Last Thursday, we started talking a little bit about our desired outcomes for the lockout - essentially what the fans, a widely ignored group throughout the summer, would want to see in a new CBA.
I got lost in some real life stuff so I couldn't jump into the comments Thursday, but let's pick it up where we left off. Addressing some of the comments from the original story:
[T]he cap, and not the revenue split, [is] dividing players and owners. The NBA owners are beginning to learn that one of the reasons the NFL is so popular is that fans in every city believe that their teams, if managed the right way, will have the resources to construct a championship team. The NBA owners realize that the Miami Dream Team was a novelty that will quickly wear off, and that if the league develops into a league of 24 farm teams for 6 superpowers, the national fan base will erode."
The reference is to a Yahoo! article from last week (which I strangely can't find right now; link it up in the comments if you can get your hands on it) that indicated that owners are genuinely concerned about ensuring parity throughout the league.
The stringency of revenue sharing is pretty interesting, and I think it's a great point from BenDerDonDat that every NFL fanbase thinks it can win a Superbowl with good management. That's simply not true in the current NBA.
[T]he owners side will claim that reducing player salaries, a hard cap or whatever is good for the competitive balance of the league, but that’s bogus... [T]he teams losing money should be looking at a different pie – revenue sharing.
[F]or all those cries who claim revenue sharing won’t help alleviate the 300 million the NBA claims it lost last year? Bah. If one was to look at the numbers more closely, a good deal of the chunk was interest payments. Why should players care how much owners owe on their investments? They aren’t getting any chunks of it when they sell their teams, right?
Very interesting stuff. I personally did not know the tidbit about interest payments at all... but it makes sense. The fact that owners would hide behind interest payments to claim significant losses seems also plays into the general (and idiotic) secrecy of the owners about league earnings and losses.
"I hate the one and done rule as I feel it offers absolutely nothing to the college game at all and is a cop out; nothing more than the NBA’s attempt to market these players early before they enter the league. If they were legitimately serious about the players’ well being and if they wanted it to be taken serious, I think they should have pay grades based on a players’ level of education… you know the way they do it at every other billion dollar business. If there’s an incentive for these guys to enter college, that’s it. But that’s only if the NBA continues to pretend it "cares" about the players’ careers after basketball like they do now."
Can't agree with this more personally. For me, the one-and-done rule not only fails to help the college game, it actually hurts it. A lot of programs have a real stop-start feel to them because, since everyone knows their elite talent is out the door immediately, there's no chance of long(er) term team building. There's a very definite disruption of continuity all in the name of the facade that is "education."
This one isn't really a lockout issue, per se, but I think it's worth mentioning.
I think contracts should be no longer than 3-4 years.
I'm pretty divided on this. On the one hand, I can see how lowering overall contract length would help. But on the other hand, the simple fact that a player's original team can offer him more years (a number which is obviously significantly higher than 3 years) has allowed relatively poor teams (Cleveland, New Orleans, etc) to hang on to elite talent where they perhaps could not have otherwise.