Which players/teams/concepts have you changed your mind on in the past 5 years?

[ceiling raiser]

One other general note, I have probably become less sympathetic toward the players union and more pro-organization (not necessarily pro-ownership, though).

[Odinn21]

Sidebar - I also have more issues with RAPM than I used to, if I'm being honest. Terrific idea in theory, but I'm very skeptical about the single-year sample size given multicollinearity. Issue is that player roles change after more than one year, so multi-year introduces more headaches. I think the offense-defense separation is also dicey (one of the biggest examples of this is how steals contribute more positively to ORAPM than to DRAPM iirc). We also don't really have analytical error margins. It was never meant to be used as a straight ranking metric obviously, but at this point I think it makes the most sense to use it as a rough indicator of whether a guy is generally impactful over a multi-year sample and passes the smell test or is just a box score stacker.

I think RAPM does its job properly. The issue is mostly on people using it without describing the metric's job.
The way I see it RAPM says "XXX player is this impactful when his role and on court production are like this". It's on us to be aware of roles and productivity. Not RAPM's.

One of the important things about RAPM is that it's built on a linear-regression model (least squares adjustment). The issue with that method is, values get distorted as you move away from the starting value which is 0 in RAPM's case. The gaps between 2&3 and 3&4 are not created equal. Also if a player gets to +9 territory and the top 10 average's sitting around 5 or 6, it doesn't mean that the player(s) at the very top are that much more impactful. The important thing is looking at rankings and percentiles, not directly values.

[HeartBreakKid]

One other general note, I have probably become less sympathetic toward the players union and more pro-organization (not necessarily pro-ownership, though).

I think people like to make the disconnect because no one wants to acknowledge they are pro super rich white people (sorry Jordan you in this also ) - but if you are "pro org" how can you not be "pro owner"? They're not exactly non-profit orgs.

[Statlanta]

DeMarcus Cousins is an apt representation of the last 6 years of basketball.

Demise of the 2000/early 2010's big men
Injuries in the biggest playoff series.
Offensive focus of newly drafted American big men(Okafor, Monroe, KAT, Williamson, Randle, Wiseman, Ayton) compared to those of yesteryear.
Freedom of Free agent movement of star players.
Players that missed contract opportunities(Noel, Oladipo)
Effects of the supermax in the NBA.
Buyout market dominance of the big markets.
Rise of Refs in the NBA

[ceiling raiser]

One other general note, I have probably become less sympathetic toward the players union and more pro-organization (not necessarily pro-ownership, though).

I think people like to make the disconnect because no one wants to acknowledge they are pro super rich white people (sorry MJ you in this also ) - but if you are "pro org" how can you not be "pro owner"? They're not exactly non-profit orgs.

I don't want to go *too* far in that direction, but it is interesting. In general I am somebody who is very supportive of labor unions (with some exceptions) and generally support income and wealth redistribution away from the upper middle class and outright wealthy.

I am pro-organization in that I want to see teams functioning properly in terms of drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win. I don't really care a ton about profitability for ownership, but I guess those two are tied?

If I have a blind spot and am being hypocritical on this I am fine trying to address a potential cognitive bias btw.

[falcolombardi]

One other general note, I have probably become less sympathetic toward the players union and more pro-organization (not necessarily pro-ownership, though).

I think people like to make the disconnect because no one wants to acknowledge they are pro super rich white people (sorry MJ you in this also ) - but if you are "pro org" how can you not be "pro owner"? They're not exactly non-profit orgs.

I don't want to go *too* far in that direction, but it is interesting. In general I am somebody who is very supportive of labor unions (with some exceptions) and generally support income and wealth redistribution away from the upper middle class and outright wealthy.

I am pro-organization in that I want to see teams functioning properly in terms of drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win. I don't really care a ton about profitability for ownership, but I guess those two are tied?

If I have a blind spot and am being hypocritical on this I am fine trying to address a potential cognitive bias btw.

the disconnect happens because we as fans get emptionallt attached to brand names (aka franchises) so we take employees (employes with lots of leverage but still employees) leaving these private business as slight against us and our cities/communities on some level

if you think about it, the league basically strong arms the overall workforce (young player pool ) as a cartel, taking away their choice of where to work for 5-7 years and we still think this is not enough and too little for small markets


at the end of the day some cities are just more attractive to live on than others, this is a fact to accept, nba cannot brainwash players to make them like oklahoma or memphis as much as Miami

and the only way to balance this for parity is to stronghold players even more one way or the other, and limitimg either, their ability to choose or their ability to make money in teams that didnt draft them

at the end of the day what is better for players is in conflict with what is better for teams, which is why negociations happen every CBA

it just happens that here we side with the business side for self interest in our team success

[ceiling raiser]

I think people like to make the disconnect because no one wants to acknowledge they are pro super rich white people (sorry MJ you in this also ) - but if you are "pro org" how can you not be "pro owner"? They're not exactly non-profit orgs.

I don't want to go *too* far in that direction, but it is interesting. In general I am somebody who is very supportive of labor unions (with some exceptions) and generally support income and wealth redistribution away from the upper middle class and outright wealthy.

I am pro-organization in that I want to see teams functioning properly in terms of drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win. I don't really care a ton about profitability for ownership, but I guess those two are tied?

If I have a blind spot and am being hypocritical on this I am fine trying to address a potential cognitive bias btw.

the disconnect happens because we as fans get emptionallt attached to brand names (aka franchises) so we take employees (employes with lots of leverage but still employees) leaving these private business as slight against us and our cities/communities on some level

if you think about it, the league basically strong arms the overall workforce (young player pool ) as a cartel, taking away their choice of where to work for 5-7 years and we still think this is not enough and too little for small markets


at the end of the day some cities are just more attractive to live on than others, this is a fact to accept, nba cannot brainwash players to make them like oklahoma or memphis as much as Miami

and the only way to balance this for parity is to stronghold players even more one way or the other, and limitimg either, their ability to choose or their ability to make money in teams that didnt draft them

at the end of the day what is better for players is in conflict with what is better for teams, which is why negociations happen every CBA

it just happens that here we side with the business side for self interest in our team success

Quick note - I *used* to be pro-player though. I shifted my mentality in the last 4-5 years. So I used to be emotionally attached to players, not brand names, and grew out of it as I got older (34 now).

I think it's multi-millionaires vs billionaires, and neither is innocent. Both parties are willing participants in the exchange at the end of the day. Fans of teams I think might deserve sympathy, that's why I am more pro-organization (and actually would prefer to put more rules in place to protect small market franchises).

[HeartBreakKid]

I don't want to go *too* far in that direction, but it is interesting. In general I am somebody who is very supportive of labor unions (with some exceptions) and generally support income and wealth redistribution away from the upper middle class and outright wealthy.

I am pro-organization in that I want to see teams functioning properly in terms of drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win. I don't really care a ton about profitability for ownership, but I guess those two are tied?

If I have a blind spot and am being hypocritical on this I am fine trying to address a potential cognitive bias btw.

the disconnect happens because we as fans get emptionallt attached to brand names (aka franchises) so we take employees (employes with lots of leverage but still employees) leaving these private business as slight against us and our cities/communities on some level

if you think about it, the league basically strong arms the overall workforce (young player pool ) as a cartel, taking away their choice of where to work for 5-7 years and we still think this is not enough and too little for small markets


at the end of the day some cities are just more attractive to live on than others, this is a fact to accept, nba cannot brainwash players to make them like oklahoma or memphis as much as Miami

and the only way to balance this for parity is to stronghold players even more one way or the other, and limitimg either, their ability to choose or their ability to make money in teams that didnt draft them

at the end of the day what is better for players is in conflict with what is better for teams, which is why negociations happen every CBA

it just happens that here we side with the business side for self interest in our team success

Quick note - I *used* to be pro-player though. I shifted my mentality in the last 4-5 years. So I used to be emotionally attached to players, not brand names, and grew out of it as I got older (34 now).

I think it's multi-millionaires vs billionaires, and neither is innocent. Both parties are willing participants in the exchange at the end of the day. Fans of teams I think might deserve sympathy, that's why I am more pro-organization (and actually would prefer to put more rules in place to protect small market franchises).

The fan argument never made much sense to me because it's not like the fans disappear. If a player switches franchises then merely different fans benefit from him, not no fans.

Saying that a player leaves the Hawks to join the Mavericks infers that no fans benefited when they were merely reallocated.

And if anything, a person going to a bigger market would bring more happiness to more fans.

The idea that fans own the player because of the draft system seems very off to me. (in practice this is basically what the we're saying unless I'm overlooking something)

[eminence]

Getting a bit far afield for the PC board, lol. But anywho, I certainly struggle to see NBA athletes as labor as well. Labor to me is folks who have to labor to get by, and that is not the case for most guys in the NBA (certainly not the stars).

[ceiling raiser]

The fan argument never made much sense to me because it's not like the fans disappear. If a player switches franchises then merely different fans benefit from him, not no fans.

Saying that a player leaves the Hawks to join the Mavericks infers that no fans benefited when they were merely reallocated.

And if anything, a person going to a bigger market would bring more happiness to more fans.

The idea that fans own the player because of the draft system seems very off to me. (in practice this is basically what the we're saying unless I'm overlooking something)

One point of clarification - I mentioned fans not in the context of players deciding in free agency (or via trade) to stay or leave, but in the context of how well (or how poorly) a franchise is run in terms of the factors I mentioned above (drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win).

Two other notes:

(1) In terms of rookie contracts, I think that is a bit tricky. I think the youngest players, particularly non-stars, can be vulnerable in this. Many (but not) players sign their first and last contracts when they enter the league.

(2) Regarding the reallocation of fans, sure, but it generally only progresses in certain directions. I am fine with redistribution of resources and talent in order to allow players from smaller-market franchises to maintain fanbases.

[TurinTurambar]

I think it's multi-millionaires vs billionaires, and neither is innocent. Both parties are willing participants in the exchange at the end of the day. Fans of teams I think might deserve sympathy, that's why I am more pro-organization (and actually would prefer to put more rules in place to protect small market franchises).

It's still unclear to me why you've shifted to a more pro-owner/organization (functionally, I've yet to see anything compelling me to make a distinction here), and anti-player, beyond platitudes about "multi-millionaires Vs. billionaires" and neither side being "innocent."

Innocent of what, exactly?

I just won't ever think "They make too much money to do a job I don't think is very hard (from my very poor vantage point to judge such things)" is a very valid case for not being in support of labor on its own.

I'm also growing more concerned about the proliferation of the sentiment about implementing rules or systems to "protect small markets." I'm also becoming more and more convinced that most fans (not necessarily you) are now using the term "small market" as a shorthand for, "Any team that isn't in New York or Los Angeles."

[ceiling raiser]

I think it's multi-millionaires vs billionaires, and neither is innocent. Both parties are willing participants in the exchange at the end of the day. Fans of teams I think might deserve sympathy, that's why I am more pro-organization (and actually would prefer to put more rules in place to protect small market franchises).

It's still unclear to me why you've shifted to a more pro-owner/organization (functionally, I've yet to see anything compelling me to make a distinction here), and anti-player, beyond platitudes about "multi-millionaires Vs. billionaires" and neither side being "innocent."

Innocent of what, exactly?

I just won't ever think "They make too much money to do a job I don't think is very hard (from my very poor vantage point to judge such things)" is a very valid case for not being in support of labor on its own.

I'm also growing more concerned about the proliferation of the sentiment about implementing rules or systems to "protect small markets." I'm also becoming more and more convinced that most fans (not necessarily you) are now using the term "small market" as a shorthand for, "Any team that isn't in New York or Los Angeles."

Innocent of agency in decision-making, and to reiterate I am fundamentally anti-wealth (I also support other regulations, wealth taxes, maximum wages, etc.)

Small market to me here is just a proxy for teams that lose markedly more talent in free agency (or via having trades forced) than they gain. You can replace it with "teams in unattractive metros" (for the record I'm in New York). Some of this is bad ownership, certainly. I think the role of rules and regulations (and in other spheres of life, of government) is to correct problems caused by free market forces.

[TurinTurambar]

Innocent of agency in decision-making, and to reiterate I am fundamentally anti-wealth (I also support other regulations, wealth taxes, maximum wages, etc.)

Ah. I consider myself pretty anti-wealth, generally speaking, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was important as an individual with a conscience to recognize that all wealth isn't really created equally and that relatively young black American men getting to get rich in a country that's pretty explicitly designed to see them fail in just about every avenue of life is probably not a battle I want to fight if my concern is stuff like wealth inequality, which still predominantly negatively affects other people who look like them.

Like, I would just call that long, long overdue wealth redistribution. That's just me.

Small market to me here is just a proxy for teams that lose markedly more talent in free agency (or via having trades forced) than they gain. You can replace it with "teams in unattractive metros" (for the record I'm in New York). Some of this is bad ownership, certainly. I think the role of rules and regulations (and in other spheres of life, of government) is to correct problems caused by free market forces.

So this is the second time I've seen an otherwise intelligent and (I hope at least) well meaning poster try to draw a comparison between implementing regulations in the NBA explicitly to advantage "unattractive metros" and a government implementing regulations to help correct free market forces or inherent geographical advantages and the such.

I think this comparison is as faulty as it is distasteful for a number of reasons, not the least of which being simply: NBA fans are not entitled to good basketball in the same way people are entitled to living in a place that has stuff like affordable healthcare, sound education, solid infrastructure, access to recourses like clean water and food etc., and other needs civilized societies have deemed necessities.

Being in an attractive metro is of little value to a crappy franchise. Being in LA didn't help the Clippers for decades. Being owned by a guy willing to throw money at basically everything has helped that franchise. Being in New York hasn't helped the Knicks in decades. Hiring competent front office executives and not meddling with them helped that franchise. Brooklyn wasn't helping the Nets when they were owned by Prokhorov.

And nobody is crying for Lakers fans, or Clippers fans, or Knicks or Nets fans when those teams are winning 30 games a year, being laughed at for their draft lottery choices, and free agents are very publicly eschewing them.

So it's funny to me whenever fans want to start talking about something like agency when in comes to a player's individual decision-making ability and within all of this context.

Fans of all 30 teams would enjoy the services of a guy like LeBron James and the success that comes with it. What, then, makes any of them any more deserving of him and that success?

Fans are all over the place. We're even in places like Louisville, or San Diego, or Baltimore, or Seattle, where there's no local NBA basketball to enjoy. Guys like LeBron or Durant or whomever have us literally everywhere.

At what point does LeBron get to make a decision based on his own wants and/or needs?

Every fan also gets to enjoy their own agency in their decision-making, inasmuch as they very much do get to choose who they root for. If the team in your hometown has stunk forever and is owned by some awful cheapskate who consistently hires poorly qualified executives and won't change the racist name and logo and basically hasn't and isn't giving you any reason to be a fan of them, you don't have to be, any more than a prized player has to sign or stay with a team like that.

I really don't know why this is seen as such a taboo in the NBA when it's so readily accepted in other sports, particularly NFL football, which is ironically the league the most vocal proponents of stuff like this want to model the NBA after.

[ceiling raiser]

[Ah. I consider myself pretty anti-wealth, generally speaking, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was important as a conscious individual with a conscience to recognize that all wealth isn't really created equally and that relatively young black American men getting to get rich in a country that's pretty explicitly designed to see them fail in just about every avenue of life is probably not a battle I want to fight if my concern is stuff like wealth inequality, which still predominantly negatively affects other people who look like them.

Like, I would just call that long, long overdue wealth redistribution. That's just me.

One thing I will note is my thinking is the second we are talking about people being rich, fundamentally to me that is a problem. There are richer people and people who have maintained wealth and its benefits for longer who are more of a problem, I agree.

So this is the second time I've seen an otherwise intelligent and (I hope at least) well meaning poster try to draw a comparison between implementing regulations in the NBA explicitly to advantage "unattractive metros" and a government implementing regulations to help correct free market forces or inherent geographical advantages and the such.

I think this comparison is as faulty as it is distasteful for a number of reasons, not the least of which being simply: NBA fans are not entitled to good basketball in the same way people are entitled to living in a place that has stuff like affordable healthcare, sound education, solid infrastructure, access to recourses like clean water and food etc., and other needs civilized societies have deemed necessities.

At the same time, I don't think NBA owners are entitled to rent-seeking profit generation. I don't think NBA players are entitled to being paid millions of dollars playing in this league. I don't think NBA agents or sportscasters are entitled to make livings off of the league and revenue generated by fans.

Being in an attractive metro is of little value to a crappy franchise. Being in LA didn't help the Clippers for decades. Being owned by a guy willing to throw money at basically everything has helped that franchise. Being in New York hasn't helped the Knicks in decades. Hiring competent front office executives and not meddling with them helped that franchise. Brooklyn wasn't helping the Nets when they were owned by Prokhorov.

And nobody is crying for Lakers fans, or Clippers fans, or Knicks or Nets fans when those teams are winning 30 games a year, being laughed at for their draft lottery choices, and free agents are very publicly eschewing them.

In my previous posts in this thread, I noted I am pro-organization in that I want organizations to be functional and successful. Owners will make money regardless of record. But if organizations, meaning front offices, scouting teams and coaching staffs are not successful, then organizations fail, and fans fail.

Also as an aside, I have lived in NY and CA all my life, so people crying for Lakers/Clippers/Knicks/Nets fans on sports radio is something I have heard all my life.

So it's funny to me whenever fans want to start talking about something like agency when in comes to a player's individual decision-making ability and within all of this context.

Fans of all 30 teams would enjoy the services of a guy like LeBron James and the success that comes with it. What, then, makes any of them any more deserving of him and that success?

I don't know if LeBron is the best example right now given he is at the end of his career and is far-removed from his prime. Owners would surely benefit in terms of revenue on jersey and ticket sales. But again, I think fans are the ones paying owners and players in terms of ticket sales, merch sales, and being the biggest consumers of NBA advertising partners.

Fans are all over the place. We're even in places like Louisville, or San Diego, or Baltimore, or Seattle, where there's no local NBA basketball to enjoy. Guys like LeBron or Durant or whomever have us literally everywhere.

It's not quite the same. Being a fan of a team that isn't local is a much different experience. Not everybody will agree, but I think going to games is definitely part of the fan experience, and unless someone has the requisite wealth or income it's prohibitively expensive to see games played in other cities.

At what point does LeBron get to make a decision based on his own wants and/or needs?

LeBron, a billionaire, can play wherever he wants. Or not play, wherever he wants. But perhaps there should be changes made to the cap space (maybe removing the maximum salary, or adding hard caps) in order to discourage player movement to certain cities.

Every fan also gets to enjoy their own agency in their decision-making, inasmuch as they very much do get to choose who they root for. If the team in your hometown has stunk forever and is owned by some awful cheapskate who consistently hires poorly qualified executives and won't change the racist name and logo and basically hasn't and isn't giving you any reason to be a fan of them, you don't have to be, any more than a prized player has to sign or stay with a team like that.

I really don't know why this is seen as such a taboo in the NBA when it's so readily accepted in other sports, particularly NFL football, which is ironically the league the most vocal proponents of stuff like this want to model the NBA after.

Again, being a fan of a non-local team isn't the same experience to everyone. And like I said above, poor owners hurt organizations a ton and there should probably be measures to remove them from ownership.

Ironically enough, the NFL is probably the one league where I am a fan of a team (Jets). Every other league I just generally root for well-run teams to win at this point (or root against certain teams).

(This is probably bordering on barred discussion so I will avoid taking this topic further. My next reply will be more on-topic.)

[Blazers-1977]

Innocent of agency in decision-making, and to reiterate I am fundamentally anti-wealth (I also support other regulations, wealth taxes, maximum wages, etc.)

Ah. I consider myself pretty anti-wealth, generally speaking, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was important as an individual with a conscience to recognize that all wealth isn't really created equally and that relatively young black American men getting to get rich in a country that's pretty explicitly designed to see them fail in just about every avenue of life is probably not a battle I want to fight if my concern is stuff like wealth inequality, which still predominantly negatively affects other people who look like them.

Like, I would just call that long, long overdue wealth redistribution. That's just me.

Small market to me here is just a proxy for teams that lose markedly more talent in free agency (or via having trades forced) than they gain. You can replace it with "teams in unattractive metros" (for the record I'm in New York). Some of this is bad ownership, certainly. I think the role of rules and regulations (and in other spheres of life, of government) is to correct problems caused by free market forces.

.

Every fan also gets to enjoy their own agency in their decision-making, inasmuch as they very much do get to choose who they root for. If the team in your hometown has stunk forever and is owned by some awful cheapskate who consistently hires poorly qualified executives and won't change the racist name and logo and basically hasn't and isn't giving you any reason to be a fan of them, you don't have to be, any more than a prized player has to sign or stay with a team like that.

I really don't know why this is seen as such a taboo in the NBA when it's so readily accepted in other sports, particularly NFL football, which is ironically the league the most vocal proponents of stuff like this want to model the NBA after.

Just cause Big Market teams aren’t guaranteed to be good , it doenst mean they have an inherent advantage . As a lifelong Blazers fan , I can tell you we have gotten almost no coverage from the media while sucky big market teams like the Knicks/Nets and the Lakers from 2014-2018 got non stop coverage and that type of coverage does help in free agency . Players want to be covered by the media as it helps for endorsement reasons plus legacy reasons as well and an example of this is look how much more a player like Patrick Ewing is known to the causal NBA fan than Bill Walton .

Second , players in general like living in big metro areas such as NYC , Boston , LA , Miami(and in other sports places like Philli and Chicago as well) so that inherently gives them an edge when it comes to free agency over a city like Portland that always gets overlooked .

[bondom34]

I think its interesting (and not really a PC board topic) but what Blazers said above is accurate. Larger markets (well, more specifically LA than others) traditionally aren't guaranteed to be good teams. But they can overcome poor management to still be good teams. This is the crux of what is being said, and seems the least controversial thing ever and is being taken as some "pro billionaire" stance:

I am pro-organization in that I want to see teams functioning properly in terms of drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win. I don't really care a ton about profitability for ownership, but I guess those two are tied?

A small market requires great management, a larger market doesn't necessarily. And in the end, if incompetence is rewarded at a high level it's just frustrating. The Lakers made multiple large errors over half a decade, showed no great signs of being well run and Lebron went there because they're the Lakers. You don't get that if you're the Grizzlies or Blazers or Pacers.

The NBA is a league that is based on being entertaining for fans and for fans everywhere, not just the biggest cities (heck TV money comes from that too). If we're not in it for the fans, what's the point (and I don't mean this in a self important way, but that's actually the point)?

People are cheering for teams, and teams being run well that are still at a huge disadvantage is at minimum frustrating to say the least. Wanting a team that is well run team to be rewarded seems pretty logical over wanting a team with a large market that's run worse to be rewarded.

Edit: And saying this as someone who's been more pro-worker in the past, this isn't some "keeping the workers down" thing, its just wanting fairness in competition. It is interesting the NFL and other sports don't have the same issues in this regard.

[falcolombardi]

i say this as a fan of oklahoma, thunder is never gonna be on equal footing to lakers cause people like California way more, is a undeniable fact that is out of the league or anyone else hands

only ways to correct these inherente advantages would be

1- make free agency nearly non existant like we are in the 60's, somethingh player Association rightfully will fight against

imagine being forced to be stuck with a franchise they didnt choose for 10-12 years (all their prime) what if it is a franchise like kings or minnesota tjat cannot make a half decent team in all that time?, career literally wasted

and without the option of free agency players would be a lot more likely to try to force trades by refusikg to train or other harden antics and be kind of justified in doing so

2- give priviledges to small franchise/ put hándicaps on big franchises

this would be literally doing stuff like making lakers not allowed to go over the cao while other teams can, or make their salary cap lower

try getting big teams ownerships and fans to accept this? or the image of the league for making some teams literally be handicapped like that? it would cause way more problems that it Solves, specially defining what teams it should or not apply to

3- the only one i think doesnt cause more issues than it Solves: allow teams that have bird/draft rights to a player páy even more than the current max when resigning a player to a new contract
let small market teams compete at least for their own drafted players, with money. players who prioritize winning over money can still leave but it would make it easier on teams to retain stars

the issue? literally wealth distribución

allowing a franchise player to be played even more of the cap would help with parity in many ways BUT would reduce wealth distribution so the players Association would be juatifiably against it

my solution ? make it come from outside the cap, let there be a regular superman of like 45 millones, amd another mega Max of 55-60 or so millons that only the team that drafted can give

the catch? the difference comes from luxury tan, by playing those extra 15~ millon the team that does so has to play another every year in luxury taxes that are added to teams cap space (and raise the cap floor)

this wouldnt count in the 50/50 of league/players so it would be all extra money of owner pockets going to players
so if a small market is serious about competing, the owner can pay some bit of extra money that doesnt cripple their cap space and is exempt from exponencial increases like other luxury tax

[falcolombardi]

I am pro-organization in that I want to see teams functioning properly in terms of drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win. I don't really care a ton about profitability for ownership, but I guess those two are tied?

nfl has much higher player turn out from injuries, higher risk of crippling injuries, more players so less money for each one, and only tje quarterbacks justify nba star money in inpact in the game

nfl players just have very little leverage so they take whatever the biggest contract is without worrying about location or team quality, they need to make as much money as they can quick, even pro bowl level players

nba rewards big cities/punishes small ones yeah, but nfl rewards bad management too, because players will be less picky to pick a good managed team and take the money even if the franchise is bad

is another kind of mediocrity being rewarded compared to location

nfl players just have less options amd worse contracts, and teams more power to use. so basically the inverse problem to nba

[Doctor MJ]

One other general note, I have probably become less sympathetic toward the players union and more pro-organization (not necessarily pro-ownership, though).

I think people like to make the disconnect because no one wants to acknowledge they are pro super rich white people (sorry MJ you in this also ) - but if you are "pro org" how can you not be "pro owner"? They're not exactly non-profit orgs.

I don't want to go *too* far in that direction, but it is interesting. In general I am somebody who is very supportive of labor unions (with some exceptions) and generally support income and wealth redistribution away from the upper middle class and outright wealthy.

I am pro-organization in that I want to see teams functioning properly in terms of drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win. I don't really care a ton about profitability for ownership, but I guess those two are tied?

If I have a blind spot and am being hypocritical on this I am fine trying to address a potential cognitive bias btw.

I think I understand you on this, and it ties into labor-management-organization stuff in general.

If force to identify, I'd certainly identify as pro-union - to do otherwise would by hypocritical since I'm currently in a teacher's union, the existence and strength of teachers' unions in my state are fundamental part of why I left industry, and previously I'd been an active part of a union in grad school.

However, as with anything in complex societal systems, there are pros and cons generally, and then beyond that there are specific types of bad decisions that unions can make that end up hurting those they represent in the long run by damaging the organization they're in.

What I'm for is optimizing systems to both a) make the organization run effectively and efficiently and b) take care of the people who make that organization run well. These are two separate priorities and if you abandon one of them, misery cometh.

Last note, to my mind the dark truth about the existence of unions in general is this:

A strong union exists within a given organization because management in that organization prioritized (a) to the point that they squeezed (b) to the point that they stoked unification.

If this seems naive in the pro-labor direction, I'd suggest folks think about how hard it is to get working class folks to risk their livelihood for a cause. If people are comfortable, they generally don't rock the boat.

Coming back to the NBA then there's a question that might be on folks minds:

Shouldn't the NBA players be comfortable at this point?

Of course, this is where the NBA players union is so, so different from a working class union. They - particularly the superstars - are ceasing to see themselves as employees working for an organization, and are starting to see themselves as the people who should be in control.

And in their defense, this is what people do with power in general. When they realize they have more leverage than they previously thought, they tend to look to apply that leverage.

Where I get frustrated, and I'd imagine you do similarly, is that you just think they are pushing for things myopically, as you likely expect from someone who doesn't see the value of all the infrastructure that's in place to make the Association what it is.

And again in their defense, I see this blindness to infrastructure everywhere in society today, and as damaging as I think it is, I can't muster a specific outrage toward athletes. Rather, I display equanimity grinding my teeth in consternation all across society.

[Doctor MJ]

I am pro-organization in that I want to see teams functioning properly in terms of drafting, talent pipeline, cap/asset management, and putting themselves in a position to win. I don't really care a ton about profitability for ownership, but I guess those two are tied?

nfl has much higher player turn out from injuries, higher risk of crippling injuries, more players so less money for each one, and only tje quarterbacks justify nba star money in inpact in the game

nfl players just have very little leverage so they take whatever the biggest contract is without worrying about location or team quality, they need to make as much money as they can quick, even pro bowl level players

nba rewards big cities/punishes small ones yeah, but nfl rewards bad management too, because players will be less picky to pick a good managed team and take the money even if the franchise is bad

is another kind of mediocrity being rewarded compared to location

nfl players just have less options amd worse contracts, and teams more power to use. so basically the inverse problem to nba

The NFL union is indeed a good counter-example because it really hasn't negotiated wisely in my opinion.

The whole thing where NFL players don't get guaranteed contracts is pretty disgusting when you realize that's there specifically because the game is a bloodsport, and ownership is fighting so hard against guaranteed contract specifically because they are expecting players to regularly have their body broken, and they want to be able to kick those players to the curb whenever this happens.

The NFL union seems to be more focused on how much in total the players are getting in salary, rather than making sure that its players can have piece of mind to be taken care of if the worst happens.

As I say this, I think there's no doubt that a big part of the problem is that teams are much bigger with far higher natural turnover. In such a situation the importance of labor leaders galvanizing the group is considerably more important, but the players with greatest potential to be galvanizing labor leaders of a football team are typically star players on far more lucrative contracts.