams could be a great draw if the NBA was properly marketed as a fairly competitive league. But, the NBA is marketed like the WWE or how Vince McMahon markets his gimmicks.

Um, OKC is on national TV the maximum number of times. Cleveland was in 2009-10.

What you keep asking for (no max salaries and a hard cap) is what the NBA owners asked AWAY from in 1999. You might think owners want that, but they've actually fought against that.

And there is no way you could ever market a team with Danny Granger as the best player versus a team with LeBron James as the best player, regardless of market size. LeBron's team will ALWAYS be more popular.

I don't get why you're a fan of the game if you don't realize it's a star driven league.

[DanTown8587]

The 98 Bulls are not a fair representation of how much player costs are in 2012, that's obvious.

The exact numbers are of course going to be different from 15 years ago. However, the idea that you could only afford to put scrubs alongside your star if you eliminated the max contract is incorrect, and that's why I brought up the '98 Bulls.

In an environment without artificial restrictions on salary, superstar players taking home half the money is a natural outcome of their value on the basketball court. Players that are currently used to making $10M a year would end up receiving much less in order to accommodate those star player contracts.

That's actually not how it's going to happen. What will happen is teams without star players will overpay for second and even third tier stars will legit superstars will get cheaper role players and be fine. I mean, you're making it EASIER for LeBron to fill out a squad around him if you're saying that role players basically make very little wherever they go. Now those players will play in New York for four million over Milwaukee for six.

The NFL pools revenue because the LEAGUE is the draw, there is no one or two teams that draw that money. The NBA doesn't pool because INDIVIDUAL TEAMS are the draw and not just the league itself.

I don't see how that's relevant to the question of what revenue sharing model produces better competitive balance.

It's relevant because the NFL already has revenue sharing built into the product regardless of how good a team is. The VAST majority of revenue into the NFL comes from the NFL's national deals. The NBA is different as their national deals cannot subsidize teams so now the individual revenue that a team makes is important. And the LA Lakers cannot have a $200 million dollar television deal with a low cost roster. They need to remain good and good costs money (or time in the lottery, something the Lakers can't afford). The Lakers and Knicks are almost a necessarily evil for the teams that need revenue sharing (teams with massive amounts of individual revenue), just like the Yankees are in baseball.

The model you want to create is something like baseball, not football.

[BadMofoPimp]

Then, the model should be splitting up the league into a Big and Small Market league. So, the small markets can farm for the big markets.

[DanTown8587]

Then, the model should be splitting up the league into a Big and Small Market league. So, the small markets can farm for the big markets.

The small market owners realize that the large market teams help them run their business. They don't want this change that you keep saying is necessary.

[Don Draper]

The NFL pools revenue because the LEAGUE is the draw, there is no one or two teams that draw that money. The NBA doesn't pool because INDIVIDUAL TEAMS are the draw and not just the league itself.

I don't see how that's relevant to the question of what revenue sharing model produces better competitive balance.

Revenue sharing models aren't good indicators of competitive balance either. English football (soccer) pools TV revenue as well and it doesn't have a salary cap.

[BadMofoPimp]

NFL is a sharing model and it is an excellent indicator where every team makes money and has a fair chance of fielding a competitive team. Why is that a bad thing?

Why should one team have an advantage over other teams?

[Agenda42]

That's actually not how it's going to happen. What will happen is teams without star players will overpay for second and even third tier stars will legit superstars will get cheaper role players and be fine. I mean, you're making it EASIER for LeBron to fill out a squad around him if you're saying that role players basically make very little wherever they go. Now those players will play in New York for four million over Milwaukee for six.

You said "that's not how it's going to happen", then described exactly what I think would happen. Instead of superteams being built, teams without stars would bid enough for the second tier guys that the one-star team would be the dominant model. Role players (to be clear, guys like Nic Batum, Serge Ibaka, and Joakim Noah) who currently make $10M a season would make much less than that wherever they choose to play.

The result isn't a perfectly balanced league, but it is a big improvement over the current structure from a competitive balance standpoint.

It's relevant because the NFL already has revenue sharing built into the product regardless of how good a team is. The VAST majority of revenue into the NFL comes from the NFL's national deals. The NBA is different as their national deals cannot subsidize teams so now the individual revenue that a team makes is important. And the LA Lakers cannot have a $200 million dollar television deal with a low cost roster. They need to remain good and good costs money (or time in the lottery, something the Lakers can't afford). The Lakers and Knicks are almost a necessarily evil for the teams that need revenue sharing (teams with massive amounts of individual revenue), just like the Yankees are in baseball.

I'm not sold on the argument that the Lakers have to be good for the league to be successful. The 90s were the best era for revenue growth in the league, and the Lakers weren't contenders for most of that time period.

Obviously, if you change competitive balance in the NBA, the Lakers aren't as dominant and that likely means the TV deal isn't as good. However, other TV deals get better. When the NFL made the decision to switch from a league where the Cowboys and 49ers were dominant spenders to a format with more financial parity, it set off a big increase in revenue growth that has continued on to this day.

The model you want to create is something like baseball, not football.

The MLB model is a significant improvement over the NBA model. I wouldn't have a problem with the NBA moving in that direction, even though I would prefer the NFL model.

[Agenda42]

The NFL pools revenue because the LEAGUE is the draw, there is no one or two teams that draw that money. The NBA doesn't pool because INDIVIDUAL TEAMS are the draw and not just the league itself.

I don't see how that's relevant to the question of what revenue sharing model produces better competitive balance.

Revenue sharing models aren't good indicators of competitive balance either. English football (soccer) pools TV revenue as well and it doesn't have a salary cap.

That's a fair point. I do think you can influence competitive balance with your choice of revenue sharing model, but it's not the dominant factor.

I complain about the NBA revenue sharing model because it sets perverse incentives. Either you choose to contend and lose money or you choose to go cheap and take the revenue sharing. In the NFL system, and mostly in the EPL system, fielding a poor roster is not only bad for your record, it's bad for your bottom line.

[LateRoundFlyer]

NFL is a sharing model and it is an excellent indicator where every team makes money and has a fair chance of fielding a competitive team. Why is that a bad thing?

I don't believe anyone said that isn't a noble goal. However, the claims of the NFL's "superior" parity have already been proven here and elsewhere to be greatly exaggerated, so relying on them as your sole example is not only fraudulent but uninspired. To add to that, your frequent aspersions that anyone against such a discredited model simply hates "fairness" or "parity" is a classic straw man. If you were to practice this kind of deception in your day-to-day life, to say nothing of your professional one, you would promptly find your position a very lonely and isolated one.

Why should one team have an advantage over other teams?

Oh, now you want to talk about advantages? Fine, let's touch bases again once we've abolished the lottery and ended ALL revenue sharing, shall we?

Sport is capitalist to the core. Rules only serve to make it more meritocratic, but that is not the same thing as "fair". What does winning a gold medal prove if you kick Usaine Bolt or Michael Phelps or Team USA out of competition? Assuming every contestant is upheld to the same code of conduct, it would no longer be an accurate reflection of the best athlete anymore, would it?

And what do the excluded get for their efforts? Isn't their disqualification a silent admission that they secretly are the best, even if the world doesn't want to acknowledge it? Can you imagine the IOC making the claim that based on past precedent alone, Team USA's victory is all but ensured, thus they aren't allowed to play, out of "fairness" to the other countries? Can you not see the furor that would cause?

What if the IOC relented and said "okay, you can play", but Team USA had to wear ankle weights to "even" things out? Now they get the chance to compete(!), you say, but no longer will their athleticism be more of an advantage than it is to the other team. All this even though as most already know, Team USA didn't need any physical handicaps to nearly cost them a loss or two. The reason? Whatever incumbent advantages you possess on paper does not guarantee they will translate fully on the court. Otherwise, why even play the games?

Look at the Heat. They were supposed to rule the league unchallenged for the next 8 years, remember? What happens? They lose on home court to the 90's all-star reunion Mavericks. Lakers '04 superteam loses to a starless Pistons. Starless Rockets beat back Ewing and Shaq to repeat as NBA champions. Talent is relative. And so are resources. I mean, haven't the last 15 or so Clipper and Knicks teams proven this yet?

No, if you're going to talk about advantages over other teams, we can trade shots all day, but you will lose. Neutralizing the differences between the haves and have-nots is a preposterous suggestion with even more preposterous logic to fill it in. Giving OKC, Minnesota, or Indiana a real shot at keeping together their young core and building their own superteam? Now you're onto something, but you can't do that with a hard cap.

[Bandwagon1]

Just mad cause Lakers got Dwight..

[DanTown8587]

That's actually not how it's going to happen. What will happen is teams without star players will overpay for second and even third tier stars will legit superstars will get cheaper role players and be fine. I mean, you're making it EASIER for LeBron to fill out a squad around him if you're saying that role players basically make very little wherever they go. Now those players will play in New York for four million over Milwaukee for six.

You said "that's not how it's going to happen", then described exactly what I think would happen. Instead of superteams being built, teams without stars would bid enough for the second tier guys that the one-star team would be the dominant model. Role players (to be clear, guys like Nic Batum, Serge Ibaka, and Joakim Noah) who currently make $10M a season would make much less than that wherever they choose to play.

The result isn't a perfectly balanced league, but it is a big improvement over the current structure from a competitive balance standpoint.

The 90s had awful competitive balance. The Bulls played in eight of ten conference finals, winning six titles, solely because they had a good piece around MJ. the league is so deep now that if you had James without Wade and the rest of the league was diluted, would a team beat the Heat?

[s3antana5757]

Getting rid of the max contract is a huge step. As other people have been saying, in a true free market, players are going to get what they are truly worth. There's nothing stopping 3 guys teaming up and taking less money. There's no stopping Chris Paul from taking a vet min. contract from the Heat or Lakers next year either, and a hard or soft cap won't change that fact. The fact that remains is LeBron and Bosh only took just a little bit less than what they could have been making. If all the sudden that restriction is taken away, you've got teams giving LeBron $25M offers instead of the $15M v. $17M that Miami had. It's alot harder to leave $10M a year which equates to $60M or so over the life of the contract on the table then $2M per year. There's nothing to say that the results would not have been the same, but it would have much more difficult.

Playing under a hard cap system though, Miami would have had to will the rest of their roster out with what money they had left under the cap. If your cap is $70-$75M, and the Big 3 got closer to $18-20M a piece, or what they would have been worth under a free system, now you have between $10-20M to fill out the rest of your roster. If you only take the top 12 guys salary, you now have to get 9 guys under contract where they will only average $1-1.5M per person. Much more difficult to build a team that way.

Take the NFL for example and arguably the best FA available in Mario Williams(ignoring Peyton because his situation was unique). I'm sure at the beginning on the off-season, he was not thinking about going to Buffalo. No offense to Buffalo, but that doesn't scream desirable location. Lots of snow, cold, and like 6 hours from NYC. But, Buffalo ponied up an 8 figure contract, and what do you know? he's a Buffalo Bill.

[Agenda42]

The 90s had awful competitive balance. The Bulls played in eight of ten conference finals, winning six titles, solely because they had a good piece around MJ. the league is so deep now that if you had James without Wade and the rest of the league was diluted, would a team beat the Heat?

What a difference a year makes. This time last year, we were all talking about how LeBron couldn't play under pressure. Now, LeBron is so scary that a Heat team of James and role players would terrorize the league. I think both sides of this are overreactions.

Back in the 90s, Jordan's Bulls dominated the decade, but I think that was more about Jordan than the league structure. If you look out West, there was a lot of competitive interest, with many teams thinking they had contenders each year. It wasn't just the big market teams, either -- teams like Seattle, Portland, Utah, and Phoenix were all contenders.

[DanTown8587]

The 90s had awful competitive balance. The Bulls played in eight of ten conference finals, winning six titles, solely because they had a good piece around MJ. the league is so deep now that if you had James without Wade and the rest of the league was diluted, would a team beat the Heat?

What a difference a year makes. This time last year, we were all talking about how LeBron couldn't play under pressure. Now, LeBron is so scary that a Heat team of James and role players would terrorize the league. I think both sides of this are overreactions.

Back in the 90s, Jordan's Bulls dominated the decade, but I think that was more about Jordan than the league structure. If you look out West, there was a lot of competitive interest, with many teams thinking they had contenders each year. It wasn't just the big market teams, either -- teams like Seattle, Portland, Utah, and Phoenix were all contenders.

They were all contenders, but those teams that played in the Finals (sans Utah) were actually really good teams and teams that you would call super teams today. The Suns had Barkley (the MVP) and an All-Star in Johnson. The Sonics had Payton and Kemp, two guys All-NBA second team. The Jazz probably wasn't even the best team in those years, if the Rockets had ANYONE else at the PG spot they likely win those series.

[EddieJonesFan]

Giving OKC, Minnesota, or Indiana a real shot at keeping together their young core and building their own superteam? Now you're onto something, but you can't do that with a hard cap.

Exactly.

[Agenda42]

They were all contenders, but those teams that played in the Finals (sans Utah) were actually really good teams and teams that you would call super teams today. The Suns had Barkley (the MVP) and an All-Star in Johnson. The Sonics had Payton and Kemp, two guys All-NBA second team. The Jazz probably wasn't even the best team in those years, if the Rockets had ANYONE else at the PG spot they likely win those series.

I wouldn't call any of those teams a superteam, myself. They were built with the superstar, sidekick, role player structure that was the historical norm for NBA contenders. Maybe you could say the Hakeem-Drexler Rockets were a superteam, but to me superteams are defined by having at least 3 perennial all-stars on the roster, all playing at a high level.

In my view, past examples of superteams would include the Showtime Lakers, Bird-Parish-McHale Celtics, and the 60s Celtics.

[Sark]

NHL just got a hard cap, and they are headed for more labor trouble. Meanwhile MLB has no cap, and has had labor peace since 1994.

[DanTown8587]

They were all contenders, but those teams that played in the Finals (sans Utah) were actually really good teams and teams that you would call super teams today. The Suns had Barkley (the MVP) and an All-Star in Johnson. The Sonics had Payton and Kemp, two guys All-NBA second team. The Jazz probably wasn't even the best team in those years, if the Rockets had ANYONE else at the PG spot they likely win those series.

I wouldn't call any of those teams a superteam, myself. They were built with the superstar, sidekick, role player structure that was the historical norm for NBA contenders. Maybe you could say the Hakeem-Drexler Rockets were a superteam, but to me superteams are defined by having at least 3 perennial all-stars on the roster, all playing at a high level.

In my view, past examples of superteams would include the Showtime Lakers, Bird-Parish-McHale Celtics, and the 60s Celtics.

The 93 Suns were as good as the Thunder are today. My point is that the NBA has ALWAYS been "gather all ye all stars" and try to win that way. This isn't some new development.