Big Market Team Fallacy

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]All I'm saying. Once again, system is broken, but not with respect to on-court competitiveness. how many teams were good at some point since '99? Probably about 80-90% of them. Even LAC-Knicks has 2 good years during that stretch. Teams with excellent stretches? Going to say something north of 60%.[/QUOTE]

So what exactly is the problem for the fans? I personally don't watch NBA to see owners make money, although I won't judge you if that's your primary interest in the NBA, not competitive basketball.

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]So what exactly is the problem for the fans? I personally don't watch NBA to see owners make money, although I won't judge you if that's your primary interest in the NBA, not competitive basketball.[/QUOTE]

Problem for the fans is that they're not playing.

If you haven't noticed, this lock-out had 0 to do with the fans...not from the players or owners perspective. I am merely discussing one argument set forth by the (most irritating) owners.

If you really want to place blame for this thing -- its not the superstars and its not the 12th men (they want to work, no matter how little they get paid)and its not the "big market" owners. Its the small(er) market owners and the 5-8th men (Bibby, Posey, Dalembert, Amir) who want to keep their 5 year, $40mill deals despite the fact that they aren't nearly worth it.

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Problem for the fans is that they're not playing.

If you haven't noticed, this lock-out had 0 to do with the fans...not from the players or owners perspective. I am merely discussing one argument set forth by the (most irritating) owners.

If you really want to place blame for this thing -- its not the superstars and its not the 12th men (they want to work, no matter how little they get paid)and its not the "big market" owners. Its the small(er) market owners and the 5-8th men (Bibby, Posey, Dalembert, Amir) who want to keep their 5 year, $40mill deals despite the fact that they aren't nearly worth it.[/QUOTE]

Which is why they should just get rid of the salary cap/ BRI% agreements, and let the market decide how much these players are worth. If teams really are losing money, then they will start paying less, and eventually the salaries will settle at what the market will bear. We already know from baseball that such a system allows small market teams to compete. We already know from baseball also that even the Yankees can't go out and sign anyone willy-nilly.

What irritates me about the debates is that so many fans act like it's their money being taken away from them by Eddy Curry.

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]
What irritates me about the debates is that so many fans act like it's their money being taken away from them by Eddy Curry.[/QUOTE]
lol so who's money is it? From where it comes the NBA revenue? Thin air?

[QUOTE=Blue&Orange]lol so who's money is it? From where it comes the NBA revenue? Thin air?[/QUOTE]

Did you know that once you pay somebody money, that money is no longer yours? That's pretty basic stuff.

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]Did you know that once you pay somebody money, that money is no longer yours? That's pretty basic stuff.[/QUOTE]
You're a colossal idiot.

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]Did you know that once you pay somebody money, that money is no longer yours? That's pretty basic stuff.[/QUOTE]You should be embarrassed

[url]http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215976/Expert_Virtually_No_Correlation_Between_Payroll_And_Win_Percentage#ixzz1aakZdNpk[/url]

[QUOTE]As the NBA league office continues the lockout in an apparent bid to create more parity among teams, a professor of economics at Smith College who has studied the issue says there is almost no relationship between the size of a team's payroll and its success.

[B]

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]Which is why they should just get rid of the salary cap/ BRI% agreements, and let the market decide how much these players are worth. If teams really are losing money, then they will start paying less, and eventually the salaries will settle at what the market will bear. We already know from baseball that such a system allows small market teams to compete. We already know from baseball also that even the Yankees can't go out and sign anyone willy-nilly.
[/QUOTE]

Also, stealing from baseball, to promote revenue sharing, have a threshold and a tax. NYK do make more money than Minn and the NYK, LAL need to have the small market franchises around to have a league.

I do like having a rookie salary wage scale. Though it hurts Rose, it provides security for owners to not have to pay too much for mistakes and provides rookies with security that no matter which team drafts them (of which they have no control) they are guaranteed 3 yrs worth of money.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic][url]http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215976/Expert_Virtually_No_Correlation_Between_Payroll_And_Win_Percentage#ixzz1aakZdNpk[/url]



Hmmmmm[/QUOTE]

You still can't grasp that there are no absolutes. And also, this isn't just about the past. Its about the growing trend the NBA is seeing now. Players are more than just players. They are a "brand"...or at least that is how they see themselves. You think Lamar Odom is getting a reality show if he lives in Milwaukee?

Nobody is saying its one or the other. Its just clearly an advantage to have more money and be in a more desirable market/location where players want to come and play. Not to mention that we have to overlook the fact that free agency/forced trades have altered the NBA landscape hugely in the last decade. Shaq to the Lakers. Kobe forcing his way to the Lakers in the trade. Lebron and Bosh leaving their small market teams for less money to play in Miami. Cuban basically paying anything and everything to anybody he thought could help. KG ending up in Boston. Melo and Amare on the Knicks. Now Paul and Howard are next in line. The Jazz trading Williams because they were scared he was leaving.

You can't just look at the data from the past...its also about the future and where this is heading.

Not to mention, if you looked at the past data....only big market teams are winning titles. You can chalk that up to a fluke or whatever, but its also just factual. The anomaly of the Spurs is all that saves you. And maybe the small market owners don't want to just be average to good....maybe they want to compete for titles. And that is something that actually the data does not show. Its been big market after big market winning the nba title year in year out since the early 80's.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You still can't grasp that there are no absolutes. And also, this isn't just about the past. Its about the growing trend the NBA is seeing now. Players are more than just players. They are a "brand"...or at least that is how they see themselves. You think Lamar Odom is getting a reality show if he lives in Milwaukee?

Nobody is saying its one or the other. Its just clearly an advantage to have more money and be in a more desirable market/location where players want to come and play. Not to mention that we have to overlook the fact that free agency/forced trades have altered the NBA landscape hugely in the last decade. Shaq to the Lakers. Kobe forcing his way to the Lakers in the trade. Lebron and Bosh leaving their small market teams for less money to play in Miami. Cuban basically paying anything and everything to anybody he thought could help. KG ending up in Boston. Melo and Amare on the Knicks. Now Paul and Howard are next in line. The Jazz trading Williams because they were scared he was leaving.

You can't just look at the data from the past...its also about the future and where this is heading.

Not to mention, if you looked at the past data....[B][SIZE="3"]only big market teams are winning titles.[/SIZE][/B] You can chalk that up to a fluke or whatever, but its also just factual. The anomaly of the Spurs is all that saves you. And maybe the small market owners don't want to just be average to good....maybe they want to compete for titles. And that is something that actually the data does not show. Its been big market after big market winning the nba title year in year out since the early 80's.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="7"][B][FONT="Impact"]San Antonio Spurs[/FONT][/B][/SIZE]

And you accuse me of speaking in absolutes? :facepalm

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Also, stealing from baseball, to promote revenue sharing, have a threshold and a tax. NYK do make more money than Minn and the NYK, LAL need to have the small market franchises around to have a league.

I do like having a rookie salary wage scale. Though it hurts Rose, it provides security for owners to not have to pay too much for mistakes and provides rookies with security that no matter which team drafts them (of which they have no control) they are guaranteed 3 yrs worth of money.[/QUOTE]
They have an option on the rookie scale now, that most don't use.

They don't have to go 120% of the scale, yet most do it.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic][SIZE="7"][B][FONT="Impact"]San Antonio Spurs[/FONT][/B][/SIZE]

And you accuse me of speaking in absolutes? :facepalm[/QUOTE]

I mentioned the Spurs in my post. In the following sentence...LOL. Read please.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I mentioned the Spurs in my post. In the following sentence...LOL. Read please.[/QUOTE]

I read it. You telling me Oklahoma is not going to be competing for titles?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]only big market teams are winning titles. You can chalk that up to a fluke or whatever, but its also just factual. ... Its been big market after big market winning the nba title year in year out since the early 80's.[/QUOTE]

Your definition of Big Market is broad. So lets have it:

1.New York City
2.Los Angeles
3.Chicago
4.Philadelphia
5.Dallas/Fort Worth
6.San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
7.Boston
8.Atlanta
9.Washington, D.C.
10.Houston
11.Detroit
12.Phoenix
13.Seattle/Tacoma
14.South Florida
15.Minneapolis
16.Miami
17.Denver
18.Cleveland
19.Orlando
20.Sacramento
21.St. Louis
22.Portland
23.Charlotte
24.Pittsburgh
25.Raleigh/Durham/Fayetteville
26.Baltimore
27.Indianapolis
28.San Diego
29.Nashville
30.Connecticut
31.Kansas City
32.Salt Lake City
33.Cincinnati
34.Columbus
35.Milwaukee
36.Greenville
37.San Antonio

The top 10 Markets have 11 teams, and since '99, 6 titles.
The middle 10 makerts have 8 teams, and since '99 2 titles
The bottom 16 markets have 7 teams and since '99 4 titles

So its certainly not ONLY big market teams. Since '99 half the titles have been won by small/mid market teams. If we take SA out (but not LAL for some reason), we get an extra big market win (NYK), two mid-market wins (Det-Cle) and a small market win (NJN)