I said owners barely which I interpret as small market owners and that's only because I root for a small market team and that's only because I was born in this one horse town and it just so happens that the one horse is an NBA team. If the NBA contracted and Portland was one of the teams that got contracted and as a result a hockey or baseball team moved here I'd probably follow them just as much as I follow the Blazers. But I digress... What is the sort of thing that would benefit small market owners? Just spitballin here... 1. Profit sharing 2. A hard cap 3. non-guaranteed contracts 4. A Franchise Tag 5. Restricted free agency What am I missing?
A year ago I would have totally agreed with you. But then this group has totally turned the public debate toward the owners. A year ago things were vastly different. That was before Lebron left the cavs high and dry, Bosh did the same to Toronto, Melo finagled his way to New York and even a guy like Deron Williams was able to get himself over to New Jersey. That's four cities that have lost faith in the NBA and every city of similar size has got to be seriously questioning whether the NBA gives a crap about them.
How (And Why) An NBA Team Makes A $7 Million Profit Look Like A $28 Million Loss I'm more on the players side morally but agree with many of you that the league would be "better" if the small market owners came out on top.
You could take the next-best 300 players in the country and still have a very, very entertaining league. Put the current NBA players on the "Seattle Evergreens" and "San Diego Admirals" and ... it's lame. Ed O.
Too bad the NBA stars have already been branded and ingrained into the minds of the country. The next 300 players would make a fine league and fine basketball games but the big time viewership is won and lost on casual fans who just want to see the guys on Nike ads dominating. LeBron on the Seattle Evergreens will get more viewers and interest than the Trailblazers with 15 undrafted players. You could easily find another 30 rich white people to invest in a new league provided the big stars agreed to be in the league. These owners would get a raw deal compared to the current NBA owners but I still doubt there would be any lack of investors for that.
Maybe. I think that the guys on Nike ads are relevant because they're on NBA teams... not because they are really good at basketball. I'm not so sure about that. Even assuming it's true, though, I'd rather watch 15 undrafted Trail Blazers than Chris Bosh and the San Diego Admirals... I don't think many would touch that kind of league unless there was heavy corporate (advertiser) backing... and in these economic times, in particular, I'm not sure many corporations would be eager to cross the NBA. It's interesting to think about, for sure. Ed O.
I'm on whoever's side can get the deal done fastest! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk..... Cause I'm a balla'!
Turn to the owners and say this: "Look you fat rich fucks: nobody asked you to buy an NBA franchise. Did you SERIOUSLY buy it to make money? Seriously? Well in that case, sell it now, because there's one way you can't fail to make money with an NBA franchise, and that's through capital gains. So, if it's about the money, then cash in now and fuck off. But it isn't, is it? It's because you're all wanna-be jocks who want to absorb some of that limelight, right? Well, the limelight costs. Quit squealing and be happy with the CBA we've got, because we ripped the players off bad enough last time." That should do it.
It's amusing when people with no accounting knowledge attempt to write articles "exposing accounting loopholes".
Read Larry Coon's rundown over at ESPN.com ... it does a pretty good job of explaining the amortized "losses" that stem from the purchase price of a franchise and how it counts against a team's ledger.
It'd be nice if some national polling organization could do a survey on this; if the results were similar to our board, then maybe the players would realize they have little support and they need to give some more and we could get this over with quickly.
Does it really matter, in the end, who fans "support?" When basketball comes back, either people will watch or they won't. There's no way, really, for fans to come back to the owners but abandon the players.
Well, the owners could sell tickets to us to watch them (the owners) shoot hoops. And we could like it and buy lots of tickets. And watch it on TV. And post about it. And argue about whether Paul Allen is playing hurt or he just has lost a step. barfo
I just think the players would feel less belligerent and more ready to compromise if they knew the vast majority of fans don't support their level of salaries. I think most of them may have a distorted view of the reality of fan sentiment. And this discussion has stimulated an idea in my head. If I was the player's union I would propose a luxury tax on players making over 5 million a year and use the proceeds on the tax to buy a thousand tickets a night in every arena to be given to those who can't afford them (including university students and the working poor). This would not only help the players' image and the league image but would boost the enthusiasm at games and make the sport more profitable for the owners so maybe the owners wouldn't need so much from the players. In fact the owners would be making more money on concessions and so the players wouldn't need to make concessions in bargaining!
