CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

[yankeesgiants]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Right, but the mindset of these "small" market teams not being able to hold over and audience is generated by the marketting strategy of the NBA, which caters to letting the rich get richer while the poor get thanked for spicing up the playoffs (Grizzles, Thunder for example), yet don't get the full marketting any team selling in the top 5 of jersey sales gets. I'll say that Stern pushed the OKC Durant's a bit this year, but even then.

Has nothing to do with NBA marketing strategy or being able to hold an audience. It's purely demographics. More homes equal more money that is how ad rates are determined. Here is the chart: http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/c...MA%20Ranks.pdf

[yankeesgiants]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

This is what we're been saying all along. You can't say all the people want is big market teams when the rules are set up in the favor of big market teams.

The large market teams are the sole reason the NBA gets 931M in TV money. small market teams are pawns in this game and are only around so a competive rival league cant start up.

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

and as we've been saying is the exact reason why MOST of the league is losing money and are in a current lock out

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

This is why I'm in favor of contraction. The owners can have all their wishes granted on the next CBA and you'll still have the same situation of small market teams crying broke.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

This is why I'm in favor of contraction. The owners can have all their wishes granted on the next CBA and you'll still have the same situation of small market teams crying broke.

So instead of giving all 30 teams an actually chance, just kill them off? That's better for the league?

The league that promotes parity is making money hand over fist. While the league that relies on eliteism is losing money.

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

So instead of giving all 30 teams an actually chance, just kill them off? That's better for the league?

The league that promotes parity is making money hand over fist. While the league that relies on eliteism is losing money.

This has been ingrained in the NBA for quite sometime. As I stated, even before Stern. Unless you get a commissioner who's going to change the mentality of how they're going to market their product, your going to continue to have small market teams loose money. Sorry, but that's the way it is right now. A new CBA won't help this imbalance not one bit. I'm pretty sure you saw the NBA schedule? So you tell me that a new CBA is going to give small market teams an advantage in marketing and exposure.

Stern and his previous predecessors has ran this league like this for a long time. If you want to change it, change the commissioner and hope he takes the league in a different direction in terms of marketing. BUT I'm figuring Stern is not going anywhere anytime soon, so the only way you reduce the deficit of the NBA is to contract.

Hard cap or soft cap. Reduce players BRI share. Whatever, you can think of in the new CBA. Nobody will still care about watching the Kings taking on the T-Wolves.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

This has been ingrained in the NBA for quite sometime. As I stated, even before Stern. Unless you get a commissioner who's going to change the mentality of how they're going to market their product, your going to continue to have small market teams loose money. Sorry, but that's the way it is right now. A new CBA won't help this imbalance not one bit. I'm pretty sure you saw the NBA schedule? So you tell me that a new CBA is going to give small market teams an advantage in marketing and exposure.

Stern and his previous predecessors has ran this league like this for a long time. If you want to change it, change the commissioner and hope he takes the league in a different direction in terms of marketing. BUT I'm figuring Stern is not going anywhere anytime soon, so the only way you reduce the deficit of the NBA is to contract.

Hard cap or soft cap. Reduce players BRI share. Whatever, you can think of in the new CBA. Nobody will still care about watching the Kings taking on the T-Wolves.

If every team has the same ballpark amount of revenue to spend on players salaries the Mavs can't double what the Kings spend which means they can't go out and buy titles.

How is this such a hard concept to grasp? If the Lakers fall from grace they won't be on tv as much. After Magics showtime and before Shaq and Kobe the Lakers went on tv like they are now. Fans don't care what teams they bandwagon only as long as their good.

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

If every team has the same ballpark amount of revenue to spend on players salaries the Mavs can't double what the Kings spend which means they can't go out and buy titles.

So you automatically assume that the team with the largest payroll automatically become champs or championship contenders? I beg to differ. Just look at the top ten payrolls in the league last year. ONE TEAM in the top five made it past the second round. The eventual champion Mavs. Two teams in the top 10 didn't even make the playoffs. The Bulls had the 4th lowest payroll and won 62 games and made it to the conference Finals. In the last 10 years, the 2010 Lakers was the only NBA Champions that had the highest payroll in the league.

How is this such a hard concept to grasp? If the Lakers fall from grace they won't be on tv as much. After Magics showtime and before Shaq and Kobe the Lakers went on tv like they are now. Fans don't care what teams they bandwagon only as long as their good.

The Lakers has played in multiple non-contending years and they still get air time. Don't know if you missed it but 23 posted the instance where the Lakers was part of a Christmas day matchup when they had Smush Parker at the point.

And I understand your concept. However, I don't think your concept coincide on how the NBA really is and how it's run. The implications of the success of a small market team compared to a big market team is where the unbalance lies and it just cannot be repaired by a simple flick of the switch by a new CBA. Big market teams will make profits whether they win or loose. Small market teams that win will just float above water financially. Small market teams who loose will suffer financially. So in general, wins have no bearing on the profit margins between big and small markets. A winning small market team will never see the profit margins of a loosing big market team. It's that simple. It sucks. But it's reality. Small market teams just don't matter.

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I wouldnt say they dont matter... I would say that no business makes exactly or has to make the exact same profit as the next, but when a team is constantly bleeding money, and the employee salaries are rising which in turn hits the fans who come out, its a problem

Pretty soon people will do like us and stay home and watch tv.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

So you automatically assume that the team with the largest payroll automatically become champs or championship contenders? I beg to differ. Just look at the top ten payrolls in the league last year. ONE TEAM in the top five made it past the second round. The eventual champion Mavs. Two teams in the top 10 didn't even make the playoffs. The Bulls had the 4th lowest payroll and won 62 games and made it to the conference Finals. In the last 10 years, the 2010 Lakers was the only NBA Champions that had the highest payroll in the league.

The teams with the big pay roles are the only true title contender year in year out. Don't really see how this is even a debate.

The Lakers has played in multiple non-contending years and they still get air time. Don't know if you missed it but 23 posted the instance where the Lakers was part of a Christmas day matchup when they had Smush Parker at the point.

And I understand your concept. However, I don't think your concept coincide on how the NBA really is and how it's run. The implications of the success of a small market team compared to a big market team is where the unbalance lies and it just cannot be repaired by a simple flick of the switch by a new CBA. Big market teams will make profits whether they win or loose. Small market teams that win will just float above water financially. Small market teams who loose will suffer financially. So in general, wins have no bearing on the profit margins between big and small markets. A winning small market team will never see the profit margins of a loosing big market team. It's that simple. It sucks. But it's reality. Small market teams just don't matter.

This was a team with Kobe who was the league biggest name at the time. If Slush parker was the best player on the team then you would have a point. One or two down years with the league best player isn't the same as the Lakers not having a good team for 3 or 4 years and no player in the top 10.

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I wouldnt say they dont matter... I would say that no business makes exactly or has to make the exact same profit as the next, but when a team is constantly bleeding money, and the employee salaries are rising which in turn hits the fans who come out, its a problem

Pretty soon people will do like us and stay home and watch tv.

The problem is not the dollar amount. It's that certain teams have an automatic leeway of making money regardless of success. Certain teams can stay out of the red if they have some success off the court. This is where the unbalance comes in. For some teams, success on the court means nothing to them when keeping their team in the black. Where, there are others who need to be successful on the court to keep their teams out of the red.

The NFL claims that every team last year made a profit. I'm pretty sure some made more than others BUT just them claiming that all teams making a profit is how strong financially the NFL is. The NBA can never make that boast nor will they do that in the near future. Even if the NBA does contract, they'll still fall short. HOWEVER, they'll be much closer to the accomplished goal than moving away from it if they had the current league structure.

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

The teams with the big pay roles are the only true title contender year in year out. Don't really see how this is even a debate.

The Knicks has had the highest payroll for years before Amare and Melo step on the scene in New York. Matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, they had the higest payroll in the NBA in 2007. Were they championship contenders?

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

The Knicks has had the highest payroll for years before Amare and Melo step on the scene in New York. Matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, they had the higest payroll in the NBA in 2007. Were they championship contenders?

Two words. Isaiah Thomas!

That's one example. Sure if you manage anythingthat poorly money won't matter. But how can you deny if you have two similar GM's, but give one twice the budget to spend on players the outcome will be the same?

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Two words. Isaiah Thomas!

That's one example. Sure if you manage anythingthat poorly money won't matter. But how can you deny if you have two similar GM's, but give one twice the budget to spend on players the outcome will be the same?

SCOTT LAYDEN!

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Two words. Isaiah Thomas!

That's one example. Sure if you manage anythingthat poorly money won't matter. But how can you deny if you have two similar GM's, but give one twice the budget to spend on players the outcome will be the same?

That's the whole point. Don't say that 'teams with the big pay roles are the only true title contender' because they don't. And the Knicks payroll was top 3 for years and they were one of the worst teams. The 2007 year was an extreme example because they boosted the highest in the league.

Big payrolls mean just that...big payroll.