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

Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

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

  • Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

    Good article. I think at the very least they need to cut the number of preseason games from 8 to 4. Shorten training camp and preseason from 4 weeks to 3 - or maybe 2.5 weeks - and then use that week or two to help cut down on back to back games - that would help to elminate "schedule losses" where teams lose not because of the other team, but because the schedule is brutal. Sure, I would love to see the season cut back to 60-64 games - but are the players going to take a 20-25% cut in salaries - NO - or will fans pay 20-25% more for tickets - NO - or will the owners take a 20-25% cut in ticket revenie NO. So I don't see how you can decrease the number of games. I will say decreasing the number of games shouldn't lower the money paid by TNT, ESPN, ABC - but it would hurt the revenue teams get from their local radio and local TV - and of course ticket and related revenue



    http://usatoday.printthis.clickabili...partnerID=1662

    By Chris Colston, USA TODAY



    As the NBA's postseason heats up, the games continue to get more physical. In the first round, the Orlando Magic's Dwight Howard has been suspended for swinging an elbow to an opponent's face and the Chicago Bulls' Brad Miller has taken a blow to the mouth that required stitches. Several other key players are hobbling. Players log 40 — or even 50 — minutes without complaint, because these are the playoffs.
    But what price did the players pay to get here?

    The intensity of the playoffs follows a grueling 82-game regular season, one that takes its toll on players physically and mentally. And it could be a talking point in the league's collective bargaining agreement negotiations, which Commissioner David Stern says will pick up in earnest after the NBA Finals in June.

    The NBA has the option to extend the current agreement through 2012 — it would have to exercise the option by Dec. 15, 2010 — but probably will decline, in large part because of the global financial crisis. The agreement has been in place since July 2005.

    In anticipation of the crisis, the league reduced its domestic staff by 9% last fall.

    Stern has authorized a memo to all 30 teams outlining hypothetical salary-cap projections through 2011, which decline year by year. The league sets its salary cap each July based on a somewhat complicated formula that includes basketball-related income and benefits.

    CBA talking points also could include shorter contracts, a higher age limit on incoming players and elimination of the midlevel cap exception. But Stern recently said the biggest issue "is going to be about the fair division of revenues between owners and players."

    Those revenue, especially from advertisers and sponsors, will continue to take a hit because of the economy, says marketing expert Ryan Schinman, CEO of Platinum Rye Entertainment. "It's a billion-dollar-plus problem right now."

    While the players could be forced to make significant concessions on salaries, in return they might demand alterations in the schedule, including a reduction of the eight preseason games and the number of games played back to back, which this season ranged from 16 to 22 a team.

    "Owners and players have to be willing to put on the discussion table any number of things that would allow the business to continue to be successful and grow," says Los Angeles Lakers guard Derek Fisher, president of the National Basketball Players Association. "Fewer games or more games, adjustments in years or salaries ... we're going to have to be willing to negotiate.

    "The way this game has evolved into a global power, each game deserves to be the maximum of what it can be. If you consistently have key players missing games due to injuries and things that can be avoided, I think that's a fair point to discuss."

    Reduce, but at a cost

    Another major professional North American sports league also is grappling with season length. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has discussed expanding from 16 games to 17 or 18, perhaps as early as August 2011.

    While the NBA has played 82 games since the 1967-68 season, it has continued to increase the length of the postseason. In 1984, the league expanded the playoffs from 12 to 16 teams, eliminated first-round byes and extended the first-round series from three to five games. In 2003, the NBA expanded its first-round playoff series from best-of-five to best-of-seven.

    "You know I'd be lying if I said the season wasn't too long," Detroit Pistons guard Allen Iverson said before his season ended April 3 because of a back injury. "I know the year of the lockout and we only played 50 games I was a lot fresher."

    At the league level, Stern says, they do talk about schedule length. But a reduction of games would have "significant economic consequences" on team and league revenue, he says.

    And numerous business considerations also enter into the equation. "Is it good for our season to run from October to the end of June? Our sponsors and licensees would say yes," Stern says. "Is it good to be the leading sport after the NCAAs are done? I think the answer is evident.

    "And if you say June is too late for basketball, I can tell you this: Those cities in the Finals would happily play into August."

    But with the current setup, teams have to pace themselves during the regular season.

    In a story that ran in the Dec. 29 Los Angeles Times, Lakers coach Phil Jackson, whose team won its first-round series with the Utah Jazz, described the season as "a marathon race. ... We play 82 games, and then we go into playoffs, which are overextended as it is. As a consequence, we have to marshal our energy a lot during the course of the year."

    Owner Mark Cuban, whose Dallas Mavericks eliminated the San Antonio Spurs, thinks the quality of play would rise with fewer games but says it can't happen.

    "Not only is (the 82-game) schedule an economic necessity to pay for arenas, it's a competitive necessity, where every game counts," Cuban says. "I don't think lowering the number of games would make much of a difference unless you drop down to something like 25. Then you may see an amplification in value to every game. But financially it would be impossible."

    Fewer games, however, would produce big-picture benefits, according to Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey. He thinks with a shorter schedule more fans would tune in because each game would hold more gravitas.

    "The NCAA tournament, in 63 games, makes more money than the entire NBA regular season of 1,200-plus games," Morey said at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March. "It would be hard to tell the owners you'd have to take a revenue hit, but you might get it back later because more people are tuning in."

    Shorter season, better games

    Any reduction of games would require a requisite cutback of salaries. No problem, says Boston Celtics guard Ray Allen, who is making $17.4 million this season.

    "I'd give some of my check back," he says. "And I venture to say the quality of the games would go up another notch."

    Portland Trail Blazers guard Brandon Roy would take the corresponding pay cut, "because it might add years to the end of your career."

    And that's an important point, according to Celtics forward Paul Pierce. "You look at some guys. After they're done playing, they can barely walk."

    Philadelphia 76ers forward Elton Brand, who is making $13.7 million this season but missed most of it with a shoulder injury, spoke for many players when he said during the preseason, "If they cut the games by a quarter, they'll cut the salaries by a quarter. If that's the case, I'll pass."

    And some players have no problem with 82 games.

    "If we're not playing games, we're practicing," Toronto Raptors forward Shawn Marion says. "I'd rather play than practice."

    Says Atlanta Hawks forward Josh Smith: "I love 82. If you love the game of basketball, it shouldn't matter how many games you play."

    Back-to-back games

    It's highly unlikely the league will cut back its schedule, but nearly everyone agrees: back-to-back games are the most troubling aspect of scheduling.

    Chris Wiggins, a fan from the Washington, D.C., area, says what aggravates him most about the schedule "is the clumps of games. Some weeks a team will play five and some two. And the weeks they play five, the second game of the back-to-backs are almost like wasted games."

    Several teams struggled with back-to-backs this season.

    The Utah Jazz were 3-18 in the second of back-to-back games but 45-16 with at least one day's rest.

    The Denver Nuggets, 54-28 overall, were 9-12 in the second of back-to-backs.

    "You play a game, travel, get in at 2 or 3 in the morning, that's hard on you," says TNT analyst Charles Barkley, who played from 1985 to 2000. "My last year with the Rockets, I guarantee you, we didn't win any back-to-backs. Me, Hakeem (Olajuwon) and Clyde (Drexler) would be cooked."

    Lengthening the league calendar to cut down on back-to-backs is one idea.

    Nine-time All-Star Gary Payton, now an analyst for NBA TV, would like to see the preseason halved from eight games to four.

    "Push training camp back another week," he says.

    "Play two preseason games one week, two the next, then start the season."

    Allen likes the idea of midseason respite.

    "You know how the NFL has a bye week?" Allen says. "I'd give the league a bye week around All-Star weekend. I think it would make for better basketball because guys would be fresher."

    And that's all any fan can ask: that the NBA put its best product on the floor every night.

  • #2
    Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

    Teams have an easy out they don't use. It's called the bench.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      Teams have an easy out they don't use. It's called the bench.
      That would help some - but I don't see how playing the 9th, 10th and 11th best player on a teams roster would help the quality of play. I don't when I go to the game I'm not really intrerested in seeing those players. Plus coaches and teams want to win, so that is why Lebron James plays 40 mins per game

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

        Fantastic article. I've been hoping for a shorter NBA season for years now. 82 games is just too many to sustain sufficient intensity over the entire course of the season. Especially now that the playoffs last 2 months, I'm sure everyone involved would like to get them over with a bit quicker.

        It's really good to see that there are people inside the NBA who would consider this.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          "If we're not playing games, we're practicing," Toronto Raptors forward Shawn Marion says. "I'd rather play than practice."
          Is it possible that the quality of the NBA game would increase if the teams had more time to practice?
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

            The difference in the Jazz record is staggering. if you click on the link it shows each teams record in back to backs and how many each team played. Actually here is the link

            http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...es-cover_N.htm


            Pacers weren't bad in back to backs. They had a better record than several teams that finished above us in the standings such as Jazz, Nuggets, Sixers, Pistons. The Bulls were really good considering their overall record - same with the Nets.

            I don't see the regular season getting any shorter time wise - but 2 fewer games per month would really cut down on the back to backs. Because of other sports getting longer and longer also - the NBA is prety locked into a November through mid April for regular season - and playoffs ending in June. NFL's SuperBowl likely will be in mid to late Feb. NCAA final four is now a week later than it used to be and the World Series has been pushed back a week interferes with the start of the NBA season.

            I think the quality of play would increase if teams had more time to practice and prepare. That is one reason why the playoffs are generally so good - no back to backs and team can lock in
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-30-2009, 11:04 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

              Wouldn't it serve to reason that fewer games would likely mean more packed houses, since the opportunity to see the team would be slightly reduced? Heck, even if they just eliminated back-to-back games, that would help.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Good article. I think at the very least they need to cut the number of preseason games from 8 to 4. Shorten training camp and preseason from 4 weeks to 3 - or maybe 2.5 weeks - and then use that week or two to help cut down on back to back games - that would help to elminate "schedule losses" ...
                I made it this far before I screamed and scared the crap out of my cat.

                Originally posted by grace View Post
                I'm only posting this because when the inevitable happens and someone says "schedule loss" I'm not going to have the link, so here goes.
                http://www.jsonline.com/sports/bucks/42509152.html

                Originally posted by Scott Skiles
                I don't worry about the back-to-backs as much. Because sometimes during the season, if you've got a really good club, and you really get in a rhythm, there are some benefits to having a back-to-back. . . . If you get on a roll, I think sometimes it can help you, if you really hit a rhythm."
                I do agree the season is too long. Sixty games would be great, but it's never going to happen.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  That would help some - but I don't see how playing the 9th, 10th and 11th best player on a teams roster would help the quality of play.
                  They would if you reduced the number of teams.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

                    Originally posted by grace View Post
                    I made it this far before I screamed and scared the crap out of my cat.



                    http://www.jsonline.com/sports/bucks/42509152.html



                    I do agree the season is too long. Sixty games would be great, but it's never going to happen.
                    Yeah...it would cut too much revenue out. Figure $6mm per team per every 10 games reduced...and that's for a team drawing like the Pacers...It would be well over $10mm for the top drawing teams.

                    And that's just gate.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

                      They'd probably up the ticket/food prices to compensate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        They'd probably up the ticket/food prices to compensate.
                        Would they lower player salaries

                        I mean, they are playing less.

                        If this ever happened there would be a lot of things to work through to ever finalize it, which is why I can't see it happening.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

                          Yeah, they should. But I bet the players union would only agree to a shorter season if the pay isn't scaled back all the way.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            That would help some - but I don't see how playing the 9th, 10th and 11th best player on a teams roster would help the quality of play. I don't when I go to the game I'm not really intrerested in seeing those players. Plus coaches and teams want to win, so that is why Lebron James plays 40 mins per game
                            UB, you have answered the question of whether the NBA officials call games to keep the stars from fouling out with your above post. You steadfastly deny that the NBA doesn't manage the games so the stars play the max amount of minutes by looking the other way when they foul or commit turnovers, however you as much as admitted such with your post.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Shorter NBA season? - USA Today article

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Yeah, they should. But I bet the players union would only agree to a shorter season if the pay isn't scaled back all the way.
                              I don't think they would have to. if the season is shortened by lets say 25% - and playoffs are kept the same - I don't see any reason why ESPB/ABC and TNT would lower their rights fees - they could still get the same matchups and the same number of games. And teams get a good % of their revenue from those national TV sources. So a 25% reduction in the number of games probably would only decrease revenue by 10-15%. Actually the big market and high revenue teams would lose more money than the small marklet teams from ticket sales or local tv and radio.

                              But what if the lost revenue by a 25% cut in the number of games results in a 10% loss in revenue - would the players agree to a 5% acorss the board cuts - and the owners would eat the other 5%.

                              I think it is doable - if this is what the next bargaining over the CBA is all about. The problem is other issues will likely get in the way and this issue will never reach the table

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X