Stern represents all the owners, not just Gibert and Sarver. There is still plenty of time to get a deal done without missing any games. This is good news in my book.
Printable View
Stern represents all the owners, not just Gibert and Sarver. There is still plenty of time to get a deal done without missing any games. This is good news in my book.
[IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg[/IMG]
How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?
[QUOTE=tontoz]Stern represents all the owners, not just Gibert and Sarver. There is still plenty of time to get a deal done without missing any games. This is good news in my book.[/QUOTE] This is now also being discussed on the radio in LA that it's not true at all. Some blogger made the story up. I guess we'll see
Does anyone else find it odd that all the major sports league claim profits except the one that chooses to run a woman's league as well?
[QUOTE=Sarcastic][IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg[/IMG]
How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?[/QUOTE]
Because the revenues in both NFL and MLB are higher than nba. The higher the revenue, the higher the income?And thats the reason why sarver and gilbert are pushing for hard cap to have parity in NBA. Coz parity means more fans watching just like mlb and nfl. And more fans = more revenue.
[URL="http://twitter.com/#!/cavsdan"]http://twitter.com/#!/cavsdan[/URL]
[QUOTE] Some of these NBA 'bloggissists' flat-out make stuff up and then try to dupe readers into believing their fiction is real. Sad & pathetic.
[/QUOTE]
I'd take that as a denial.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Apparently Sarver and Gilbert are the only NBA owners that are not retarded. The NBA lost $1.845 billion over the last 6 years. It cannot survive if they do not have massive salary cuts.
It will cease to exist under that proposed deal that they supposedly rejected. It just shows what retards guys like Stern, Buss and Dolan are if this is true.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen how the NBA teams can make profit look like losses? They have this thing that somehow estimates how much a player decreases in value in $$$ terms, and put this as a -$XXX on their books, and voil
lol
[QUOTE=knicksman]Because the revenues in both NFL and MLB are higher than nba. The higher the revenue, the higher the income?And thats the reason why sarver and gilbert are pushing for hard cap to have parity in NBA. Coz parity means more fans watching just like mlb and nfl. And more fans = more revenue.[/QUOTE]
Do you understand what percentage means? Seems like you don't.
People don't watch NFL because it has parity. People watch NFL because it has football. NCAA has no parity, and people still watch it. They had 2 unbeaten teams who weren't even allowed to compete for the title last year, and did that stop anyone from watching? Nope. People love football because they play football.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
As opposed to what? Paul Allen buying another 160 million dollar boat? Mark Cuban spending 90 thousand dollars in the club?[/QUOTE]
lol the owners % doesnt just all go in their pockets. If it did they wouldnt be losing any money and their'd be no lockout.
The owners share goes into the teams/league. You know, the flights, hotels, equipment, arenas, advertising, officials, etc etc.
Owners obviously get a sizable cut in salary but they arent just pocketing their share of the revenue unlike the players, lol
More revenue on the owners side probably means better product for the fans. But we know what this is perceived as. "big rich white owners vs little poor (lol) black players" so the liberal emos and the racially hypersensitive naturally side with the players when really fans have no reason to side with either. Its their negotiations.
[QUOTE=FourthTenor]lol the owners % doesnt just all go in their pockets. If it did they wouldnt be losing any money and their'd be no lockout.
The owners share goes into the teams/league. You know, the flights, hotels, equipment, arenas, advertising, officials, etc etc.
Owners obviously get a sizable cut in salary but they arent just pocketing their share of the revenue unlike the players, lol
More revenue on the owners side probably means better product for the fans. But we know what this is perceived as. "big rich white owners vs little poor (lol) black players" so the liberal emos and the racially hypersensitive naturally side with the players when really fans have no reason to side with either. Its their negotiations.[/QUOTE]
Yea Sterling is known for reinvesting back into his team.
Why does it cost the NBA owners so much to fly and house their 15 players, but the NFl can somehow fly and house 53 players plus more coaches and still turn profit. Don't you think the upkeep on a football field would be higher than a basketball court? The equipment costs should also be cheaper in the NBA than other sports. All they have is shorts, a tank top and a ball, compared to other sports which have pads, helmets, bats, sticks, etc., etc.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Do you understand what percentage means? Seems like you don't.
People don't watch NFL because it has parity. People watch NFL because it has football. NCAA has no parity, and people still watch it. They had 2 unbeaten teams who weren't even allowed to compete for the title last year, and did that stop anyone from watching? Nope. People love football because they play football.[/QUOTE]
Is 53% of 10 billion the same as 53% of 1 billion?
My god you are a retarded f@ggot and vag1na
[QUOTE=brantonli]Have you seen how the NBA teams can make profit look like losses? They have this thing that somehow estimates how much a player decreases in value in $$$ terms, and put this as a -$XXX on their books, and voil
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Yea Sterling is known for reinvesting back into his team.
Why does it cost the NBA owners so much to fly and house their 15 players, but the NFl can somehow fly and house 53 players plus more coaches and still turn profit. Don't you think the upkeep on a football field would be higher than a basketball court? The equipment costs should also be cheaper in the NBA than other sports. All they have is shorts, a tank top and a ball, compared to other sports which have pads, helmets, bats, sticks, etc., etc.[/QUOTE]
really? transportation costs and equipment? a total disregard of the nba (or nhl.... oh yeah whats their average income)'s revenue compared to those sports? that is weak from you, sarcastic
that data above is from 2006 and is even more skewed in the nba's favor today.
Now, the players have every right to push their priorities in labor negotiation, but its pretty clear that their incredibly bloated salaries (and long term guarantees) are gonna come down.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
I can't believe you brought up average salary.
Here let's do some second grade math.
NFL makes 9 billion but needs 1500 players.
NBA makes 4 billion but needs 400 players.
Guess which league's players bring in more per player.
[QUOTE=FourthTenor]Is 53% of 10 billion the same as 53% of 1 billion?
My god you are a retarded f@ggot and vag1na[/QUOTE]
My god no wonder you don't have a job. You don't know anything about math. Give my condolences to your parents. I am sure they tried their best. You are just an utter failure.
The MLB has rosters from at least 25 to as many as 40.
NFL has 53.
NHL has 20 to 23 active but alowed 50 total.
The NBA has 12 active and 15 total allowed.
4 billion coming in and 400-450 players.
NFL has 9 billion coming in and 1700 to 2000 players a season
NHL has under 3 billion for at least 700 players active but more than that in total.
MLb had 6.5 billion with 750+ players.
Is it really hard to see why the average NBA player makes more?
Just less people to spread the money around to.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The MLB has rosters from at least 25 to as many as 40.
NFL has 53.
NHL has 20 to 23 active but alowed 50 total.
The NBA has 12 active and 15 total allowed.
4 billion coming in and 400-450 players.
NFL has 9 billion coming in and 1700 to 2000 players a season
NHL has under 3 billion for at least 700 players active but more than that in total.
MLb had 6.5 billion with 750+ players.
Is it really hard to see why the average NBA player makes more?
Just less people to spread the money around to.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget that the NBA has more black players than the other sports, so that ruffles extra feathers.
I am ashamed as a Suns fan, and mad as f[COLOR="Black"]uc[/COLOR]k!
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]My god no wonder you don't have a job. You don't know anything about math. Give my condolences to your parents. I am sure they tried their best. You are just an utter failure.[/QUOTE]
Hah, argument fail.
You are an eternal vag1na.
You determine what side youre going to take (underdog/little guy) before you even look at any of the facts or perspectives.
You arent a man. Youre a woman. You have no brain, no testiklez, just one sopping wet vageen
Can anybody say this is a surprise? Sarver is no surprise here.
owners like sarver are the reason why this lockout will go at minimum until january. hate to say it but i think we lose the whole season. too many owners are willing to give up most of the season to get their way and that's a hard cap. the NBAPA doesn't even know what they wanna do. fisher is saying they shouldn't decertify...and i really don't see why not. what's the worst that could happen?
if owners want a hard cap and no guaranteed contracts, they should be willing to give up some of the BRI. even with guys like buss and others willing to revenue share, i don't think it's enough to save it. maybe something like a 'franchise tag' like the NFL does could be a middle ground. remember, NHL went for a hard cap and there's rumblings that they're headed for yet another lockout. a hard cap doesn't automatically solve everything.
as far as gilbert, he's STILL acting like the scorned girlfriend. love how people were rooting for him when it was him vs. lebron, but without lebron, do you think gilbert would have as much money as he does? enough money to start building casinos right outside cleveland? that's the type of stuff that isn't even made transparent either in total revenues. gilbert can keep playing the victim and making a hard stance on guaranteed contracts and hard caps. or he can practice what he preaches about being a man of the people and loving the purity of the game.
despite all that, i know these two aren't the sole reason the deal isn't getting done. far from it....
[QUOTE=blacknapalm]owners like sarver are the reason why this lockout will go at minimum until january. hate to say it but i think we lose the whole season. too many owners are willing to give up most of the season to get their way and that's a hard cap. the NBAPA doesn't even know what they wanna do. fisher is saying they shouldn't decertify...and i really don't see why not. what's the worst that could happen?
if owners want a hard cap and no guaranteed contracts, they should be willing to give up some of the BRI. even with guys like buss and others willing to revenue share, i don't think it's enough to save it. maybe something like a 'franchise tag' like the NFL does could be a middle ground. remember, NHL went for a hard cap and there's rumblings that they're headed for yet another lockout. a hard cap doesn't automatically solve everything.
as far as gilbert, he's STILL acting like the scorned girlfriend. love how people were rooting for him when it was him vs. lebron, but without lebron, do you think gilbert would have as much money as he does? enough money to start building casinos right outside cleveland? that's the type of stuff that isn't even made transparent either in total revenues. gilbert can keep playing the victim and making a hard stance on guaranteed contracts and hard caps. or he can practice what he preaches about being a man of the people and loving the purity of the game.
despite all that, i know these two aren't the sole reason the deal isn't getting done. far from it....[/QUOTE]
I think by the time the seasons starts I think jan could be a realistic time frame :cry:
Good for them. I like NBA basketball as much as anyone but the owners take all the risk and the players should not be making 52% let alone the 57% they were making. They own the teams and they take all the financial risks.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Do you understand what percentage means? Seems like you don't.
People don't watch NFL because it has parity. People watch NFL because it has football. NCAA has no parity, and people still watch it. They had 2 unbeaten teams who weren't even allowed to compete for the title last year, and did that stop anyone from watching? Nope. People love football because they play football.[/QUOTE]
even if its percentage it doesnt mean that all expenses are also percentage based like salaries so there will be a point where revenues are capable of covering those expenses. And NCAA has parity thats why it has higher ratings than nba. or what you mean is ncaa football.
[QUOTE=guy]I actually feel optimistic if its just those 2 owners that weren't okay with it. If its just 2 owners, I can't imagine them not getting a deal done.
[B][I][U]But man, as much I hate Dan Gilbert, this just makes me hate Lebron even more. Is it really possible that the ultimate result of his "decision" would be possibly missed games or even a season? Not to say he didn't have his right, obviously Gilbert has a bigger axe to grind for how it went down.[/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE]
Wow I must compliment you I didn't know it was possible to somehow tie Lebron into this o.O
I believe that owners wants to win. But if you dont give them a chance to win, then dont expect them to compete, they rather go cheap mode and aims to have an income on their investment. Thats why they want a hard cap coz they want to compete. If they only care about money or greedy as some of you think, then they wouldnt settle for a 53% split when they wanted 43 from 57. Theyre not even concerned if it remains the same at 57. All they want is a chance to compete. They already said that the financial aspect is not a concern for them.
Thats why the choice is either hard cap or bigger share of around 43%. Chance to compete or guaranteed income on their investment.
Great job Gilbert. The fact that you pissed off Dolan and Buss shows that you're doing the right thing for the sports of basketball.
**** big market teams like LA & NY.
I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.
Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a [B]600% difference[/B]. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.
In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?
Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?
Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.
I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol
And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....
It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........
Yeah, I said it........:lol
[QUOTE=bagelred]I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.
Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a [B]600% difference[/B]. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.
In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?
Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?
Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.
I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol
And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....
It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........
Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]
Well said.I completely agree.
[QUOTE=knicksman]even if its percentage it doesnt mean that all expenses are also percentage based like salaries so there will be a point where revenues are capable of covering those expenses. And NCAA has parity thats why it has higher ratings than nba. or what you mean is ncaa football.[/QUOTE]
You know which expense is not percentage based? The WNBA.
NCAA athletics does not have parity. The same teams win almost every year. In fact in the football BCS, they only allow certain teams from specific conferences to even play in the championship game. Teams can go undefeated for the season, but if you don't play in the proper conference you can't play for the title. The BCS would rather put teams with 1 loss from their conference than an undefeated team from one of the lower conferences in the title game. How is that parity at all? It's no wonder the SEC has had 7 winners of the national title. Their teams play in the title game every year. How do you think Boise State and TCU feel about that?
[QUOTE=bagelred]I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.
Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a [B]600% difference[/B]. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.
In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?
Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?
Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.
I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol
And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....
It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........
Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]
Hey man, don't you know? The Lakers only win because they play in LA. Playing in the city of LA guarantees that you win titles.
Just ask Sterling.
[QUOTE=bagelred]I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.
Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a [B]600% difference[/B]. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.[/QUOTE]
Coz theres still parity in baseball.
[QUOTE]
In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?
Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?[/QUOTE]
Still dallas won with the highest payroll the same with lakers last year. Even if san antonio won four, still big market teams have dominated the past 50 years. I think they won around 40.
[QUOTE]And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....
It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........
Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]
Thats the reason why they are not selling out coz nobody wants to see a league where its always lakers/boston in the finals.
Maybe for you, you dont want to see a powerhouse in those areas. But majority of people wants it. And thats the reason why nfl and mlb are successful coz their teams can compete.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]You know which expense is not percentage based? The WNBA.
NCAA athletics does not have parity. The same teams win almost every year. In fact in the football BCS, they only allow certain teams from specific conferences to even play in the championship game. Teams can go undefeated for the season, but if you don't play in the proper conference you can't play for the title. The BCS would rather put teams with 1 loss from their conference than an undefeated team from one of the lower conferences in the title game. How is that parity at all? It's no wonder the SEC has had 7 winners of the national title. Their teams play in the title game every year. How do you think Boise State and TCU feel about that?[/QUOTE]
Not all expenses are percentage based. Just like advertising which is a fixed payment no matter how much your revenue is.
Still Ncaa basketball has parity and thats the reason why they have higher ratings than nba.
[QUOTE=knicksman]Coz theres still parity in baseball.[/QUOTE]
Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?
[QUOTE=knicksman]
Still dallas won with the highest payroll the same with lakers last year. Even if san antonio won four, still big market teams have dominated the past 50 years. I think they won around 40.[/QUOTE]
Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.
[QUOTE=knicksman]
Thats the reason why they are not selling out coz nobody wants to see a league where its always lakers/boston in the finals.
Maybe for you, you dont want to see a powerhouse in those areas. But majority of people wants it. And thats the reason why nfl and mlb are successful coz their teams can compete.[/QUOTE]
Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?
Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?
[QUOTE=knicksman]Not all expenses are percentage based. Just like advertising which is a fixed payment no matter how much your revenue is.
Still Ncaa basketball has parity and thats the reason why they have higher ratings than nba.[/QUOTE]
I just told you it doesn't have parity. Name me a small school that has won a football or basketball title in the past 20 years.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?
Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.
Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?
Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?[/QUOTE]
:lol Ya right, market size has no effect on it. Just *some* of the benefits of being a big market team include:
1) Superstars want to be in big markets (of course there are a few exceptions) and will always find a way to eventually go to a big market team.
2) They can get away with gigantic pay rolls. If you really want parity in this league, revenue sharing is a must.
If you honestly think it is just a coincidence that big market teams have dominated the NBA championships for a while now, you are blind.
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]Wow I must compliment you I didn't know it was possible to somehow tie Lebron into this o.O[/QUOTE]
LOL. Hey man, if its Gilbert holding this up, good chance he's doing it cause of what happened in Miami. Not saying Lebron didn't have the right to leave, but the way he did it probably made owners pretty pissed, specifically Gilbert.
[QUOTE=FireDavidKahn]:lol Ya right, market size has no effect on it. Just *some* of the benefits of being a big market team include:
1) Superstars want to be in big markets (of course there are a few exceptions) and will always find a way to eventually go to a big market team.
2) They can get away with gigantic pay rolls. If you really want parity in this league, revenue sharing is a must.
If you honestly think it is just a coincidence that big market teams have dominated the NBA championships for a while now, you are blind.[/QUOTE]
1) Besides Shaq, Lebron, and Bosh name another superstar that has left a small market team for a large market team? Actually I think Toronto is bigger than Miami, so I don't know if he should even be included.
2) I agree revenue sharing is a must, but we don't need parity. People don't like to watch parity. People like to watch great athletes dominate their field.
Do you think the PGA gets better ratings now that the last 10 major winners were all different, or do you think they get better ratings when Tiger Woods is destroying everyone?
Do you think track and field gets better ratings when they get a tight photo finish in the 100m, or do they get better ratings when Usain Bolt is blowing past everyone and setting records?
It's cute and politically correct for people to say they want parity, but people don't watch it when it actually happens. The worst rated finals ever had San Antonio vs Cleveland and NJ. You think that's just a coincidence? It's not like they didn't have star power. Duncan, Kidd, Lebron are all superstars. The NBA's biggest following comes from the large cities, and pandering to the small markets by isolating the cities out of contention is a bad business decision.
Its all Lebrons fault :lol