EPTNBA 2014-2015 Regular Season - Page 30
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
dDazed
192 Posts
| ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13007 Posts
| ||
|
aznball123
2759 Posts
| ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 14 2014 12:05 RowdierBob wrote: The problem is, the players don't care about a competitive league; they care about making their money and winning. The owners care about maximising their investment/profits and winning (mostly--there's always a Maloof or Sterling). As always this is a fight over money but no one ever cares or mentions the most significant stakeholder: the fans. The NBA doesn't exist without chumps like us that stump up for merchanside, league pass tickets etc etc. I'd be happy to see the cap raised exponentially, rookie wage scales and max player salaries removed. But above all the cap needs to remain at a reasonable level to give ALL the teams a level playing field from the get-go. But we've had this argument a thousand times; I'm hardly saying anything new and I get a lot of people disagree with me. Two priorities that cannot exist together. The cap is already too high for some teams, even with fairly large amounts of revenue sharing. Realistically you have two options to increase the cap while not resulting in even less parity than we have: 1. EPL system where some teams just admit they should aspire to be 10th place; 2. 100 % Revenue sharing and each team is actually just a 1/30th Stock in "The NBA" which is a single entity with "the cap" basically being an arbitrary value. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
 | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
The only way you avoid that is if you have EPL-level rabid fanbases (the NBA doesn't) and EPL-level insane spending owners (American sports dont, I am a Chicago Sports fan, if we did 4/5 of our sports teams wouldn't be run by penny pinching losers). Edit: The above is a bit extreme, but basically conveys my sentiments that how the NBA would need to be reformed would be in a few phases: 1. Raise soft cap a certain % (this allows high revenue teams to experiment with taking higher burdens); 2. Eliminate Max individual player salaries + Remove hard cap + lower soft cap penalties; 3: Buyout/Cut/Move 4-10 teams to maximize revenue while reducing costs; 4 EPL. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On November 14 2014 14:39 cLutZ wrote: They can't fail, because that actually is even bad for the teams that have enough revenue. Realistically, there are 5-10 "expendable" NBA teams that could be lost without the overall viewership losses being enough for the "real" NBA city teams losing revenue to the point that the new cap is lower than the current cap. The only way you avoid that is if you have EPL-level rabid fanbases (the NBA doesn't) and EPL-level insane spending owners (American sports dont, I am a Chicago Sports fan, if we did 4/5 of our sports teams wouldn't be run by penny pinching losers). Edit: The above is a bit extreme, but basically conveys my sentiments that how the NBA would need to be reformed would be in a few phases: 1. Raise soft cap a certain % (this allows high revenue teams to experiment with taking higher burdens); 2. Eliminate Max individual player salaries + Remove hard cap + lower soft cap penalties; 3: Buyout/Cut/Move 4-10 teams to maximize revenue while reducing costs; 4 EPL. Your edit point two is exactly correct. The league is 30 teams. It is only 30 teams because of the salary cap. In some sense, people are correct that certain teams could not exist in an uncapped league - this is true! They do not have the revenue to operate as a profitable business. However. This also means that there are about 48 players that should not have jobs in the NBA. They only have jobs because of the salary cap. In this sense, the salary cap bloats the league and worsens the product. Let's use tonight's Philly/Dallas game. That was...not a professional basketball game. It was rotten. People paid to watch that game. I pay for the NBA Network and undergird the NBA's right to show that atrocity. The 76ers, in its current iteration, should not exist. Brandon Davies and Drew Gordon should not have jobs. This is your competitive balance league. Thanks Salary Cap! The point is, some cities should not have teams. Sorry, it's just a fact. New York should probably have 3 teams. Chicago should probably have 2. California could probably support 6 teams. But the owners want territorial franchise rights. They don't care about competitive balance. As all great businessmen, they want to control their costs, maximize their profits and win. EDIT: Your point 3 actually. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Neither Bosh or Wade are shooting great yet, but from the parts of games I've seen it still seems like they're executing well on offense and defense. How many changes has Spo made to the offense this year? | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
The league can sustain 30 teams easily. It's just a matter of certain teams accepting that they can't compete for a championship in their small market. They can slash spending and slash prices to make money. People will still come if the price is low enough, even if it's just to watch the other team. I've been to a few sporting events this year (not basketball though). It was work-related networking. Some people came late, some people left early. Some people only ended up staying for half the game. Some people barely know the rules. Some chatted with each most of the time. These things are entertainment events. If prices are low enough, people will come to watch a shitty team just for an excuse to hang out with each other. There are plenty of former college stars without any other decent job prospects who can give star players a run for their money on a good day. Or at the least, make it competitive enough to get people to watch. Allen Iverson and Antoine Walker would probably work for minimum wage at this point. People still watch college football after all, with their SEC vs 1-AA slates. | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Kraznaya
United States3711 Posts
On November 14 2014 15:39 andrewlt wrote: I'm going to be a little serious for a moment. If the salary cap goes, the salary floor goes also. I find it unlikely that the NBA will get rid of max contracts and spending ceilings without getting rid of min contracts and salary floors. The league can sustain 30 teams easily. It's just a matter of certain teams accepting that they can't compete for a championship in their small market. They can slash spending and slash prices to make money. People will still come if the price is low enough, even if it's just to watch the other team. I've been to a few sporting events this year (not basketball though). It was work-related networking. Some people came late, some people left early. Some people only ended up staying for half the game. Some people barely know the rules. Some chatted with each most of the time. These things are entertainment events. If prices are low enough, people will come to watch a shitty team just for an excuse to hang out with each other. There are plenty of former college stars without any other decent job prospects who can give star players a run for their money on a good day. Or at the least, make it competitive enough to get people to watch. Allen Iverson and Antoine Walker would probably work for minimum wage at this point. People still watch college football after all, with their SEC vs 1-AA slates. keep in mind that SEC vs 1AA games happen exclusively in the home stadium of the SEC team | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On November 14 2014 15:39 andrewlt wrote: I'm going to be a little serious for a moment. If the salary cap goes, the salary floor goes also. I find it unlikely that the NBA will get rid of max contracts and spending ceilings without getting rid of min contracts and salary floors. The league can sustain 30 teams easily. It's just a matter of certain teams accepting that they can't compete for a championship in their small market. They can slash spending and slash prices to make money. People will still come if the price is low enough, even if it's just to watch the other team. I've been to a few sporting events this year (not basketball though). It was work-related networking. Some people came late, some people left early. Some people only ended up staying for half the game. Some people barely know the rules. Some chatted with each most of the time. These things are entertainment events. If prices are low enough, people will come to watch a shitty team just for an excuse to hang out with each other. There are plenty of former college stars without any other decent job prospects who can give star players a run for their money on a good day. Or at the least, make it competitive enough to get people to watch. Allen Iverson and Antoine Walker would probably work for minimum wage at this point. People still watch college football after all, with their SEC vs 1-AA slates. NCAA football is feasible for many schools because they have approximately $0 in direct labor costs. Its revenue streams make it extremely profitable. A better example might be college baseball or soccer. It's less feasible because even with $0 in direct labor costs, you don't have the revenue streams. Expanding this to the NBA, if your goal is a competitively balanced (so many people love this idea) and a economically honest league, you should not tender a franchise to a city that can not a) establish a local fan base, b) realistically compete and c) subsist without revenue sharing. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On November 14 2014 15:23 Ace wrote: They wont because neither of those guys can buy all the talent due to the point where marginal cost > marginal production. Players also have an incentive not to join super teams. Exactly, it shouldn't be so hard to understand that there are only 12 roster spots. What is the advantage of signing both Kevin Durant and Paul George and Kawhi Leonard to the same team? It isn't a rich guys garage where you can have your Lambo next to your Rolls Royce - there's only 48 minutes a game for 5 players. Add to that the frictional cost of acquiring talent and an actually limited supply of capital. It wouldn't be the disaster people think it is, I think. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10542 Posts
On November 14 2014 13:05 Doraemon wrote: can someone explain how lee's shot constituted as a tip? i thought with .4 seconds you can only tip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Tucker_Rule | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13007 Posts
You make it sound like they're actually trying to win. The salary cap is not the problem--there are too many teams and not enough talent for each team to compete. Killing the cap with only concentrate the talent more and create a whole lot more Phillys. I'd be all for killing the cap if the NBA killed 15 teams with it but that's not going to happen so I'd rather keep the cap and keep the league interesting. | ||
| ||
