I don't want to see the NBA go back to the days of having salary slots, but I think it would be a good idea to limit the number of max or near-max contracts a team can carry. It seems to me that limiting top contracts to no more than two per team would ensure a pretty good distribution of top talent and prevent the new three superstar model that these guys seem to be trying to engineer. Maybe there'd be some sort of an exception to allow a team to give a third to avoid losing a player that they drafted.
Well seeing as College Football (completely unbalanced system) is more popular than College Whatever, it really isn't about competitive balance. Football is more popular in general, and it isn't because of their economic system. It isn't about money, you can keep your extra ten million dollars. Players make investments by spending millions of hours on basketball courts, and don't want to see that go to waste in a dysfunctional organization.
Baseball was the undisputed national pasttime until the NFL overtook them. Competitive imbalance had a great deal to do with it, as did unfettered free agency. And let me know the next time a player takes 25% of what they could have made with their previous team to try to win a ring. Of course it's about the money.
But is that the main reason for the shift? You said there's some correlation, kind of vague. College Football also supplanted baseball, which again doesn't make sense with what you're saying. And free agents in basketball have gone to other teams for less money so again I am puzzled.
Nope. College football has always reigned supreme in terms of college sports. Bottom line, athletes have a choice. They can enter the major professional sports league (NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL) that's the typical path for them and be subject to their rules or they can go to another sports league. Once they're in that sports league, the franchise that has them should have their rights.
But why "should" they have their rights? Your entire argument is that it makes the league more popular, but you've been vague about it.
Give me a break. A lot of college programs don't even have a baseball program. Some colleges don't give a shit about football either, and are mainly basktball schools. Comparing two is a reach at best. The NCAA rakes in all the revenue for college sports, and doesn't pay athletes at all. Athletes choose their school and it is a huge problem for them to transfer if they don't like their situation. So why are you comparing it to a system where athletes get paid, and have the freedom to move from team to team? The NCAA dumped baseball because they weren't making money on it. It is that simple. If they were making money on it, they would have concentrated on it more, like they did with basketball.
A few reasons. First, franchises--although part of an association--are individual businesses. The value of the Nuggets will decline when Melo leaves, just as the value of Cleveland and Toronto have declined. How they came to that team when they entered the league is irrelevant. The teams invested in them. Second, franchises and leagues benefit from having a player and a franchise tied together. Think Peyton Manning and the Colts, Ray Lewis and the Ravens, Cal Ripken with the Orioles, etc. It enhances rivalries and deepens the ties for fans. Third, it stops collusion by players. One group colluding forces other groups to do discuss doing the same (think Amare, Melo and CP3 in NY). It becomes a game of musical chairs; the other stars are afraid of being left out. Fourth, the perception of fairness, if not outright parity lifts the entire league. If you think that your team has a chance at the beginning of the season or hope for the future, then you'll invest yourself. There are plenty of other reasons, but those are the primary ones.
Dude, College Football versus all sports even pro baseball. Baseball is more boring to a lot of people, that has nothing to do with competitive balance.
Looks to me, like the value of the NBA declined after the Superstar teams in the 90's disbanded/retired. It is nice in practice but the NBA has been more boring to various fans. For instance during the reign of a small market team like the San Antonio Spurs ratings weren't great. If I am a professional basketball player you are on my time not the other way around. I want to win a championship every single year, I have no interest in your local rivalries and slowly maybe building a roster around me. The whole notion of collusion is vague though, it seems like a cute idea after the fact. I'd have to see some more evidence of that. How does one define fairness? Is it fair that I'm judged forever by the whims of some GM?
Yep. We disagree. No surprise. The player is getting paid. If we wishes to earn a championship, he'll just have to play better. He has a choice to follow Josh Childress if he doesn't like his franchise. The league is owned by the franchises, not the players. Those franchises are interested in making their entities as well as the league as valuable as possible.
Not as many people care about the Euroleague though, because of the quality of the players. Just having intelligent franchises isn't enough. If I am a free agent no one is paying me though. That's what we're talking about.
I think the biggest thing the NFL has is revenue sharing, which gives smaller cities a fairly even playground. If salaries are at 100 million for the season, and revenue sharing is giving each team 120 million(just made up figures), and you have that set cap, there is no real reason to not be super close to that cap line. It is paid for by the league. Of course, baseball has a system of revenue sharing, but then some teams just go and pocket the money. And, the NFL is helped by having one broadcast deal to do this, whereas each NBA team on top of the league broadcast amounts, is also getting their own network deals, and bigger market teams are going to likely get more.
Repped. A great addition to the debate and the issues surrounding the cap. I think each league has their own parts of the CBA I like. It takes two teams to play, so they should split the revenue. Bottom line, left to their own devices, no one is going to play in Milwaukee, Portland, Cleveland or Sacramento. They shouldn't be penalized because they're not in glory cities like NY, LA or Miami.
But you are still penalizing them under your system. One that hasn't done as well compared to when superstar teams were in the league. If you want revenue sharing that's ok. Some players don't move because of money, it isn't all about unfair monetary advantages.
I got lost in here, am trying to go back and follow the argument, and not sure where it got derailed. However, I don't see how the NFL has any more control over a player leaving their team. Seems like each league has a very similar system in place to give teams control of their players. MLB has their system of arbitration early on, with a player being controlled by a team for a number of years. Which is similar to the rookie contracts in the NBA, and then RFA. The NFL doesn't really have this for rookies in general, however they do have a form of RFA. And then, they have the franchise tag, which gives them some control, but players also have the ability to hold out. Benefits to each. I just think each league needs to work together. Well, not work together, but steal from eachother and realize there could be a very solid CBA, if they took portions of each league's agreement.
Again, I'm waiting for a list of the players who have taken a huge amount less to go to a winning team. My point is, as long as you're willing to match the highest amount another team is willing to pay a player, you should be able to keep that player.
I haven't read the thread (attempted my backwards method, so I only read your post), but how about Rashard Lewis. He decided to leave the hopeless Sonics, put his name out there, and got the big money from the Magic, a better team.
