Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement
    Written by thunderbird1245

    Link

    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

    *beeps*

  • #2
    Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Probably the most interesting things here are the ideas that Rookie and Vet Minimum contracts would not count against the cap. Hmmm....
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

      Lots of good ideas there, tbird.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

        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.
        Last edited by travmil; 07-09-2011, 07:41 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

          Holy ****** how long did that take you

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

              Originally posted by RoboHicks View Post
              - 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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                Originally posted by RoboHicks View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                  Originally posted by travmil View Post
                  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?
                  PG24: "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"

                  RT @Hoya2aPacer "When I play this game I love. I play to make my teammates better. But I'm a mouther****er on defense."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                    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.
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      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.
                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      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.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            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.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              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.
                              Last edited by Eleazar; 07-10-2011, 07:21 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X