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

Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

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

  • #76
    Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

    Originally posted by aaronb View Post
    I agree that it certainly helps. But San Antonio and the Pacers from 91-2004 are examples of Small markets having sustained success.

    The key is having good management that can formulate a plan. Then having the stones to follow that plan. (see also, OKC and Sam Presti)
    Again San Antonio is the exception not the rule. They got incredibly lucky with drafting Duncan because of an injury to Robinson. Sustain success is championships not playoff appearances. This is especially true when half the league goes to the playoffs. Seriously that is sustain success? Making the playoffs?

    All i am saying is that the numbers don't add up and they certainly contradict the idea that markets size doesn't matter. Almost half the league has never won a NBA championship. I know the league hasn't been 30 teams for a long time but 27 teams were around since 1990.

    Danny is right and who is better to comment on the problem than a current franchise player? Small markets are at a disadvantage when compared to big market teams.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      Again San Antonio is the exception not the rule. They got incredibly lucky with drafting Duncan because of an injury to Robinson. Sustain success is championships not playoff appearances. This is especially true when half the league goes to the playoffs. Seriously that is sustain success? Making the playoffs?

      All i am saying is that the numbers don't add up and they certainly contradict the idea that markets size doesn't matter. Almost half the league has never won a NBA championship. I know the league hasn't been 30 teams for a long time but 27 teams were around since 1990.

      Danny is right and who is better to comment on the problem than a current franchise player? Small markets are at a disadvantage when compared to big market teams.

      That doesn't make any sense, you are saying the only teams that have sustained success are the ones who have won multiple championships. Well thats only like 3 teams in the last 10 years.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

        Revenue Sharing Won't Solve The NBA's Small-Market Problems

        by Adam Fusfeld Jan. 5, 2011

        http://www.businessinsider.com/reven...roblems-2011-1


        If you ask Pacers' star forward Danny Granger, the NBA isn't fair.

        Granger is one of the best scorers in the NBA, but his small-market squad appears incapable of pairing him with a star sidekick. He thinks the problem is revenue sharing.

        "It's not fair," Granger told CBSSports.com. "If everyone in the NBA and the owners all commit to this league to keep it going, you've got to share revenue. How can Milwaukee compete with Los Angeles? It just can't. It never will. I don't care if they sell out every game, L.A. is going to get mounds and mounds of more money. That's what I think the big chip should be in the bargaining process."

        Of course, once he mentions "the bargaining process" the siren sounds. His stance is a position that the NBPA shares. Perhaps Granger is legitimately concerned about the Pacers' and Bucks' financials, but more likely, he's focused on his own bank account. Revenue sharing, in theory, gives more teams a chance to bid on free agents, thereby driving up free agent salaries. Granger is just touting the NBPA agenda.

        Actually, players aren't the only ones who like the sound of revenue sharing. Fans and sponsors would welcome the extra competition, small market owners would welcome the extra cash, and even David Stern is keen on the concept. (In fact, the NBA has a small – OK, tiny – $49 million revenue sharing fund that it instituted in 2008, and gives a few million dollars to small-market teams.)

        But the data shows that those deep-pocketed owners in New York and Los Angeles might as well keep their cash. The size of the market isn't what makes teams profitable, and the size of the payroll isn't what makes them winners.

        According to Forbes data, four teams in top-15 U.S. markets lost a combined $125 million from 2005 to 2009, the last years of available information. Meanwhile, the Lakers and the Bulls made tens of millions, but so too did franchises in Sacramento, Utah, San Antonio, and Cleveland.

        As you can glean from these charts, no one statistic correlates with operating income. But you can be sure that spending more money than your competitors do to obtain fewer wins is an unprofitable proposition.

        Washington, in the nation's ninth largest media market, had a nearly identical won-loss record to Indiana over the five-year span, but earned $87 million more in operating income. The Wizards generated slightly more income, but also spent $7.6 million less each year on player expenses. If the Pacers simply reduced their payroll to equal that of the Wizards, their $26 million loss would transform into a $12 million profit.

        In this five-year span, eight franchises – Phoenix, San Antonio, Denver, Detroit, New Jersey, New Orleans, Chicago, and Utah – finished with more wins than Indiana despite paying substantially less in player salaries between 2005 and 2009. Of those teams, only the Nets lost more than $1 million per year.

        Cuban doesn't care how much money he loses. He just wants a win.

        Small market owners gripe that its impossible for them to stay afloat without sustained on-court success, while large-market teams rake in profits no matter what. But how does that explain the Dallas Mavericks? Mark Cuban's $75 million loss dwarf those of Pacers' owner Herb Simon.

        Sure, Mark Cuban and Knicks' boss James Dolan can afford to incur those losses, but they are losses nonetheless. In essence, the Pacers, Bucks, and other small market teams are griping over rival owners' riches.

        And that's the true inequity in NBA financials.

        Some owners are willing to bankroll losses to assemble the best roster they can, while others aren't. As shown in the chart above, Cuban will do whatever it takes to win.

        But Donald Sterling doesn't care about his team's performance, and would rather sit back and collect profits in the league's second-largest market. Only the Hawks and the expansion Bobcats spent less on players than he did during this time.

        Until someone who is willing to lose money buys the team, small market franchises must behave efficiently to be viable. The other team to dominate the last decade wasn't New York: it was San Antonio. One spends a lot, the other spends wisely.

        Between the leaguewide salary cap and the standards of excellence set by the Spurs and Jazz, it's clear that efficiency is attainable in any market. And with the exception of once-a-decade free agents like Shaquille O'Neal or LeBron James, a fat checkbook isn't the key to success. Teams must draft well, scout meticulously, and unearth diamonds in the rough.

        Yep, the Hornets actually traded the Black Mamba
        And that's where many small-market teams have failed over the years. In 1998, the Bucks sent rookie Dirk Nowitzki to Dallas for Robert Traylor. That wasn't big, bad Dallas wielding its power over the little guys in Milwaukee, forcing them to trade a future Hall-of-Famer. Nowitzki was signed on the cheap. The Bucks simply weren't shrewd. Neither was Charlotte when it traded rookie Kobe Bryant to Los Angeles in 1999, and Indiana certainly wasn't shrewd spending nearly $70 million to win less than half of its games.

        As we've seen in baseball, better revenue sharing will not solve these problems. It will merely force the New Yorks and Bostons of the league to pay a little bit more than they intended to sign coveted free agents. Small-market teams will always rely on efficient roster building to compete with the biggest spenders.

        So until Milwaukee and Indiana figure out how to replicate the Spurs success – by the way, Mr. Simon, Mr. Kohl, I can be reached at the e-mail address below – those markets are best off hoping a billionaire with bottomless pockets has his or her eyes on the NBA executive suite.
        Last edited by indianapolismarkus; 01-06-2011, 05:57 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

          A Case Against NBA Revenue Sharing

          by Tom Lewis on Jan 5, 2011 10:50 PM EST in Indiana Pacers News

          http://www.indycornrows.com/2011/1/5...evenue-sharing

          Adam Fusfeld of Business Insider used the Indiana Pacers as an example of why revenue sharing isn't the cure-all for small market teams. Although, if he was trying to make the case that revenue sharing wouldn't help level the financial playing field he failed miserably.

          The argument is that several small market teams have thrived through smart efficient management. Fusfeld forgets to mention a little luck that helps land a top tier talent like David Robinson and Tim Duncan, but the general point is irrefutable. Any team in the NBA can succeed by making the right decisions across the organization, with the Spurs held up as the gold standard. I couldn't agree more.

          But this also makes my point that the playing field is far from level a la the NFL. Fusfeldsays, "Small-market teams will always rely on efficient roster building to compete with the biggest spenders." A little condescending, no? Keep trying real hard little fella and if you do real well you can have a seat at the big boys table.

          In other words, in a league where all of the teams are competing for the same prize, some teams have to be "efficient" with no margin for error, while other teams can absorb mistakes and keep making money to try to fix their problems. The Chicago Bulls weathered some down years in the recent past with a full UC and other big-market revenue while the Pacers' market struggles to support the down years.

          The part of this article that made me laugh out loud though, was this comment on the Pacers payroll.

          absolutely love the term, "simply reduce their payroll" as if no one ever thought of that as an option. This has nothing to do with revenue sharing but with another CBA issue, that being the guaranteed contracts which are nearly impossible to shed or simply reduce.

          But the laugh out loud part is the point about teams that won more with less payroll from 2005-2009. Um, can we have a little context here. I'll give you more than $26 million in losses that saddled the Pacers with nothing but grief. How about $18 million in center that couldn't stay on the court nor appear any sense of urgency to get back on the court? Oh, and what about the roughly $12 million in back court players who couldn't seem to stay out of court (the kind with a judge)? I don't even need to mention the brawl ramifications.

          The Pacers would've been happy to simply shed those salaries but couldn't in large part due to the NBA's trade rules and the guaranteed contracts. The Pacers organization is definitely the poster child for not committing to long-term contracts, but again that's a different issue from revenue sharing intended to balance the resources available to each team.

          One thing is for sure: this summer is going to be brutal. I just tried to discuss one issue up for bargaining and ended up touching on several contentious issues that have little to do with the ball going through the hoop.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

            Revenue sharing is no magic bullet

            by Henry Abbott

            http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...o-magic-bullet

            Adam Fusfeld of Business Insider has been thinking about revenue sharing, and has dug into some numbers, and he has found that revenue sharing is unlikely to do much to help small market NBA teams perform better.

            Here's why:
            Money spent on salaries correlates very little with wins.
            Market size doesn't lead to wins or necessarily to riches, as some small market NBA teams made a lot, and some big market teams lost plenty.

            Fusfeld writes:

            Small market owners gripe that its impossible for them to stay afloat without sustained on-court success, while large-market teams rake in profits no matter what. But how does that explain the Dallas Mavericks? Mark Cuban's $75 million loss dwarf those of Pacers' owner Herb Simon.

            Sure, Mark Cuban and Knicks' boss James Dolan can afford to incur those losses, but they are losses nonetheless. In essence, the Pacers, Bucks, and other small market teams are griping over rival owners' riches.

            And that's the true inequity in NBA financials.

            Some owners are willing to bankroll losses to assemble the best roster they can, while others aren't. ...

            Until someone who is willing to lose money buys the team, small market franchises must behave efficiently to be viable. The other team to dominate the last decade wasn't New York: it was San Antonio. One spends a lot, the other spends wisely.

            Between the leaguewide salary cap and the standards of excellence set by the Spurs and Jazz, it's clear that efficiency is attainable in any market. And with the exception of once-a-decade free agents like Shaquille O'Neal or LeBron James, a fat checkbook isn't the key to success. Teams must draft well, scout meticulously, and unearth diamonds in the rough.

            And that's where many small-market teams have failed over the years. In 1998, the Bucks sent rookie Dirk Nowitzki to Dallas for Robert Traylor. That wasn't big, bad Dallas wielding its power over the little guys in Milwaukee, forcing them to trade a future Hall-of-Famer. Nowitzki was signed on the cheap. The Bucks simply weren't shrewd. Neither was Charlotte when it traded rookie Kobe Bryant to Los Angeles in 1999, and Indiana certainly wasn't shrewd spending nearly $70 million to win less than half of its games.

            This is an ongoing conversation, with many moving parts. I'd be interested to hear the league and Players Association on why they are generally in favor of increased revenue sharing -- is there a reason to expect it to improve the game, or is it really more just about alleviating financial hardships for some cash-strapped owners?

            Also, it's worth noting that succeeding as an NBA team almost always depends on getting a superstar, and there will never be enough of those to go around.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              Again San Antonio is the exception not the rule. They got incredibly lucky with drafting Duncan because of an injury to Robinson.
              Spurs have also been incredibly good at drafting late in the first round and second round. Sure they were lucky, but they also have been very good in acquiring players around Duncan.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                Splitting the pie that is BRI

                by Matt Tolnick

                http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/tolnick/


                Among the most critical of issues in collective bargaining discussions between the NBA’s owners, led by commissioner David Stern, and the NBA Players’ Association (NBPA), led by executive director Billy Hunter, is the issue of dividing the NBA’s revenues, known in league circles as basketball-related income (or BRI). Presently, NBA players are guaranteed to receive 57 percent of BRI while the owners receive 43 percent. This negotiation point is a zero-sum game in which every extra percent garnered by the NBPA will be a percent conceded by the NBA owners and vice versa.

                In searching for a fair BRI split, the NBPA will argue in favor or the status quo pointing to the revenue sharing structure of the NFL, which affords players 59.5 percent of league revenues; however, this structure is one that has the NFL careening toward a lockout in March of 2011, shortly before July 1, 2011, when the NBA’s lockout could ensue. The current revenue split between the NHL’s owners and players, arrived at after a lockout of the entire 2004-05 season, affords players 57% of league revenues.

                On the NBA’s side, Stern has made it clear that the NBA is not a profitable venture as presently constituted; he has demanded a swing of $750-800 million in revenues in favor of NBA owners under the new CBA. Expecting to lose $340-350 million during the 2010-11 NBA season, deputy commissioner Adam Silver acknowledges the problem as endemic to the system, stating that “Even though we reported we have record season-ticket sales over the summer and otherwise very robust revenue generation, because of the built-in cost of the system, it’s virtually impossible for us to move the needle in terms of our losses.”

                In other words, solid revenue streams fail to translate into profits for NBA owners (collectively), considering the overhead cost of labor.

                The parties to the collective bargaining discussions are going to have to get creative and determined in the months ahead if the NBA is to circumvent a lockout. In October, Hunter rejected Stern’s position as a non-starter, instead rallying his players to “prepare accordingly.” In November, Hunter was “99 percent sure” that a lockout would ensue.

                CBS Sports’ Ken Berger has recently reported that the NBPA offered to scale back the guaranteed take that its players receive while permitting willing owners to spend in excess of the new, lower guarantee. Even assuming the continued existence of a salary floor, this NBPA proposal would allow franchises with lesser means to keep even lower payrolls while also allowing willing teams to further expand their ability to achieve bloated payrolls (e.g. two mid-level exceptions). Meanwhile, effectively throwing out salary matches in trades and adding a second mid-level exception would lead to a veritable arms race among franchises willing to spend.

                Will the Magic and Lakers become the Red Sox and Yankees of basketball, or would Mr. Prokhorov’s Brooklyn-based operation blow everyone out of the water?

                The biggest drawback to this proposal would be the widening of the talent gap between the NBA’s haves and “have lesses”, a death knell for parity in the NBA. Absent drastic, game-changing revenue sharing, small market teams without very deep-pocketed owners would have little chance of both profitability and on-court success. A better system, which will be portrayed as the blog series rolls on, would allow all NBA franchises to field competitive teams and simultaneously profit. Salary floors, enhanced revenue sharing, a more taxing luxury tax, cutting back soft cap loopholes, and concessions from both the NBA and NBPA would all be required to accomplish make such a system possible.

                But back to BRI… Larry Coon, unofficial CBA “professor,” indicates on his NBA FAQ website that the NBA’s BRI in 2009-10 was $3.643 billion. At this level of BRI, a 57/43 split resulted in players receiving $2.076 billion in salaries while owners received $1.567 billion in revenues. Stern, having initially indicated that a $750 million swing was necessary, will ultimately accept a swing that is substantially less in light of the fact that NBA teams collectively lost less than half of that figure (using the NBA’s figures) in a down economy.

                With BRI at 2009-10 levels ($3.643 billion), players under Stern’s proposal would receive $1.326 billion and owners would receive $2.317 billion. Thus, the Stern-proposed split would be 36/64 in favor of the NBA’s owners. Coincidentally, this reduction would also represent a 36 percent paycut for NBA players.

                This is the last CBA that Billy Hunter is likely to negotiate, and he will be loathe to see the NBA’s players become the first in a major North American, salary-capped sport to receive less than 50 percent of league revenues (much less 36%).

                One of the reasons that the last CBA succeeded for players but failed for some NBA owners is that players receive a percentage of revenues, irrespective of the actual profit numbers generated by NBA teams. So, if NBA teams sell more tickets than ever but at lower margins than ever, NBA players can receive record salaries despite owners experiencing anything but record profits. The proposal that follows is grounded upon the premise that NBA owners, as business owners who risk their own wealth to create wealth, should experience considerable upside on increases in new revenues.

                Conversely, players, who invest hard work and labor for the benefit of the business, should be entitled to certain guaranteed salary, isolated from the vagaries of market conditions. Because neither NBA players nor NBA owners will be successful without the other, a certain degree of partnership should be provided for, especially since NBA players are not fungible factory employees, but rather world-class athletes with remarkably rare skill sets.

                The proposal detailed below would make the players and the owners 50/50 partners in the event that BRI stayed constant. The BRI split would change incrementally, depending on how much BRI was realized by NBA activities.

                The first $1.2 billion in revenues is split 57/43, for the benefit of the players. The next $1.2 billion is split 50/50. The next $1.2 billion is split 43/57, in favor of the owners. At the point in which $3.6 billion of BRI is received, each side receives $1.8 billion. This $1.8 billion represents a $233 million swing in favor of owners. In the event that the NBA improves its revenues beyond the roughly $3.6 billion it made in 2009-10 (and it should be noted that BRI increased every year under the last CBA), then the owners will receive nearly two-thirds of these increased revenues.

                For example, if revenues increased to $4.0 billion, ownership would receive $2.056 billion and players would receive $1.944 billion. Compared to the $1.567 billion that NBA owners received in 2009-10, this increase would amount to $489 million, an amount likely to ensure profitability across all NBA franchises, especially if revenue sharing between teams is bolstered.

                As league revenues continue to climb north of $4.0 billion, additional upside could be realized by both owners and players. With the yet unsated appetite for NBA basketball internationally (the NBA just signed an undisclosed deal to bring NBA basketball to TVs in India), combined with a massive base of mobile phone users and an impending rollout of NBA mobile services internationally, sizeable increases in NBA revenues are conceivable.

                This proposal on the subject of BRI is one which could possibly make for a compromise, as both parties would feel as though they’ve given up something and made the other party give up something as well. In reaching an agreement, the NBA could prevent years of fan resentment (or “badwill”), owners could be on the path to profitability, and players could continue to earn healthy salaries. As the NBA’s owners have tremendous upside in this deal, the players would have incentive to make this a shorter-term deal. If the NBA grows steadily as it has in the past five years, this deal could work well for both parties. However, if the NBA experiences a revenue explosion (possible though unlikely) the deal would be far more beneficial for the owners than for the players.

                Comment

                Working...
                X