PDA

View Full Version : Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement



RoboHicks
07-09-2011, 05:50 PM
Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement
Written by thunderbird1245

Link (http://www.pacersdigest.com/wordpress/?p=524)

In general, I hate reading columns like the one I am going to now write. I’d much rather be talking about basketball strategies, breaking down players, profiling interesting people, or discussing ways we can make the team or the league better. But today I can’t do that, because with this labor stalemate looking very much like it will possibly drag on for months it is becoming more and more likely that none of the above discussions will be relevant anytime soon.

By nature, I am a problem solver who enjoys trying to come up with new concepts and ideas to help craft solutions to whatever issues are important to me. Often times as a coach that is spent trying to solve some personnel related issue, trying to find that perfect play, drill, practice plan, lineup, or defensive scheme that best hides whatever inherent problems my teams might have. I find that fun and part of the intellectual thrill that comes with coaching.

Right now, my thoughts instead head to our Pacers, who have their season and maybe even their long term future on the line with the current CBA stalemate between the league and the players. Like most thorny issues of our time, my general view is that if the parties would get beyond their normal dug in partisan ideological views that they could better use their time to find common sense solutions. I think in general common sense can solve most issues if both sides are willing to apply it…..and the ideas I have come up with today and will advocate were created with that in mind.

Maybe somewhere, someone in some players office or some league boardroom will see some of the creative ideas and discussion that comes from this, and an idea will sprout on how to solve this mess so we can have our NBA basketball back in our lives come this winter.

Below, here are some of my common sense ideas for a restructuring of the NBA’s labor agreement.

————————————————————————————————————————————— —————

REVENUE SHARING

Competitive sports leagues need to share revenue in order to have a level of “competitive balance”. In general, that means every team must somewhat be on a level playing field financially, so the entire cartel can grow and prosper. This isn’t a normal business…..the Lakers NEED the other teams to do well financially, it ultimately harms them if others suffer….it isn’t like they can just take over another team like some Wall Street baron might take over another struggling company.

So, it is time for the league itself to get a structure that can help the collective group grow the pie. That means working together more in a financial way to make everyone strong, in order to make the weakest link in the chain stronger than today.

Here are my Tbird ideas for revenue sharing and to grow the pie:

1. TEAMS SHOULD COLLECTIVELY POOL A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR LOCAL TV RIGHTS IN A 25%-75% SPLIT

Forget about fairness, it isn’t economically viable as a business model to have some teams have gigantic local TV deals while others do not. This is mainly a problem of geography, not competence…..no matter who the owners are in giant markets they will be able to sell their products easier and for more money that in smaller metro areas like Salt Lake City and Milwaukee. Again to me this is simply common sense.

Generally I think an owner should be able to keep a* percentage of his income from negotiating his own deal, that only seems fair as a fee for actually doing the work involved. But as of now all owners pocket 100% of their local TV monies, and that inherently means a giant income discrepancy right from jump street between big and small markets.

So my solution is this: Owners should keep 25% of their own local TV money, and the other 75% of that should go in a league wide pool to share with the other teams.

This makes sense to me. It isn’t like the NFL, where all TV contracts are negotiated by the league itself cutting the individual owners out of the loop. Of course, in the NFL there are no local TV rights, it is all national network money. So here I am proposing letting the individual owners keep 1/4 of the money, which should theoretically still motivate them to be aggressive and make as good a deal as possible, therefore generating maximum revenue.

However, if individual big market owners won’t agree to this, then I think the league should more closely follow the NFL model and negotiate all local TV deals themselves, cutting ownership out of the loop here, and then share 100% of the money instead of 75% of it.

2. TEAMS SHOULD SPLIT GATE RECEIPTS AT A 60%-40% RATE.

Currently it is my understanding that each individual team keeps all the money from their home games, and gets nothing from their road games…..it is every team for itself at this point. This means a giant discrepancy in per game revenue for each team…..successful teams make $3-5 million each time their doors open, and poorer teams like Indiana make about $750,000 for each home game.

This should end. My solution is that for every home game, you keep 60% of all revenue generated, and your opponent gets 40%.

This is common sense to me, and the results would be beneficial to the smaller markets. By my calculations, this would create an additional approximate$ 12 Million in revenue for our Pacers per year. Someone can double check my math, but if the average NBA team makes approx $1.5-2.0 million per game, and Indiana makes only $750000, then those approximate calculations hold.

41 games x750000 = 30, 750,000….that is what we make now.

Assuming the average team makes 1.5 million in gate revenues then we have this:

41 games x1,500,000=61,500,000 x 40% revenue total for road games=24,600,00

41 games x 750000=30,750,000 x 60% revenue total for home games= 18, 450,000

Total revenue of 43,050,000 on 82 game nights under my plan, a net gain approximately of 12, 300,000.

Even if my guesstimate of an approximate profit amount per game for the average team on game nights is slightly off (I used 1.5 million) and even if you wanted to adjust the percentage around slightly (I used an NFL model of 60% home team share and 40% for the road team share) then you can still easily see that sharing revenue in this way makes sense.

Why I think the bigger market owners might agree to this?

I think this creates an environment where the entire pie can grow, therefore increasing net revenues in gate receipts for everyone. The leagues owners need to not think of the profit of the league as a static enterprise, instead they need to think of it as a business that can continue to grow and expand its marketshare, therefore making money for everyone.

————————————————————————————————————————————— ————–

REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

The key for the players in agreeing to make a smaller percentage is that the pie itself needs to grow, thereby letting everyone profit more than they are now. That means growing the game and looking for more ways to make the game both more marketable and popular….and by proxy improving the actual product on the floor.

Here are some ideas for doing that….and I look forward to hearing some your feedback in this area as well

1. TRAINING CAMPS SHOULD BE SLIGHTLY LONGER, AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Every year droves of fans flock to NFL training camps, to watch teams practice while sitting in the blazing sun, often driving from miles and miles away. Who knows how many new fans are created each July for our Colts while little kids clamor for Dwight Freeney autographs and Peyton Manning jerseys?

NBA training camps should be mandated to be 21 days long, should all be held outside of their home cities in a nearby market/college campus, and should be modeled to be extremely fan friendly and profit driven simultaneously. The cities themselves would bid for the right to host this stuff in my vision….it wouldnt cost the teams much at all. And imagine the fan interest and news you could generate each October by having each NBA host a public training camp somewhere in each state?

You increase the training camp length and profile, cut the exhibition season to 5 games instead of 7, and start growing even more generations of fans.

2. ELIMINATE THE UNBELIEVABLY STUPID AND SHORT SIGHTED 75 MILE RADIUS MARKETING RULE

This has become somewhat of my pet peeve thru the years as many of you know. For those of you that don’t, NBA rules now dictate that a franchise cannot actively market its team outside of a 75 mile radius of its home town. That means that our Pacers can’t market themselves in Larry Bird’s hometown of French Lick, or in the northern or southern areas of Indiana. Really now, how freaking stupid is that?

The league should eliminate this rule altogether and instead encourage teams to market outside their own city limits. How much of America isn’t currently marketed to by the NBA? Instead of being so worried about marketing the league in Berlin, London, and Barcelona, maybe we should try and market a bit closer to home…..just a thought. How many season tickets or merchandise could be sold in Evansville, Cincinnati, or Louisville? Maybe it is time we found out…..

3. NEUTRAL SIGHT GAMES

NBA teams should one home game a year to a neutral sight near them. This would help grow the national brand of the league in general and the regional brand of the team in question, and open up the league to new fans. If it goes extremely well, maybe the experiment could be expanded a bit in the future even. For our Pacers, one home game a year on a rotating basis could be played in cities like West Lafayette, Bloomington, Cincinnati, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Louisville, etc.

I believe these games could be packaged into one single weekend, or on 2 single dates in the calendar, and become a high level marketing event that the league could really sell and market, much like MLB does with interleague play. Again, the publicity, interest level, and marketing chances to create new fans would be immeasurable and give us a chance to grow the profit pie.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————— —-

BASKETBALL RELATED INCOME DIVISION OF PROFITS

1. DIVISION OF REVENUE SHOULD BE AT A 49%51% SPLIT BETWEEN OWNERS AND PLAYERS, WITH THE PLAYERS GAINING PERCENTAGE POINTS BACK STEP BY STEP BASED ON THE GROWTH PROFIT OF THE LEAGUE.

Let’s agree that the entire league Basketball Related Income (BRI) was the reported figure of 1.9 billion last year. Under the old agreement, the league paid the players 57% of this figure in salary and benefits. On it’s face, that seems like alot of money to pay just your labor force when you factor in other costs of doing business (stadium costs, management costs, marketing costs, building and debt interest, etc). I can see where certain low income generating teams would have difficulty making a profit under those circumstances, and contrary to many I don’t see the word “profit” as being a dirty word. Owners invest the money and inherit all the risks, they should have a business model that at least gives them a chance to make money.

That is why I propose such a drastic shift in income split from 57% of BRI to the players to my idea of starting it at 49%.

However, the players cannot look at it this like it is a massive loss of income. Instead, they have to look at it is taking a smaller percentage of a much larger pie that the league should hopefully be able to make happen.

My idea insures this by making this proposal:

-At 1.9 billion BRI or below, the players are entitled to 49% of that.

-At 2.0 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 50%.

At 2.2 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 51%. (At this point, the players recoup all of their losses if my math is correct.)

At 2.4 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 52%.

At 2.6 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 53%

At 2.8 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 54%

At 3.0 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 55%

Maybe the math or the percentages can change, but this is how a deal can be structured so everyone can win….owners get short term relief, while the players profit in the growth of the league to recoup their money.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————— —

SALARY CAP RULES/CONTRACT STRUCTURES/RULES FOR COMPETITION

A SALARY CEILING OF $ 50,000,000 WILL BE SET IN YEAR 3 OF THE AGREEMENT, PHASED IN OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS, TO TAKE PLACE ON JULY 1, 2013. PLEASE READ BELOW FOR DETAILS/EXCEPTIONS

- Teams will have until July 15, 2013 to get under the salary ceiling

-Players will be now hereby be categorized in the following ways:

A. ROOKIE CONTRACT PLAYERS

B. YOUNG VETS

C. PRIME PLAYERS

D. FRANCHISE PLAYERS

E. VETERAN PLAYERS

Here are the salary structures and rules for each category of player:

—————————————————————————————————————————————————— —-

ROOKIE CONTRACT PLAYERS (RCP) WILL BE DEFINED AS PLAYERS ON THEIR FIRST CONTRACT.* Rookie contracts will be DRASTICALLY cut in this CBA proposal.

Under my plan for rookie contract players, THE NBA DRAFT WILL BE CUT TO ONE ROUND ONLY. The 1st overall pick will earn a salary of 3.0 million flat, the 2nd overall pick will earn a salary of 2.9 million flat, the 3rd overall selection will earn a salary of 2.8 million, and so on.

In addition, all drafted rookie contracts will be 3 years in length, with the 4th year being a team option, and the 5th year being a mutual team and player option. Each RCP will be eligible for free agency after either year 3, year 4, or year 5 in the league, and all of their first 5 seasons are fully guaranteed by the team if the options are picked up.

Each team will be reimbursed by the league at 50% of the value of a contract if a RCP is released, but the player will receive 100% of their money.

ALL “ROOKIE CONTRACT PLAYERS” IN YEARS 1, 2, and 3 OF THEIR CONTRACTS DO NOT COUNT AGAINST THE SALARY CEILING LIMIT.** This is an important point…..so remember it, these RCP DO NOT count against your cap until year 4, if you should as a team so choose to keep them.* If you should exercise your team option in year 4, they would count against your spending ceiling, but you would know going in of the cost certainty you would have with them.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————— —-

“YOUNG VETS” is the name of any player who has reached the end of his RCP status, either with a contract extension mutual agreed to by his existing team or by the expiration of his rookie contract. By definition, these players will be playing in contracts that start in years 4, 5,* 6, 7, 8 of their* NBA contracts.

“YV” players DO count against your salary ceiling limit. A league minimum contract for players in this category is 1,000,000, and there would be a maximum limit on how much each individual player can make of $6,000,000. However, individual contracts would not be able to exceed 3 years in length, and would contain a standard buyout clause of 50% of the remaining value of the contract.

“YV” players can sign a contract beginning in year 8 of their career, and have it continue until the end of year 10, if such player and a franchise choose to do so.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————— –

“PRIME PLAYERS” are players who have their contracts end after year 8 of the NBA career. Their salaries are to be set with a minimum of 3,000,000, with NO MAXIMUM AMOUNT. Teams are able to sign “PP” individuals to whatever amount they feel appropriate, as long as they do not exceed their overall salary ceiling. Contracts are limited to a length of 4 years, with the final year being partially guaranteed with a standard buyout of 50% of the remaining value of the contract.

“PP” players DO count against your salary ceiling, which is not to be exceeded.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————— —

“FRANCHISE PLAYERS” are to be considered the top of the line, elite level superstars in the league.

“FP” individuals DO count against a team’s salary ceiling. However, you can exceed the salary ceiling of 50,000,000 by 25% if you should so designate a player to be your “franchise player” for a period of 365 days. This designation is only to be given to a player who is eligible to be a free agent, and can only be given out 1 time per player.

For example, a player designated as a “franchise player” such as Lebron James last summer, would no doubt have been tagged as an “FP” by Cleveland.* In this case, the “FP” is entitled to a 1 year salary of 30% of the salary cap (15,000,000 in this case) or the average salary of the 3 highest paid players in the league, whichever is higher.

After a season being a “FP”, a player is then eligible again for full free agency. If such player leaves his original team, then said team is eligible for a “sandwich” draft pick held just after the lottery teams select in the following draft (in other words, pick number #15 as a compensation pick), plus the signing teams draft pick in the following draft.

“FP” players by definition are players who are within one year of their contract expiring, and can be designated by a team on a player of any contract status. For instance, if a team wants to designate a player nearing the end of “RCP” status, they can do so as long as they have the salary ceiling room to fit the contract needed to do so.

“FP” players are by definition players in the last year of their contracts.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————— —-

“VETERAN MINIMUM” players are players who have reached the end of their contracts by the end of season 12 of service time in the league. These players DO NOT count against the salary ceiling, and can sign for a minimum of 1,000,000 and a maximum of 3,000,000 for a contract not exceed 3 years, with a standard 50% buyout and partially guaranteed the last year.

So, in summary…..

ROOKIE CONTRACT PLAYERS (players with 1-5 service time) don’t count against your ceiling.

YOUNG VETS (players with a minimum of 4 to a max of 10 years of service) do count against the salary ceiling, and have a mimimum and maximum salary.

PRIME PLAYERS (players with a minimum of 8 to a maximum of 15) do count against your ceiling, have a minimum salary but no maximum, and can make as much as you see fit as long as you fit them under the salary ceiling.

FRANCHISE PLAYERS (players on your roster with an expiring contract that you want to keep) can be kept for one additional year past their contract end date IF they are compensated at a minimum rate of $15,000,000 per year and if you can fit them under your “FP” ceiling of 5 million plus 50 million.

VETERAN MINIMUM PLAYERS (players not under contract with a minimum of 12 years service time) can be signed at anytime for between $1-3 million and do not count against your salary cap.

In addition, standard contracts will now have a 50% buyout/termination clause, should a team choose to exercise it. Also, at the end of every season, at the end of the 2012-2013 season, each team will be given an amnesty clause to get under the July 15, 2013 Salary ceiling required level, thereby being able to freely waive one contract from their existing books.

In addition to a salary ceiling, all teams will be required to stay above a “salary floor” of $40 million, being paid to all salary counting eligible players.

Thereby, it is estimated that the TCPS (total compensation player salary) will be $56 million per team in 2013-2014 (1.68 billion, 45 million in ceiling salary, plus RCP and VM players). If indeed that isnt the case, then teams agree to compensate the players in a general fund each year to that amount, to be paid out to the players at the end of each season.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————— –

As revenues grow, one key suggestion is to NOT increase the salary cap…leave it at the theoretical 50,000,000 level I invented for the sake of the above example….maybe that number is too high or too low, but it felt right as I looked at it. Whatever excess the players are owed should be invested in a general fund that would be paid out at the end of each NBA fiscal year. This should add stability to franchises, give them some level of cost certainty, and protect franchises against economic downturns.

The goal here is to somehow get every franchise to generate at least $75 million in revenues at a minimum, which should enable each franchise to make a little profit and be competitive, which is the goal for the overall growth spurt the league needs. A fair profit isn’t something a business should do without, a modest 5% or so profit on that much time and investment per year is reasonable, isn’t it?

I think the enhanced revenue sharing, opportunities for revenue growth, and salary structures I’ve thrown out there make some sense and give the owners/league a chance for cost certainty, which should help them grow their businesses and enhance competition.

At least, it should create some good discussion, should any of you be able to make it thru this 3500 word manifesto.

As always, the above is just my opinion.

Tbird

http://www.pacersdigest.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png (http://www.addtoany.com/share_save)

BillS
07-09-2011, 06:04 PM
Probably the most interesting things here are the ideas that Rookie and Vet Minimum contracts would not count against the cap. Hmmm....

Shade
07-09-2011, 06:31 PM
Lots of good ideas there, tbird.

travmil
07-09-2011, 06:57 PM
This is as fine and thought out as any piece I've read from any national journalist. I think most of these ideas represent "out of the box" thinking to use a bad corporate buzzword. I think the local TV deal revenue sharing needs to happen but never will. I think the biggest problem with NBA owners is that they think of only the success of THEIR franchise instead of thinking of the success of the entire league. LA and New York don't want to split their TV money. Does anyone remember a few years ago when Portland sent out that message to the league telling everyone not to sign Darius Miles in an effort to damage their financial position. The big market teams sent out letters saying it sounded like their "partner" in Portland was telling them what to do. So, when it comes to sharing local TV revenue, we're not partners, but when it comes to signing players we are? Go screw yourselves big market teams.

One other thing I hear, from some posters on here even, is that the NBA owners want to emulate the NFL CBA and they hate that. My question there is why? Why is it not a good idea to emulate the most successful sports league in the world? Why is not a good idea to emulate a league who has grown their product in double digit percentages nearly every year for two decades? Why would it not be a good idea to emulate a league where the LEAST valued franchise is more valuable than all but a select few of the teams in every other major sport. If you can be more like them, you should. If you refuse to change to be more like them, you're stupid and should be out of business. I liken it to Blockbuster. Blockbuster was the king of DVD in this country for over a decade. Then Netflix and Redbox came along. Blockbuster tried to soldier on believing that people would NEVER latch on to the idea of using the mail or a machine to rent DVD's. By the time Blockbuster gave in and tried to start their own mail and machine services, the damage was done and they're out of business. The same thing is going to happen to the NBA if they aren't careful. It will take longer because of the emotional attachment people have with sports teams, but it WILL happen.

There are two chief reasons that the NFL is so successful. The first is revenue sharing. Every team gets their share of the whole pie. Every time they go to carve it up, their share might change slightly percentage wise, but the pie is twice the size of the last pie they baked so it doesn't matter. The second reason is non guaranteed contracts. NBA owners are completely hamstrung by overpriced stars who are, for whatever reason, failing to produce at the rate their contract would dictate. Even if it's an injury, no business owner should be expected to pay someone who is not contributing to their business. I know I wouldn't be paid, at least not by my employer, so why should the job of professional athlete be any different.

Is my position harsh? Yes. Do I care? Absolutely not. My concern is the success of the Indiana Pacers and if cutting Jamaal Tinsley and not paying him because of his foot bruise achieves that, so be it. Maybe it's not an injury. Maybe the player is getting older and his skills are declining. Again, not my problem. If I'm an owner I'm not paying you $18 million a year to be a good will ambassador. I'm not paying you this season for what you've accomplished in ANY other season. I want wins THIS season and I want YOU to contribute to those wins. You want to go out and get yourself arrested and suspended? Fine, as long as you know the end result is that you won't be getting paid by my team or anyone else's. Maybe it's even worse and the player isn't producing because he isn't happy, he wants to be traded, or has a bad attitude for some other reason. This is the worst kind of deluded, entitled, childish crap. Welcome to the unemployment line you overgrown crybaby!

Anyway, my two cents. Maybe it's only worth a penny and a half. I will probably get roasted for it but that really is the way I feel.

DG33AD
07-09-2011, 07:21 PM
Holy ****** how long did that take you

pacer4ever
07-09-2011, 09:37 PM
Probably the most interesting things here are the ideas that Rookie and Vet Minimum contracts would not count against the cap. Hmmm....

Miami would still be fine if this happened

Eleazar
07-10-2011, 02:59 AM
- Teams will have until July 15, 2013 to get under the salary ceiling


THE NBA DRAFT WILL BE CUT TO ONE ROUND ONLY.


This designation is only to be given to a player who is eligible to be a free agent, and can only be given out 1 time per player.

After a season being a “FP”, a player is then eligible again for full free agency. If such player leaves his original team, then said team is eligible for a “sandwich” draft pick held just after the lottery teams select in the following draft (in other words, pick number #15 as a compensation pick), plus the signing teams draft pick in the following draft.


“VETERAN MINIMUM” players are players who have reached the end of their contracts by the end of season 12 of service time in the league. These players DO NOT count against the salary ceiling, and can sign for a minimum of 1,000,000 and a maximum of 3,000,000 for a contract not exceed 3 years, with a standard 50% buyout and partially guaranteed the last year.



July 15, 2013 is an extremely arbitrary date. Just make it either the first day of training camp, or the day before the first game of the season.

I don't quite get the point of limiting it to only one round, especially considering as is 2nd round contracts aren't guaranteed to begin with.

I am assuming you want to limit each team to one franchise player at a time, and that it is one time per player per team so the same team can't keep giving them the tag but there next team can. Or are you really trying to limit so that a player can only receive that tag only once in their career?

That would give the team 3 picks in the draft. That is too much in my opinion. Either give them just the compensatory pick or the other teams pick not both.

Having vets not count against the cap is not a good idea, neither is limiting their contract size to $3 million just because they have played for 12+ seasons and don't qualify as a franchise player. I think your Vet classifications needs to be completely rethought.

ballism
07-10-2011, 03:47 AM
Let’s agree that the entire league Basketball Related Income (BRI) was the reported figure of 1.9 billion last year.

My idea insures this by making this proposal:

-At 1.9 billion BRI or below, the players are entitled to 49% of that.

-At 2.0 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 50%.

At 2.2 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 51%. (At this point, the players recoup all of their losses if my math is correct.)

At 2.4 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 52%.

At 2.6 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 53%

At 2.8 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 54%

At 3.0 billion BRI, the players are entitled to 55%

Maybe the math or the percentages can change, but this is how a deal can be structured so everyone can win….owners get short term relief, while the players profit in the growth of the league to recoup their money.


BRI was something like 3.6 billion last year. Anyway, even if we change the math I think that system would be impossible to get accepted.

Most players won't stick in the league long enough to enjoy the distant raise.
I don't see a player take a huge paycut today so that 5 or 10 years from now there would maybe be a raise. Most of current players won't be in the league by then.

Also, for this to really be a short term financial relief for owners, it would have to take salary rollbacks next year. That's the last thing players want.

Not to mention, owners seem to be more concerned with long term slice rather than short term relief, judging by their proposals.

Richard_Skull
07-10-2011, 06:05 AM
One other thing I hear, from some posters on here even, is that the NBA owners want to emulate the NFL CBA and they hate that. My question there is why? Why is it not a good idea to emulate the most successful sports league in the world? Why is not a good idea to emulate a league who has grown their product in double digit percentages nearly every year for two decades? different.

The same reason you don't see orange pie or apple chicken Chinese food.
These leagues are so different. Parity is easier to achieve in a league with 20+ positions and plays 40+ deep once a week than a leagea that can literally be dominated by a hand-full of players.

Plus football grows so much easier because its played once a week and almost on everybody's day off (most of the time).

Their models are completely different. Would you run a car-wash the same way as a burger joint?

able
07-10-2011, 06:14 AM
The following players would currently be playing in the NBA for a 3 mio max salary:

Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen

In fact on the Celtics for the coming year only Green and Rondo would count against the CAP, now that's a scary thought!

I am almost certain though that all those players would in that case be playing in Europe for 3 or 4 times that money, and tax free.

BillS
07-10-2011, 12:23 PM
Having vets not count against the cap is not a good idea, neither is limiting their contract size to $3 million just because they have played for 12+ seasons and don't qualify as a franchise player. I think your Vet classifications needs to be completely rethought.


The following players would currently be playing in the NBA for a 3 mio max salary:

Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen

You guys are missing the point. This is a new Vet Minimum rule being proposed, not a rule that ALL vets get paid that much. Most of the guys mentioned by Able would either be "Franchise" or "Prime" players, not "Vet Minimum" players.

Basically, this guarantees you always can fill out your roster with minimum guys even if you've spent your cap space on your superstars.

imawhat
07-10-2011, 01:46 PM
There are plenty of good ideas here; thanks for laying them out at once.. It's too bad the players union will never be reasonable enough to make these kinds of radical changes.

My concern is that it feels like the major market teams are pulling the weight for smaller teams. It seems like there's little reward in being a large market team, other than getting to keep that 25% chunk of TV revenue. I'm not sure how to get around it.

Eleazar
07-10-2011, 02:47 PM
You guys are missing the point. This is a new Vet Minimum rule being proposed, not a rule that ALL vets get paid that much. Most of the guys mentioned by Able would either be "Franchise" or "Prime" players, not "Vet Minimum" players.

Basically, this guarantees you always can fill out your roster with minimum guys even if you've spent your cap space on your superstars.

No I get the point, but it is a poorly thought out point. Under this Reggie Miller would have only made $3 million a year in his final years even though he should have been making what he actually made. If you want to say the first $3 million do not count against the cap I am cool with that, but to limit the player to only $3 million would be under paying many players who are still good, just aren't worth the franchise tag anymore. It also makes it just as easy to create these super teams that more small markets are trying to get rid of, and make it even easier for them to fill out their rosters with quality players. Instead of have 3 superstars, a few rookie contract guys, and a bunch of scrubs they now can have 3 superstars, a few rookie contract guys, and as many quality vets as they can fit on a 15 man roster.

If you want to do it so that Vets don't count against the cap instead of making it so none of their contract counts against the cap, make it so they only partially count against the cap. Instead of putting a limit to $3 million, make it so that the first $3 million doesn't count against the cap.

BillS
07-10-2011, 05:39 PM
No I get the point, but it is a poorly thought out point. Under this Reggie Miller would have only made $3 million a year in his final years even though he should have been making what he actually made.

Where are you getting that? Nowhere does TBird say that once a player gets 12 years in the league he can ONLY make Vet Minimum. The players still seen as worth Prime money will get Prime money. It's just that once a player drops out of that level of play (and therefore his value isn't based on what the market will pay), he falls under the new Vet Minimum structure as proposed by TBird instead of the current Vet Minimum structure. If such a player then shows skills that would justify a higher contract to some team, he can still get it once his Vet Minimum contract expires, just like could happen today if circumstances would work out that way.

Vet Minimum exists now, and no one who qualifies for it is forced to take it instead of a market-based salary. It just sets a floor to what a veteran can make, not a ceiling.

The only difference will be that, with no max on Franchise or Prime players, more players will HAVE to fall under the minimum structure, since there won't be cap space for them.

Eleazar
07-10-2011, 07:18 PM
Where are you getting that? Nowhere does TBird say that once a player gets 12 years in the league he can ONLY make Vet Minimum. The players still seen as worth Prime money will get Prime money. It's just that once a player drops out of that level of play (and therefore his value isn't based on what the market will pay), he falls under the new Vet Minimum structure as proposed by TBird instead of the current Vet Minimum structure. If such a player then shows skills that would justify a higher contract to some team, he can still get it once his Vet Minimum contract expires, just like could happen today if circumstances would work out that way.

Vet Minimum exists now, and no one who qualifies for it is forced to take it instead of a market-based salary. It just sets a floor to what a veteran can make, not a ceiling.

The only difference will be that, with no max on Franchise or Prime players, more players will HAVE to fall under the minimum structure, since there won't be cap space for them.

I have no idea where you got any of that because that is no where in his post. All it says is, "'VETERAN MINIMUM' players are players who have reached the end of their contracts by the end of season 12 of service time in the league. " That isn't anything like the current Vet min which is just a floor. This is if your contract ends after your 12th season, and you aren't given the franchise tag you can only make a maximum of $3 million.

If he meant it as what you are saying then he did not explain it properly, and should have said something like, "VETERAN MINIMUM players are players who have played over 12 season in the league, and do not make a salary larger than $3 million." He didn't put any other qualifier in there except having a contract ending after the players 12th season.

BillS
07-10-2011, 07:39 PM
I have no idea where you got any of that because that is no where in his post. All it says is, "'VETERAN MINIMUM' players are players who have reached the end of their contracts by the end of season 12 of service time in the league. " That isn't anything like the current Vet min which is just a floor. This is if your contract ends after your 12th season, and you aren't given the franchise tag you can only make a maximum of $3 million.

I got it as implied from this:



VETERAN MINIMUM PLAYERS (players not under contract with a minimum of 12 years service time) can be signed at anytime for between $1-3 million and do not count against your salary cap.

though I will admit I did not catch this (bold is mine):


PRIME PLAYERS (players with a minimum of 8 to a <b>maximum of 15</b>) do count against your ceiling, have a minimum salary but no maximum, and can make as much as you see fit as long as you fit them under the salary ceiling.

However, I would maintain that Reggie would have been considered the franchise player and given a franchise deal every year.

Given the review, though, I'd modify my praise to include a caveat that there be no maximum time-in-service for Prime players.

Richard_Skull
07-10-2011, 08:31 PM
Basically, If you been in the league 12+ years and make less than 3 mill You don't count against the cap.

thunderbird1245
07-10-2011, 09:55 PM
I love that you guys are reading this long difficult to get thru article and trying to determine what I meant. I realize after re-reading some of what I wrote that I could have been a little clearer on what I was trying to say....for that I apologize. I also left out a few details that I had made in my personal outline of this that I forgot to put in. Since this piece ended up at 3500 words anyway, maybe that was for the best.

Here are some clarifications as to all of your thoughts and what I was trying to implement...of course all of these things could be tweaked slightly if need be, this were just ideas from a little old high school coach in southern Indiana.

1. CLARIFICATION OF "FRANCHISE" PLAYERS.

Let's say that for example, Danny Granger plays out his current contract and doesn't sign an extension. He expires and becomes a "prime player" free agent. He is at that point totally free to sign for whatever the market will bear, within the constraints of each teams ceiling situation with whomever he wants.

However, if Indiana chooses to "franchise" Granger, they can do so to keep him for one additional season at the salary I described above (the average of the 3 highest salaries in the league or at 1 yr 15 million, whichever is greater). This gives Indiana one more year of his service, giving them more time to either deal him, sign him long term, or to just let him play out for one more playoff run. It also enables Indiana to get draft pick compensation from the league and other team that signs him should he leave the following year.

Now, my good friend BillS is incorrect in saying that we could just "franchise" him at the end of every season in my plan. In my plan we could only do so once, then after the season he becomes a total free agent again, open to signing anywhere for whatever is monetary value is.

In my plan in the real world, had it been in effect this CBA period, Cleveland could have "franchised" Lebron James for one more season had they so chosen to do so, and kept him on a one year deal for 2010-2011. Then he would have been a free agent at this current summer. Assuming Miami would have again signed him, then Cleveland would be entitled for a "sandwich" pick just after the lottery in the 2012 draft, plus also Miami's next draft pick, whenever that may be. In effect this would help teams who lose a "franchise" player rebuild more quickly, mitigating the devastating effect somewhat when a player like that leaves.

2. "ACCELERATOR" PROVISION: This is a term I omitted from my original post.

This term covers the following situation, presented for example's sake only:

Cleveland drafted Kyrie Irving with the first overall pick in the 2011 draft.

In my plan, Irving would be paid a flat $3,000,000 per year for 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. For the season 2014-15, Cleveland would have a team option on him, and assuming Irving is really really good lets say they use it for the set salary if the first overall draft pick of (again) 3,000,000 in the season 2014-2015.

Ok, so Irving is a Cavalier for 4 seasons. Lets suppose Irving is now one of the best point guards in the league and believes he is underpaid, or just wants to leave Cleveland. The Cavs activate their option, but Irving declines his mutual option in year 5 and wants to become a free agent.

By rule of the CBA I proposed, as a "YV player" (a player who has completed just 4 years under contract), he is capped at a salary of no more than 6,000,000 per season for 3 seasons. So lets say that many teams think this is a good price, and 5 teams make that offer, with Irving lets say for fun wanting to sign with New York.

But let's say Cleveland decides they love Irving, and choose to "franchise" Irving, making him an "FP". Ok, so he plays one more year with the Cavs for 15,000,000, then is a free agent again at the end of year 5. Follow me so far? Cleveland of course may have made other moves to be able to afford that under the FP cap of 50,000,000 total salary ceiling plus 5,000,000 for having an FP exception.

Ok, so still just being a "YV" player, he should be limited still to the 3 year x 6,000,000 per year contract of a player of that status. But in my CBA plan because he became a "FP", he now ACCELERATES past the "YV" category and becomes a "PRIME PLAYER" EVEN THOUGH HE HAS ONLY COMPLETED 5 YEARS. This means he can be signed to whatever amount teams see fit with no restrictions despite his service time, with all the stipulations that normal "PP" individuals will have.

3. FURTHER CATEGORY EXPLANATIONS

Even though I worded it poorly, BillS above was able to mostly deduce what my intent was concerning "VETERAN MINIMUM" PLAYERS and "PRIME PLAYERS".

Let's use a theoretical example to hopefully help clarify what I meant in my admittedly unclear wording of the original proposal.

By definition, a "PP" is a player with an expiring contract who has between 8 and 12 years of service time, with the exception of a player who has been "accelerated" into this class by being franchised before hand.

So let's walk through this by using a real life example from our own team, last years drafted rookie Paul George.

Paul was picked 10th overall, so his salary becomes (if this was made retroactive to fit current players, which I am not sure would really be feasible) 2.1 million bucks.

So his status is for 2011-2012, and for 2012-2013 a salary of 2.1 million, per his draft slot.

For 2013-2014 we have a team option, which we obviously would pick up, so put him down again for 2.1 million for that season.

2014-2015 it is a mutual option, and lets say Paul has clearly out performed that number, so he opts out and becomes a "YV" free agent. Lets further more state the obvious, that while he is extremely good he isn't a superstar, so franchising him makes no sense financially or strategically.

But lets say that he likes Indiana and decides to stay, so he signs the max deal offered, which is 3 years x 6 million per year.

So for 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 he is a Pacer under contract.

Ok, after 2016-2017 he is still a "YV" player, not eligible for a raise for one more season, since he is only completed 7 years in the league. So, he could now make a variety of choices.....he could sign another 3 yr x 6,000,000 per year deal with someone, and forego the ability to become a "PP" until after service year 10, or he could sign a 1 year x 6 million per deal if he so chooses so he can become a "PP" player after year 8. That would be up to him and his agent and the teams involved in the bidding, and of course would be a gamble. (of course he may not deserve such a contract and may have to take less, but 6 mil per is his max at that point)

So let's say Paul is an all star at this point and just wants to get to "PP" status as fast as possible. So he wants to sign with the Lakers and take their 1 year 6 million bucks offer. But Indiana doesn't want to lose him, so we franchise him and pay him big money for one season, and get some draft compensation if he leaves. So for 2017-2018 he is a Pacer for 15 million bucks for one season.

So now it is the summer of 2018, and Paul George is a 4 time all star now capable of making as much money as a team can fit him under. But he has now gotten married and built a home in Carmel, and wants to stay in Indiana. Plus Indiana wants him back as well, so we sign Paul George to a 4 year 68 million contract.

So now Paul has cashed in. Contracts are flat in my CBA theoretically, so he makes now:

2018-2019= 17 million
2019-2020=17 million
2020-2021=17 million
2021-2022=17 million

That takes up years 9, 10, 11, 12 of his service time.

By now, Paul is an Indiana Pacer legend in the fans eyes, but he is also on the wrong side of 30 making a huge amount of money. The Pacers can't "franchise" him again because we've done that with him once already, plus it would make no sense to do so anyway financially.

Theoretically, he qualifies for VETERAN MINIMUM STATUS he has played 12 years now), which means his contract between 1 million minimum and 3 million maximum wouldnt count under this CBA.

But while George isn't a superstar anymore, he is still really good and can demand more on the open market than that, which means HE CONTINUES TO BE A "PRIME PLAYER"!!! Now lets say Indiana chooses to save money and not resign Paul George, another team could sign him for whatever salary per year they so choose, as long as it isn't more than 4 years in length. Indiana of course could do the same thing. If George is bad enough of a player to only demand a 3million per year deal or less, a team WOULD NOT have to count him against the ceiling. If he signs for more than that, then his salary WOULD count for the total amount he signs for....IF HE MAKES MORE THAN 3 MILLION PER, BY DEFINITION HE ISN'T A "VET MIN" PLAYER.

Lets say for fun that Indiana signs him to a 3 year, 8 million per year deal.

So for service years 13/14/15. A deal by definition of my CBA CANNOT EXCEED YEAR 15. YES, THAT MEANS ALL PLAYERS MUST BE FREE AGENTS AFTER THEIR 15TH YEAR IF THEY ARE PRIME PLAYERS....a player however could sign a "VM" deal in year 14 that carried him past year 15, and that would be ok, since he was a VM player making 3 million or less.

Now, a player can REMAIN A PRIME PLAYER PAST YEAR 15 IF TEAMS CHOOSE TO DO SO, BUT HE MUST HAVE A CONTRACT STRUCTURE THAT ENDS AFTER YEAR 15. TEAMS THAT SIGN SAID PLAYER AGAIN AT THAT TIME.

2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25, he makes 8 million per year.

After the second year it becomes apparent that Paul George is injured and isn't that good, and has turned into Ron Artest/Jamal Tinsley. He is 34 years old and going thru the motions. Indiana opts to buy him out after year 2 for 4 million (half of the remaining value of his deal).

Now the Heat want him, so he signs a VET MIN deal with them for 3 million for 1 year, and his deal doesn't count against their ceiling. He plays semi decently in 2025 playoffs, so he still has a market but it is limited. But by the fact that his SALARY DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE CAP, veteran players remain in demand....and Paul can play for a few more seasons if he so chooses.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hope this clarifies a little of what I was going for....reading it it may have helped or it may have made it more confusing I can't tell.

Thank you for all the interest and good ideas. I have some more ideas I am not including in all of this, mainly because I want to consider them more and plus I want to see what all of you come up with as well.

Tbird

BillS
07-11-2011, 09:38 AM
Thanks, TBird. I have to say, though, that I don't quite understand where there is any value in designating someone FP if you can only do it once and for one season. It doesn't change anything in the long run - in your example, Cleveland still loses LBJ - and really just stretches out the agony, with a year of a player who essentially KNOWS he isn't going to be back the next year.

I'd propose that you can FP a player as many times as you want, for one year at a time, given that the financials are easily high enough not to hurt the player's earning potential. Since the PP designation also has no max, the only incentive for a team to designate a player as FP is to keep him - so doing it for only one year makes no sense except to try to get that sandwich pick and the (probably late round) signing franchise's pick - the combination of which is still not likely to even approach the value of a franchise player in the first place.

thunderbird1245
07-11-2011, 11:21 AM
Thanks, TBird. I have to say, though, that I don't quite understand where there is any value in designating someone FP if you can only do it once and for one season. It doesn't change anything in the long run - in your example, Cleveland still loses LBJ - and really just stretches out the agony, with a year of a player who essentially KNOWS he isn't going to be back the next year.

I'd propose that you can FP a player as many times as you want, for one year at a time, given that the financials are easily high enough not to hurt the player's earning potential. Since the PP designation also has no max, the only incentive for a team to designate a player as FP is to keep him - so doing it for only one year makes no sense except to try to get that sandwich pick and the (probably late round) signing franchise's pick - the combination of which is still not likely to even approach the value of a franchise player in the first place.


You couldn't ever get the players to agree to that BillS, if they did theoretically a player could possibly NEVER EVER become a free agent....no way will the union agree to that, nor should they. I think all you can do is just to try and give the original team more time to adjust and plan, and maybe get some compensation should they leave of some kind.

Think about if this system was in place right now. Cleveland would have had James for all of last season likely. Then when he leaves (if he would sign again Miami for example) then Cleveland would get 3 draft picks next year in a super loaded draft. Their own pick, a sandwich pick, and Miami's pick. That is instead of losing him a year ahead of time and getting nothing if he leaves.

Or, it would have given Cleveland another deal to try and sign him or to deal him somewhere for better assets than those 2 additional draft picks they get if he plays it out and then bolts.

I wasnt trying to take away players rights to move as free agents, instead I was trying to get teams to not be so devastated and decimated if their superstars leave.

That was my thinking. If a player like James truly wanted to stay, this system could work as well. He could have been franchised and been a 1 yr 15 million deal, then signed the next year with Cleveland again for an unlimited salary, as long as it came in under the ceiling. That would have allowed him to "accelerate" past the YV status into PP status under my plan, of that indeed would have been necessary.

Obviously, the negative for the player is that he is somewhat unprotected there, only having a one year deal....but he is rewarded beyond that by having freedom to move to wherever, plus draw more salary per year in his next deal than 6 million per year, which is what he is limited to if he isnt franchised to start with and he is under 8 years service time.

Get my thinking?

Since86
07-11-2011, 11:41 AM
There are two chief reasons that the NFL is so successful. The first is revenue sharing. Every team gets their share of the whole pie. Every time they go to carve it up, their share might change slightly percentage wise, but the pie is twice the size of the last pie they baked so it doesn't matter. The second reason is non guaranteed contracts. NBA owners are completely hamstrung by overpriced stars who are, for whatever reason, failing to produce at the rate their contract would dictate. Even if it's an injury, no business owner should be expected to pay someone who is not contributing to their business. I know I wouldn't be paid, at least not by my employer, so why should the job of professional athlete be any different.

You're not taking into an account of an EXTREMELY important difference between the NFL and the NBA.

The NFL makes the TV deals for ALL of their teams. The NBA doesn't. Sure, they can make deals with TNT/ABC/ESPN for the games that they pick to be on national TV, but they don't make the deal between the Pacers and FSN-IN. And they shouldn't.

I would assume the TV deals that the NBA makes, TNT/ABC/ESPN, is split evenly by all NBA teams.

But the Pacers shouldn't be getting money from the Lakers because the Lakers got a sweet TV deal with some local channel.

travmil
07-11-2011, 12:05 PM
You're not taking into an account of an EXTREMELY important difference between the NFL and the NBA.

The NFL makes the TV deals for ALL of their teams. The NBA doesn't. Sure, they can make deals with TNT/ABC/ESPN for the games that they pick to be on national TV, but they don't make the deal between the Pacers and FSN-IN. And they shouldn't.

I would assume the TV deals that the NBA makes, TNT/ABC/ESPN, is split evenly by all NBA teams.

But the Pacers shouldn't be getting money from the Lakers because the Lakers got a sweet TV deal with some local channel.

I know there's that difference. The reason the NFL can negotiate for all teams for the ENTIRE product is that the product is so much better and more valuable. It wasn't always that way. It got that way because of better business decisions and bigger overall interest in their product. The NBA could have what the NFL has IF they could get big market owners on board.

Since86
07-11-2011, 12:13 PM
No they couldn't. The differences between the two leagues are so big that they're not going to be overcome just by offering a better product.

The NFL is successful because it's limited. Each game has extremely high importance on the season as a whole. In the NBA they have things that people like to call "schedule losses."

That right there is a huge difference.

People are willing to shell out $150 per ticket to an exclusive event, like the NFL. They're not going to do that to some mundane, routine event like the NBA.

You can't simply model the NFL system and think that it's going to work, because it works for the NFL.

EDIT: Which falls back to the number of people willing to sit down on a Sunday afternoon/night or a monday night etc. People will stay up late and skip out on some sleep to watch a Monday night game, and not think twice about it. But stay up to watch a Lakers game? Nope, bed time.

Because of the difference in scheduling, TV deals are much easier to manage and much easier to split up.

CBS can offer Indy/Houston in our area and offer Oakland/San Diego in another area and flat out know that they're going to get ratings in both markets.

They know that's not expectations with the NBA.

Which means TV deals get passed on to smaller/local channels like Fox Sports MW, or FSN-IN, or whatever channel.

Indiana gets $10M per season. LAL gets $300M per season.

CBS isn't going to make an offer to cover every game. And the NBA isn't going to take the time to negotiate TV deals for national games, and then local TV deals for all of the NBA teams.

I would be giddy if the Pacers could get their hands on that $300M (or whatever the massive number is) but that's not going to happen.

I think we'll see a deal with a certain percentage shared, but they aren't going to spread it all out evenly, nor should they.

BillS
07-11-2011, 12:44 PM
You couldn't ever get the players to agree to that BillS, if they did theoretically a player could possibly NEVER EVER become a free agent....no way will the union agree to that, nor should they. I think all you can do is just to try and give the original team more time to adjust and plan, and maybe get some compensation should they leave of some kind.

My thinking is that:

- we're talking a maximum of 30 players per season (and I seriously doubt that every team would designate a franchise player just for the heck of it due to the severe salary hit it would take).

- from my perspective, the point is for a team (and its fan base) to be able to keep a player they've invested time, money, and emotion into. If we make it just one additional year and easy to move the next year, it fails in that purpose. It keeps multiple FPs from moving to the same team in the same year - a team only has one first round pick that they officially own in a year, after all - but major players still can gravitate to the places where the intangibles are best.

- compensation with a non-lottery draft pick plus a late draft pick (since the team the superstar is moving to is likely going to finish much higher in the standings than the team who lost the superstar) is really not going to bring a replacement. There's also the thought that the sandwich pick punishes the teams who made the playoffs but didn't try to grab someone else's FP - they might lose out on the piece they need by being shifted down one (or more, depending on the FP movement in a given year) places.

To make it more fair on the player, maybe there should be a way the player can buy himself out (or request arbitration to try to get out) of FP status if it is so important to him to move (like getting away from a badly managed team or out from under a "revenge" scenario), but I think the fact of the matter is that if a player is so disgruntled at being somewhere the franchise will usually end up biting the bullet and trading him or dropping the FP tag. It should be the way the franchise can protect their investment, which is why it should cost so much more than any other player.

With great power comes great responsibility, and I think part of a great players' responsibility should be to the fans who have given him their support. It's more than just a relationship between a player and the team owner, it's sports.

travmil
07-11-2011, 12:52 PM
I think we'll see a deal with a certain percentage shared, but they aren't going to spread it all out evenly, nor should they.

But this is PRECISELY what the NFL owners did. They agreed to split it evenly.

Needless to say, I don't share your opinion. 5 or 6 teams should NOT be allowed to make more money than the rest of the teams combined. That's just not good business. Stern talks about growing the product, but what he's really doing is creating a traveling road show for those 5 or 6 teams.

The NBA will NEVER have parity without revenue sharing.

Brad8888
07-11-2011, 12:57 PM
It really is as simple as this. The NBA supplies 15 X 82 = 1230 games per regular season. The NFL suppiles 16 X 16 = 256 games per regular season. The sense of urgency to attend and or watch NFL games is magnified as a result of scarcity as much as anything else. Also, the NFL has the vast majority of its games during times and on days that are more accessible to more people on a consistent basis than any other sport. These factors make people more likely to spend time and money on that sport compared to the others, which makes it healthier overall.

So, cut the season back to fewer games, cut the number of teams, and increase the quality and sense of consumer urgency regarding those games and players. The remaining league would be healthier and more robust as a result and everyone involved would be happy (remaining owners, remaining players, and at least those fans in the remaining markets, and casual fans everywhere).

Do the Pacers exist in this new league? Maybe, maybe not.

Since86
07-11-2011, 01:05 PM
If teams shouldn't be allowed to make more money, then where is the proposal to set ticket prices league wide?

Yeah right.

EDIT: If that's your stance, then the NBA should control everything and then hand out the pieces to each team. Control TV deals, ticket prices, concessions, everything.

Not gonna happen.

Since86
07-11-2011, 01:19 PM
It really is as simple as this. The NBA supplies 15 X 82 = 1230 games per regular season. The NFL suppiles 16 X 16 = 256 games per regular season. The sense of urgency to attend and or watch NFL games is magnified as a result of scarcity as much as anything else. Also, the NFL has the vast majority of its games during times and on days that are more accessible to more people on a consistent basis than any other sport. These factors make people more likely to spend time and money on that sport compared to the others, which makes it healthier overall.

So, cut the season back to fewer games, cut the number of teams, and increase the quality and sense of consumer urgency regarding those games and players. The remaining league would be healthier and more robust as a result and everyone involved would be happy (remaining owners, remaining players, and at least those fans in the remaining markets, and casual fans everywhere).

Do the Pacers exist in this new league? Maybe, maybe not.

To add on to that thought, there are only 5 time slots for the entire season for the NFL.

A Thursday night game.
Two Sunday afternoon games.
A Sunday night game.
A Monday night game.

That's it. The NBA has 5 time slots a night. Okay, maybe not five, but more than 3.

Speed
07-11-2011, 04:02 PM
Like the ideas by T Bird, problem is in this whole thing is nobody wants to take less AND they want more. Here's what I would focus on without all of the numbers and minute details.

The New TV contract.

Thats going to generate a huge pool of new income flow.

Do this.

Owners get concessions in the next 3/4 years to get even, so to speak. This number by most accounts is 52% to the players. Then you can actually raise the number to the 54.7% number the league is proposing by 2015-16.

In this case the devils not really in the details as it usually is.

The players get this amount of the pie, regardless of the vehicle you use to distribute it. Either via end of year escrow account as is currently done or by actual salaries, depending on the year end numbers.

The owners could say look, we'll let you keep everything the way it is now, exactly, we just want 4 year max deals and these numbers that ascend when we ALL get paid.

Execute it however you want, use those numbers and essentially let TNT, ESPN, and the Networks bail you out. Let them make up the gulf between the two.

Players do it because well, they don't lose any checks and get a lower percentage of alot bigger pie, regardless, it isn't their money they are giving up after year 3 of the deal. Also, the union basically gets everything exactly the same as far as Bird rights, guaranteed contracts, all of it.

Owners do it, because well your viable in year 1, by their own accounting. Plus you get a big payday in year 3/4 with the new TV contract.

As for revenue Sharing use the TV pie for that too, but phase it in with the network contracts. Make the Big Markets split their local revenue, but make it the opposite of what T Bird said 75/25 in favor of the home market, 25 going to the TV kitty. Do this and time it with the new TV contract and they won't feel like they are getting as screwed.

Spoonful of sugar I guess is what I'm saying with all of this

travmil
07-11-2011, 05:51 PM
If teams shouldn't be allowed to make more money, then where is the proposal to set ticket prices league wide?

Yeah right.

EDIT: If that's your stance, then the NBA should control everything and then hand out the pieces to each team. Control TV deals, ticket prices, concessions, everything.

Not gonna happen.

I didn't say teams shouldn't make more money. I said 5 or 6 teams shouldn't make more money than the rest of the teams combined. There's a difference, but then again, you know that and you're just trying to put words in my mouth.

Eleazar
07-11-2011, 06:19 PM
It really is as simple as this. The NBA supplies 15 X 82 = 1230 games per regular season. The NFL suppiles 16 X 16 = 256 games per regular season. The sense of urgency to attend and or watch NFL games is magnified as a result of scarcity as much as anything else. Also, the NFL has the vast majority of its games during times and on days that are more accessible to more people on a consistent basis than any other sport. These factors make people more likely to spend time and money on that sport compared to the others, which makes it healthier overall.

So, cut the season back to fewer games, cut the number of teams, and increase the quality and sense of consumer urgency regarding those games and players. The remaining league would be healthier and more robust as a result and everyone involved would be happy (remaining owners, remaining players, and at least those fans in the remaining markets, and casual fans everywhere).

Do the Pacers exist in this new league? Maybe, maybe not.

This is why most people think the NBA (and MLB) play too many games. If there are games that even good teams expect to lose because of how many games you play then you play too many games.

dal9
07-11-2011, 11:55 PM
I didn't say teams shouldn't make more money. I said 5 or 6 teams shouldn't make more money than the rest of the teams combined. There's a difference, but then again, you know that and you're just trying to put words in my mouth.

but no way the owners of the big market teams go for such radical revenue sharing when they paid several hundred mil. more for their big-market teams then did the small market operators.

that is why, i think, the [allegedly] money-losing owners are trying to recoup their [alleged] losses from the backs of the players, and not the better-performing owners via revenue sharing.

travmil
07-12-2011, 12:30 AM
but no way the owners of the big market teams go for such radical revenue sharing when they paid several hundred mil. more for their big-market teams then did the small market operators.

that is why, i think, the [allegedly] money-losing owners are trying to recoup their [alleged] losses from the backs of the players, and not the better-performing owners via revenue sharing.

I already admitted as much in my first post in this topic.



I think the local TV deal revenue sharing needs to happen but never will.

I'm explaining my opinion of what should happen or needs to happen, not what WILL happen.

Since86
07-12-2011, 03:29 PM
I didn't say teams shouldn't make more money. I said 5 or 6 teams shouldn't make more money than the rest of the teams combined. There's a difference, but then again, you know that and you're just trying to put words in my mouth.

How does adding in the last few words change my point? It doesn't.

If they shouldn't be allowed to make more money than the rest of the league combined, then the NBA needs to step in and set ticket prices and the rest, like I said.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to show you that you can't cap profits in order to make things "fair."

Those franchises reap the rewards of being in a bigger market. They didn't create that market, they're only a part of it.

Indy can't get FA because of our crappy weather and location. Should Stern try to find a way to change those things as well? No.

You work with the tools you have, and the teams in LA, Boston, Chicago, New York etc get to work with more tools.

The solution is to try and find a way to help teams, not try to hurt others.

Thank you for telling me what my intentions were though. That really helped further civil discussion.

travmil
07-13-2011, 12:30 PM
Oh yeah I forgot nobody is allowed to have an opinion around you...silly me.

Since86
07-13-2011, 12:36 PM
You complained about me putting words in your mouth, and then you come back with that response? Classic.

You're allowed to have an opinion, you're not going to tell me what my intentions are though. I think I know myself better than you know me. Or do you have a different opinion on that issue as well?

travmil
07-13-2011, 01:16 PM
I've already said we obviously don't share the same opinion. Why can't you just leave it at that?

I think that owning an NBA team is a partnership as much as it is a private enterprise and that every NBA owner owes as much to his partners as he does to himself and they should share their wealth with their partners. You seem to lean more towards the private enterprise way of thinking in that the team should keep all of what they earn. It's as simple as that really, and both are completely acceptable (or maybe equally stupid) ways to run things.

I can agree on that at least.

Since86
07-13-2011, 01:30 PM
Because you're telling me I put words in your mouth, when I didn't. If you're going to take the conversation to a more personal level, then I'm going to respond. There's no reason for it, which is why I called it out rather than just ignoring it.

I understand I can drop it, but at the same time so can you, and yet here we are.

travmil
07-13-2011, 01:33 PM
But you DID put words in my mouth. You said I said teams shouldn't make more money than other teams when I did not. There's a difference between saying that and what I actually did say. You can look up at your own post. I'm not gonna waste my time quoting it. This is pointless...

Since86
07-13-2011, 01:39 PM
I omitted some words and the point remained the same. You can't cap profits. It takes away all incentive to make profits.

It stays the exact same, even if the phrase "than the rest of the teams combined" is added or not.

It's semantics, not a different point.

Geesh, I'm sorry. I'll now start typing laugh out loud instead of lol, don't want to take any shortcuts.

EDIT:

If teams shouldn't be allowed to make more money than the other teams combined, then where is the proposal to set ticket prices league wide?

Yeah right.

EDIT: If that's your stance, then the NBA should control everything and then hand out the pieces to each team. Control TV deals, ticket prices, concessions, everything.

Not gonna happen.

There the post is fixed to include those important words. The point remains the same.

travmil
07-13-2011, 02:46 PM
OK, I also should clarify. I think every team should MAKE whatever they can make, I just think they should share it with their partners. The way I said it made it seem like I wanted each team to make only a certain amount and for that amount to be equal for every team when that really isn't what I meant.

Since86
07-13-2011, 03:01 PM
So shouldn't the league control all costs and expenses then?

I view the league like I view the United States. We all fall under the title of America, but each state is independently ran. If California goes bankrupt, then why should I pay to bail them out? That's not my problem. California doesn't provide me with anything. They are the competition.

If the Indianapolis Pacers can't support themselves, then they need to fold. If Memphis can't support themselves, then they need to fold.

Making the Lakers responsible for the Pacers profit makes the league weaker. What if the Lakers go bankrupt, like the Dodgers? Then what? Everything collapses, because it's a house built on sand.

The Lakers, the Knicks, any team that is currently making boat loads of money can just as easily crumble. If they crumble, and the rest of the league is dependent on their money to stay alive, it will cause the entire league to crumble.

Instead, you make a league that is independently financially stable, so that way if the Lakers go down the tubes, Indianapolis doesn't have to worry about losing their team.

EDIT: I should throw this in there. If the numbers were reversed, and 22 teams made money, and only 8 teams lost money, then I'd think revenue sharing would be a more ideal solution.

But you can't have 75% of a league dependent on the other 25%. That's bad business and the most basic, fundamental level.

travmil
07-14-2011, 07:24 AM
I think only ten teams tops would make it in your scenario and who besides ESPN programming executives wants to watch that?

So let's say that every team is allowed to keep every dollar of revenue they make and the gap is very wide between the top and bottom just like today. For the Pacers to survive in THAT version of the NBA, a hard cap is a must. Then it won't matter of the Lakers and Knicks are making $160 million plus every year because they can only spend $60 million of it on player salary anyway. No exceptions, no ways to circumvent the cap. Whatever the number is, that's it. That's fair no matter what each team is making and I could live with that too.

Since86
07-14-2011, 09:49 AM
I know a hard cap is a must, which is why I've been saying that they need a hard cap.

When you have revenue sharing and teams are guaranteed profit, you end up like the MLB system and get teams like Pittsburgh and the Florida Marlins. They don't spend money, they draft/trade/sign for young players on cheap contracts to keep their payrolls down. They also play in front of empty stadiums. Yet they still make money.

Now, the Marlins are pretty good at scouting, so they end up getting a good team here and there, but when it comes time to re-sign them, they trade them or let them walk. Look at D-Willis, Juan Pierre, etc.

Now Pittsburgh is actually good this year, but they're doing it on the backs of cheap/young players like McCutchen. And I will bet you right now that he's not playing for them within two years, because they will let him walk or trade him away for prospects. That's their MO.

Keep expenses down and simply collect that money from Boston/New York etc.

It's a damn shame really.

Here's a link showing attendance per year. Notice the same teams are always on bottom
http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

Here's a link of payrolls per year. Notice the same teams are always on bottom.
http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

The Yankee's can afford to pay the luxury tax, pay out top dollar on players, and still revenue share because they have the resources to make money. I mean they have seats that cost $2,000 per game.

You have to be able to restrict, not what they make, but how much they can spend.

Since86
07-14-2011, 11:54 AM
Looking on SI.com's front page, they have a story about MLB and the second half of the season. Pittsburgh hasn't had a winning season since 1992. 18 full seasons under .500% WOW!