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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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


    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
    VETERAN MINIMUM PLAYERS (players not under contract with a minimum of 12 years service time) can be signed at anytime for between $1-3 million and do not count against your salary cap.
    though I will admit I did not catch this (bold is mine):

    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
    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.
    However, I would maintain that Reggie would have been considered the franchise player and given a franchise deal every year.

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


    • #17
      Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

      Basically, If you been in the league 12+ years and make less than 3 mill You don't count against the cap.
      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


      • #18
        Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

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

        1. CLARIFICATION OF "FRANCHISE" PLAYERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        3. FURTHER CATEGORY EXPLANATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

        Tbird

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

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


          • #20
            Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Get my thinking?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

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

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

              But the Pacers shouldn't be getting money from the Lakers because the Lakers got a sweet TV deal with some local channel.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                You're not taking into an account of an EXTREMELY important difference between the NFL and the NBA.

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

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

                But the Pacers shouldn't be getting money from the Lakers because the Lakers got a sweet TV deal with some local channel.
                I know there's that difference. The reason the NFL can negotiate for all teams for the ENTIRE product is that the product is so much better and more valuable. It wasn't always that way. It got that way because of better business decisions and bigger overall interest in their product. The NBA could have what the NFL has IF they could get big market owners on board.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                  No they couldn't. The differences between the two leagues are so big that they're not going to be overcome just by offering a better product.

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

                  That right there is a huge difference.

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

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

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

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

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

                  They know that's not expectations with the NBA.

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

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

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

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

                  I think we'll see a deal with a certain percentage shared, but they aren't going to spread it all out evenly, nor should they.
                  Last edited by Since86; 07-11-2011, 12:25 PM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                    You couldn't ever get the players to agree to that BillS, if they did theoretically a player could possibly NEVER EVER become a free agent....no way will the union agree to that, nor should they. I think all you can do is just to try and give the original team more time to adjust and plan, and maybe get some compensation should they leave of some kind.
                    My thinking is that:

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

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

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

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

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


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I think we'll see a deal with a certain percentage shared, but they aren't going to spread it all out evenly, nor should they.
                      But this is PRECISELY what the NFL owners did. They agreed to split it evenly.

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

                      The NBA will NEVER have parity without revenue sharing.
                      Last edited by travmil; 07-11-2011, 12:55 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

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

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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

                          Yeah right.

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

                          Not gonna happen.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

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

                            Do the Pacers exist in this new league? Maybe, maybe not.
                            To add on to that thought, there are only 5 time slots for the entire season for the NFL.

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

                            That's it. The NBA has 5 time slots a night. Okay, maybe not five, but more than 3.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

                              The New TV contract.

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

                              Do this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Spoonful of sugar I guess is what I'm saying with all of this
                              Last edited by Speed; 07-11-2011, 04:05 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                If teams shouldn't be allowed to make more money, then where is the proposal to set ticket prices league wide?

                                Yeah right.

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

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X