I am actually very split on this issue. I am familliar with both the macroeconomic and geopolitical realities that more or less guarantee a further downturn in the economy. For the sake of this post I will say that things will deteriorate for awhile longer before picking up steam. More or less the current state of the economy will continue with a slight downward trajectory (usually you are either accelerating through growth or accelerating through contraction but economics isn't the point here). So assuming the above scenario (a static more or less economy with 10% unemployment etc.) do you forsee a league contraction? On the one hand a league contraction would be a wonderful thing in that it would concentrate talent on fewer teams. On the other hand being a small market team we possibly could end up contracted to bring more talent to the big market teams. Realistically, IF there is a contraction I think Portland would be OK if it isn't too massive of one. I know Stern is dead set against it but $$$$$$$$$$$$ are what rules Stern's universe and if it becomes an economic necessity I think he will contract rather then take massive losses for multiple years. So folks do you think all things staying equal that there will be a contraction of the league?
At some point the economy will start going in an upward path. It will be after all of the illegal immigrants and welfare people are taken care of, but it will happen. The NBA will be restructured most likely. I think Stern will get his hard cap, and other items he has been looking for
The NHL's a league much more likely to face contraction. In fact, I think it's almost a certainty down the line.
I doubt it. There's a lot of bloat that could be cut in the NBA. Every year, about 1/3 to 1/4 of all NBA player contracts are signed or renewed, right? It's not that hard to scale some of those down. In addition, poorer teams can cut roster sizes down from 15 to 12, and use journeymen/second rounders to fill out the half of the rotation that doesn't play much. I could see some franchises picking up stakes and moving to greener pastures like OKC did. But I don't see any of them being eliminated. One other variable which could be interesting, though, is the meteoric rise of MMA. There are only so many entertainment dollars to go around, and it's starting to suck up a lot of them.
Right because we're bailing them out to the tune of trillions...oh no wait that's the banks. Immigrants and welfare folks are a tiny TINY drop in the bucket compared to the unimaginable amount we have spent on the bail out of banks who have rewarded us by...drum roll please...not lending money or lending it at a higher rate. But I guess if those damn immigrants and welfare folks had just not created complex financial instruments and credit default swaps we wouldn't be in a recession...oh damn there I go again that was the Banks not poor people. Hmm, well I guess if they hadn't been making themselves look like government agencies to sell mortgages to people who couldn't afford them and didn't understand what an Adjustable Rate Mortgatge was...no damn that's the banks again. Wait I know if the poor people and immigrants hadn't gotten rid of usury laws then we might be a nation of savers instead of debtors. Damn that was the banks AGAIN. You know I'm starting to think maybe the banks are the problem not immigrants and welfare folks.
Oh so UFC and all this other Gladiator stuff out there? Gotchya. Yeah I remember in the 1980's when that stuff had to be in foreign countries or underground because it was illegal and even the videos of it seemed kind of illegalish.
Yup, UFC. In the '80s, it had a bit of an underground vibe, in the '90s, it was a cult favourite sort of thing...these days it's becoming huge.
I'm just waiting for the animal versus human fights, or even some indentured servant battles to the death. History does repeat itself.
Hehe. Well, it's not my cup of tea, but seems somewhat comparable to boxing, but more varied. Conceptually, anyway. I've heard from people who watch that you mostly see people fight in similar ways.
I've watched more than a few fights on Showtime. Seems pretty brutal, which isn't necessarily good or bad in my opinion. I will say there doesn't seem to be much individualistic expression of art involved, which I can see at times in a great boxer or a great basketball player. MMA seems to be a game of "don't let yourself get in that hold", which is great for brutality but does little visually for me.
Lol. I happened to make a short post on Facebook about the UFC fight the other night and was quite stunned when 5 friends of mine commented on the fight--guys I didn't even know watched the sport. A year ago I don't think any of them did (I know I didn't.)
I don't know about that. There are some guys who do very little wrestling and mostly kick box, and there are other guys who mostly wrestle, and there are still other guys who mostly box. The best seem to do well at all three. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu experts seem to excel the most. Is it artistic? I suppose not in the same graceful way Jordan could sky for a dunk. But I'd say it can be artistic in the same way Tim Duncan can execute a perfect head fake-turnaround bank shot off the glass. You see some of these displays of agility and precision and you wonder how they pull it off. MMA is "all about not getting yourself in a hold" in the same way the NBA is "all about dunking." Yeah, it's a really big part of it. But nobody wins a fight by just not getting submitted. And I'd say the majority of fights end in a knockout or going to judges.
As I said, I'm not sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing. We live in black/white/good/bad/Dem/GOP times. Brock Lesnar is the Mike Tyson of MMA, and perhaps boxing needs another Mike Tyson instead of a Manny Pacquiao.
