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

CBA 101

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

  • #16
    Re: CBA 101

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    So, as expected it looks like the % rise in salary tracked % rise in BRI. OK.
    Sure, that's how the mechanism to keep salaries under control works - via cap and escrow system. That's exactly why arguing that salaries are out of control doesn't make much sense to me.

    I wasn't making the point that you thought I was making, trying to compare 3% with 1%. I just presented those numbers to prove that the argument that players salaries "have skyrocketed out of control" was and is bogus.

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

    On another note, the argument about being the owners the ones taking the risk. That's correct... but it works both ways.

    I mean, it's because the owners are the ones taking the risk that the argument that the players salaries must drop because there are owners losing money doesn't make sense.

    I know this concept is somewhat daté these days, but businesses are supposed to lose money here and there. When a franchise loses money, the owner isn't subsidizing anything, he's being the owner.

    A franchise in the context of a negative overall economic climate + small market + badly run + bad W/L performances should be losing money. If a franchise doesn't lose money in this situation, it'd never lose. And a league where it's impossible for a franchise to lose money isn't viable in the long term, especially if the revenue sharing mechanisms are fairly weak, like the NBA ones.

    I don't care much for what % of the revenue players get, it's not my money. As a fan, what I want is that a lockout is avoided + the league remains viable to outside competitors (because true competition to the NBA would make the product less interesting). If the owners are going to propose a drop to 41% that means a lockout + that they aren't thinking clearly about their (and mine) long-term interests.

    If the NBA overall was losing money for consecutive season or if the value of most NBA teams was underwater I could see a case for saying that the players share of the revenue was too much. But as it is, it's mostly a problem of 1) bad management (or management not focused on the P/L line) 2) imbalances between the economic power of each franchise.
    Last edited by cordobes; 11-23-2010, 04:02 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: CBA 101

      Understood about the numbers.

      On the NBA losing money vs. franchises losing money, I have very specific concerns. The NBA can make money hand over fist with 4-6 very profitable franchises that sell out every night and sell thousands (if not millions) of jerseys while the rest serve as cannon fodder or fold. To keep the spirit of the sport (competition between multiple teams) rather than an entertainment complex (WWE) requires that franchises be viable other than just the Big Few.

      The discussion has happened before that the best the NBA ever did was when the Big Rivalry between Boston and LA was at its height. What I question is why the NBA allowed itself to stagnate into Superstar v. Superstar when Michael J. came along rather than taking the interest those years generated and locking it into support for local franchises. Wouldn't you rather have 20 teams selling out every night no matter who they play instead of 4 teams selling out wherever they play while the rest of the games have little or no attendance? I'd think the profit from that model would HAVE to be higher.
      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


      • #18
        Re: CBA 101

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Understood about the numbers.

        On the NBA losing money vs. franchises losing money, I have very specific concerns. The NBA can make money hand over fist with 4-6 very profitable franchises that sell out every night and sell thousands (if not millions) of jerseys while the rest serve as cannon fodder or fold. To keep the spirit of the sport (competition between multiple teams) rather than an entertainment complex (WWE) requires that franchises be viable other than just the Big Few.

        The discussion has happened before that the best the NBA ever did was when the Big Rivalry between Boston and LA was at its height. What I question is why the NBA allowed itself to stagnate into Superstar v. Superstar when Michael J. came along rather than taking the interest those years generated and locking it into support for local franchises. Wouldn't you rather have 20 teams selling out every night no matter who they play instead of 4 teams selling out wherever they play while the rest of the games have little or no attendance? I'd think the profit from that model would HAVE to be higher.
        I fully agree, but players will argue that the right way to prevent that is to establish more robust revenue sharing systems, not to drop players salaries to the point that every franchise in the NBA makes money even when they are in a small market, can't win more 10 games, alienated their fanbase and half of the tickets revenue is used to pay salaries to a dozen of the owners' family members.

        In regards to the part in green, I don't know if that is a good picture of what's going on. But I don't think that the % of the revenue that goes to players impacts that one way or the other.

        The fact that in the NBA there are only a few contenders every year has very little to do with the way the CBA is structured, unless you propose really radical changes - for example, having a draft including all players every year, like a fantasy league. It has to the scarcity of top level talent and how important it is to win basketball games.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: CBA 101

          Originally posted by cordobes View Post
          Yeps, absolutely. Especially if it's a hard cap + smaller salaries and shorter contracts. The smaller is the salary of a player, the more important it'll be to play for a big market team.

          Small market teams depend more on the draft. A hard cap is very bad news for them.
          Why do you people think this when we have a perfect example of how a hard cap helps small market teams in the Colts?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: CBA 101

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            Why do you people think this when we have a perfect example of how a hard cap helps small market teams in the Colts?
            Isn't that a NFL team? Isn't the overall structure completely different? I don't know much about that league. Each sport has its own specificities, there isn't a one fit all solution.

            A hard cap in the NBA would kill team-player continuity and that's a big no-no for owners too. Team-player continuity is great for business. That's why the article is contradictory. They say that "both sides favor the ability to create a system that would help teams to keep their own free agents". But that's not possible with a hard cap. In fact, the reason there isn't a hard cap today is basically because there's "a system that would help teams to keep their own free agents". The other type of exceptions are of relative small importance.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: CBA 101

              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
              Isn't that a NFL team? Isn't the overall structure completely different? I don't know much about that league. Each sport has its own specificities, there isn't a one fit all solution.
              There isn't a one fit all solution, but there are general solutions that general work everywhere with minor tweaks.

              This is what works. When everyone is on an even playing field the small market teams are just as likely to be able to outbid a large market as the large market is able to outbid the small market. It then becomes about who is best at building a complete team instead of who can pay more for the best talent. That is true no matter which league or sport it is. Yes the exact details may not directly translate, but the overall concept does.

              We have multiple leagues over 100 year period that proves that no cap or a soft cap give large markets an advantage, it has been proven in every league. The only league that has had a decade or more of time with a hard cap has had success at creating parity over the whole league both small and large market. History and statistics are on my side here.
              Last edited by Eleazar; 11-23-2010, 08:58 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: CBA 101

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                There isn't a one fit all solution, but there are general solutions that general work everywhere with minor tweaks.

                This is what works. When everyone is on an even playing field the small market teams are just as likely to be able to outbid a large market as the large market is able to outbid the small market. It then becomes about who is best at building a complete team instead of who can pay more for the best talent. That is true no matter which league or sport it is. Yes the exact details may not directly translate, but the overall concept does.
                We all agree with the general concept. I'm arguing that in the NBA a hard-cap is not the best tool to achieve that.

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                We have multiple leagues over 100 year period that proves that no cap or a soft cap give large markets an advantage, it has been proven in every league. The only league that has had a decade or more of time with a hard cap has had success at creating parity over the whole league both small and large market. History and statistics are on my side here.
                Do you have a link to those statistics? The numbers I know show that the correlation between payroll and wins in the NBA is fairly small, about 10%. And the correlation between large markets and high payroll is far from perfect too. And I could see a hard cap creating parity in a soccer league - heck, even some modest degree of revenue sharing like the German league has creates some sort of parity - but in the NBA? Would a hard-cap create more high-level players? In which leagues have a hard-cap impacted parity?

                Here's a text by CBA expert Larry Coon about Bird rights and the hard-cap:

                CBA 101: Breaking Down "Bird" Rights
                By: Larry Coon Last Updated: 3/26/10 11:13 AM ET

                "Bird Rights" are one of the most recognized components of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Even casual fans who wouldn't know base year compensation from a hole in the ground understand a few basic concepts of the NBA's labor system: there's a salary cap, and teams can exceed it to re-sign players. "Bird Rights" are the most fundamental of the myriad salary cap exceptions. In this article we'll look at them in detail.

                Let's imagine for a moment a system with a hard cap (and if the league has its way, it may not be so hard to imagine starting in 2011). A hard cap imposes a payroll limit which teams can't exceed under any circumstance. Let's suppose the hard cap is $50 million, and there is a team with a payroll that's pushing right up against it – say, at $49 million.

                Let's give this team an up-and-coming superstar, who's finishing up his rookie contract – like maybe Portland with Brandon Roy. Since first round draft picks play under a scale salary for four years, by the end of his rookie contract the player is making far below his market value. So this is his first opportunity at free agency – it's his first opportunity to really get paid.

                For four years, this guy has been the face of the franchise. The team is built around him, he's the leader on the floor, and he's the face of the franchise. He's plastered on billboards around town.

                With a hard cap, they have to wave goodbye. There's no way to give him enough money to stay.

                The league know that's bad for the team, bad for the player, bad for the fans – and bad for business.

                (...)

                Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz16D2tvtHX
                He used Brandon Roy and Portland, but imagine it'd be Reggie Miller and Indiana.

                Maybe that player-team continuity is not important - I doubt that's the case in the NBA, but, once again, it doesn't matter much in soccer. But even in that case, a hard-cap would make the draft less important and the free-agency more important - as players would hit free-agency and change teams more regularly. I'm not sure that helps small-market teams. I mean, Indiana is a perfect example of how a team's ability to retain their own free-agents helps a small-market team to remain contenders for many years. There are two types of parity - within the season, how many teams are contending, how are W/L distributed. I don't see how a hard-cap helps much in this regard. Then there's the parity of making easier for teams to rebuild... but here I think it'd be the hard type of incentive as it'd make things more random and punish the well-run franchises like the Spurs in the 00s and the Pacers in the 90s/early 00s in favour of teams located in more attractive free-agency destinations.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: CBA 101

                  I think the reaction to the LeBron situation shows exactly how important fans think player-team continuity is. I'd be in favor of increasing that continuity, in fact.

                  I think we will continue with the cap-plus-exceptions situation, but I think it may change somewhat. To make a very simplistic example, a franchise player plus hard cap OUTSIDE the franchise player may not technically be a hard cap, but it is harder than the current system. I think the benefits of perpetuating the ability for a franchise to base PR on their "face" far exceed the risks of introducing complexity to the system.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: CBA 101

                    I know very little about the NFL (I only follow basketball), but I spent a little time reading up on its salary cap. So apologies if I get things way off base.

                    First off, I think the NFL's revenue sharing model has a lot more to do with the "level playing field" than the hard cap. Funny enough, some of the NFL's big market owners want to get rid of revenue sharing, so I guess we'll soon see whether a hard cap without revenue sharing still results in parity.

                    Secondly, in order to make the hard cap work, NFL teams have the option to waive every contract on their books before the start of the season. Thus, NFL teams don't really risk losing a rising star, because they can essentially restructure their salaries every year. This is clearly something the NBA doesn't have. Now, this system is obviously detrimental to players, so the NFL has signing bonuses to make up for it.

                    Third point, while the NFL's system purports to be a hard cap, those signing bonuses actually represent a significant loophole. Signing bonuses are paid upfront guaranteed, but are pro-rated over the term of the contract for salary cap purposes. Hence a very common practice is to sign NFL players to 6 year contracts with a large signing bonus, a very low yearly salary from years 1-4, and a large salary for year 5-6, with the implicit understanding that the player will be waived at the end of year 4 for the whole rigmarole to start all over again. Clearly, teams that can afford to give out large signing bonuses win out here. I don't see how this is better than the NBA's exceptions system.

                    Lastly, from where I sit I think the NBA has done pretty well in promoting small market parity. For every Green Bay Packers in the NFL, I could cite a San Antonio Spurs in the NBA. Oh I agree that a system with no cap at all is the worst for small market teams, but in the NBA context I don't see how a hard cap would be better than a soft cap for the little guys.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: CBA 101

                      There needs to be some type of hard cap or something closer to a hard cap for there to ever be even close to parity. The current system HEAVILY favors teams like the Lakers, Knicks, etc. There are so many exceptions that the soft cap + luxury tax only affects smaller teams like the Pacers.

                      Doing a quick Google search... Just have to look at these numbers:
                      1. Los Angeles Lakers
                      $95,692,591
                      2. Orlando Magic
                      $94,702,018
                      3. Dallas Mavericks
                      $89,093,829
                      4. Boston Celtics
                      $83,790,759
                      5. Denver Nuggets
                      $83,020,059

                      http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm#ixzz16GQtQy5W

                      20. Indiana Pacers
                      $64,368,421

                      These numbers might be from a year or two back (I didn't see a date), but the point still stands. The cap is in the high $50 millions. Yet because of the massive number of exceptions some teams with wealthier owners/markets can go WAY over compared to teams like the Pacers.

                      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                      Third point, while the NFL's system purports to be a hard cap, those signing bonuses actually represent a significant loophole. Signing bonuses are paid upfront guaranteed, but are pro-rated over the term of the contract for salary cap purposes. Hence a very common practice is to sign NFL players to 6 year contracts with a large signing bonus, a very low yearly salary from years 1-4, and a large salary for year 5-6, with the implicit understanding that the player will be waived at the end of year 4 for the whole rigmarole to start all over again. Clearly, teams that can afford to give out large signing bonuses win out here. I don't see how this is better than the NBA's exceptions system.
                      I have never ever heard of NFL contracts like that. If it did you'd see people like Peyton Manning getting waived instead of extensions. Other teams would also snatch up players off waivers.
                      Last edited by oxxo; 11-24-2010, 11:19 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: CBA 101

                        Denver and Orlando are big markets too? What about Cleveland and Utah, who have been paying luxury tax for some years? What about teams with large markets who refuse to pay luxury tax.

                        I think most teams follow Boston's ownership principle - if you aren't contenders, luxury tax is verbotten. If you're real contenders, there's no problem in paying it. Ainge was never allowed to enter tax territory till the trade for the big 3. The exception is probably New York.

                        Anyway, the correlation between money and wins is very small in the NBA. And I suspect that the correlation between wins and market size is even smaller.

                        I'd like to see more financial balance, but a hard-cap seems to be a horrible tool to achieve that. A tiered luxury tax system and more revenue sharing would do the same thing without the ill effects of a hard-cap.

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        I think the reaction to the LeBron situation shows exactly how important fans think player-team continuity is. I'd be in favor of increasing that continuity, in fact.

                        I think we will continue with the cap-plus-exceptions situation, but I think it may change somewhat. To make a very simplistic example, a franchise player plus hard cap OUTSIDE the franchise player may not technically be a hard cap, but it is harder than the current system. I think the benefits of perpetuating the ability for a franchise to base PR on their "face" far exceed the risks of introducing complexity to the system.
                        That would mean the elimination of the MLE, the LLE and little more. The other exceptions are irrelevant. But the impact of those acquisitions is not that large.

                        I doubt it will happen though. That's the kind of contract the large majority of the union members get.

                        ----

                        In regards to the NFL, is the hard-cap the reason there's more parity (assuming there's indeed more parity)? I'm just starting to read the wikipedia article, but there's 16 games in the reg. season and 4 more in the playoffs. That alone introduces a lot of randomness. If there were 20 games in a NBA season, the parity would a lot higher, pretty much every team would have a chance of winning it. Plus, how much impact have the top players in the NFL? The impact of having a top-5 player is a lot smaller in soccer than in basketball. The difference between a top-10 and a top-100 player is way smaller in soccer.

                        Anyway, I read that this season there won't be a cap at all in the NFL. I guess we'll find out if the hard-cap is really a reason why parity exists.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: CBA 101

                          It's not about markets. Like I said it's about the teams with more money/wealthier markets. Technically Indy is a bigger market by population, but definitely not by wealth. I'm sorry but there's no arguing that teams that can afford to splurge on all the exceptions and pass the luxury tax line every year don't have an exception. Just because some of them are BAD at using that money doesn't change the fact that they have more OPTIONS.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: CBA 101

                            It's always good to question conventional wisdom. I've been hearing a lot that a hard-cap promotes parity because the NFL proves that, every team can win, there are lots of teams that can win the playoffs, etc. I took that for granted because I didn't know much about the NFL but once I read they only play 20 games per season and each roster is composed by 50 guys I started having doubts.

                            I'm now convinced that the effect of the hard-cap in NFL's parity is negligible to meaningless.

                            This first article suggests it but it's still anecdotal evidence:

                            http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/...d-well-in-nfl/

                            With No Salary Cap, Parity Is Alive And Well In NFL
                            Nov. 11 2010 - 1:56 pm
                            Posted by Andrew Brandt

                            Parity lives. According to Elias Sports Bureau, this season marks the first since 1959 – I think Brett Favre was a rookie then – that every NFL team has lost at least two of its first eight games.

                            Halfway through this 2010 NFL season, the NFL talks the talk and walks the walk of the mantra of all professional sports leagues — competitive balance. There are no “super teams” and it appears that every fan base outside of Buffalo, Dallas and Carolina can retain some hope to be playing in January when the playoffs begin.
                            Baseball’s bragging about balance

                            With Major League Baseball’s World Series just ending between two teams not familiar to any recent championship game – the Giants and Rangers – Commissioner Bud Selig was crowing. The fact that these middle-market teams triumphed over the Phillies and Yankees showed that MLB’s cherished “competitive balance” was alive and thriving.

                            Selig, the former owner of the Milwaukee Brewers and member of the Green Bay Packers Board of Directors — took special delight in this year’s postseason as the Rangers, possessing the fourth-smallest payroll in MLB ($55 million), dethroned the Yankees and their excessive payroll. To Selig, a World Series is a good one without the Yankees, the symbol of disproportionate spending in baseball.

                            Uncapped parity?

                            Ironically, the 2010 NFL and MLB have something in common: the lack of a Salary Cap. Baseball has never had a Cap and the NFL is in this unique year prior to the expiration of the CBA where the league is uncapped. In theory, the lack of a Cap should make the league less competitive, with large-market and large-revenue teams able to buy up talent without restriction on payroll. The Salary Cap is a key measures in league collective bargaining agreements designed to promote parity by placing all teams on a level playing field by restricting team payrolls to a comparable amount for all.

                            And guess what? With the Cap in place in 2009, there was much discussion about the lack of parity and a league of good and bad teams. Now, with no Cap in the NFL this year, we have this once-in-a-generation parity.

                            But I found more convincing stuff. I didn't know that the hard-cap was only established in the NFL in 1995 and that before that season there wasn't one (just like there isn't one this season).

                            http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...alary-cap.html

                            The NFL without a salary cap?
                            Feb 25, 2009

                            The upcoming 2009 season could be the last year of the NFL salary cap. The current collective bargaining agreement expires following the 2010 season, but the agreement states that the final year of the agreement will not have a salary cap and there will be substantial limitations to free-agency. This might be the last year before the league returns to the pre-1994 days of dynasties, doormats, and mismatches.

                            What could we expect without a salary cap? In this article, I'll compare the 1978-1993 pre-salary cap NFL to the modern 1995-2008 league to get an idea of how things might change. Specifically, I'll compare parity levels from the era before the salary cap and after it.

                            (...)

                            I'll look at within-season parity first. How does the pre-cap era compare with the current era in terms of relative team strength? Season win totals should be a good place to start. After all, winning is the bottom line. Below is a histogram (frequency plot) of team win totals for both eras. The pre-cap era is in blue and the current era is in red.



                            The wider and flatter the distribution, the less parity there would be. More within-season parity would produce fewer extreme win totals and more records close to .500, resulting in a taller narrower distribution. Here we see very little difference between the two eras. It would be impossible for anyone to distinguish the difference between eras just by looking at win totals. In fact, the standard deviation in win totals for the current era is nearly identical to that of the pre-cap era, (both at 3.0 wins).

                            Here is another look at within-season parity. The next graph charts each season's standard deviation in wins(excluding the strike years of 1982 and 1987). When the cap was instituted in 1994, we'd expect to see some sort of effect.



                            But we really don't see any change. The salary cap doesn't appear to have had a detectable effect on within-season parity, at least in terms of team wins.

                            What about other measures? The next graph charts the standard deviation of team net point differentials. Net points (points scored minus points allowed) are known to be less random than win totals. If the cap had an effect on parity, we would see fewer blow outs, more close games, and accordingly smaller net point differences for each team.




                            Again, there doesn't appear to be an effect on within-season parity.

                            We can't necessarily conclude that the salary cap had absolutely no effect on within-season parity, but we can say that whatever effect it did have was not noticable in terms of the things that matter to fans--wins and competitiveness. So if the salary cap is not extended past 2009, we probably won't be able to notice a difference in 2010.
                            These posts also point in the same general direction:

                            http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=121

                            It seems the cap had an effect, albeit not a very large one, in allowing teams to get better/worse more quickly. I suppose that could happen in the NBA too... but at the cost of throwing away team-player continuity (which is the reason for prolonged excellence) and shifting the importance from the draft process + traditional team building (making a team grow, re-signing own free agents and keep adding small pieces/role-players) to the free agency process (more teams would try to copy what Miami did this season, clear out a ton of cap room to become instant contenders). It'd certainly make GMing a lot less interesting.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: CBA 101

                              i am coming to this discussion rather late but my two cents in comparing nba to nfl.

                              True equity and revenue sharing seem to work in the nfl allowing small market teams to win the superbowl but in the nba only a small number of teams ever win (exception a small market team such as San Antonio), whereas any team can win in the nfl does anyone think that charlotte will ever be champs?

                              Why is it that we blame the owners for their incompetence but not the players who contribute to that incompetence by taking big salaries and not producing or even playing. This past summer very mediocre players received ridiculous contracts. Why? because supply of decent players was way less than demand. Is this incompetence or more likely a system that fails to place reasonable limits on salaries-aka hard cap.

                              I wonder whether keeping a tinsley, curry, etc. on the payroll for many years does not destroy interest in that franchise for that period of time. Small teams can't afford to buy their way out of the Bender, Tinsley, Miles, death sentences where big market teams enter into luxury tax options.

                              Just watch a game and see the empty seats in small market arenas and suggest just how they can make money with no loyal fan base. Do the pacers make money practically giving tickets away? If they are explain it to me.

                              When you look at this as one organization rather than individual components perhaps it is a successful enterprise as Boston, LA, Chicago net big revenues relative to what they pay out in salaries. Break this down into individual team components before you declare this is a successful system.

                              Take baseball where the Yankees can have a payroll 4-5 fold greater than their rivals. No hard cap there and blatant big market spending.

                              Bottom line is that if you want to see the pacers, Charlotte, OKC, or other small market teams do well then a hard cap is required.

                              Generally, I would not take the owners side. If you work for microsoft as a programmer you might expect to make more than the same job holder who works for a much smaller outfit. The lakers spend 1 1/2 times in salary that the pacers spend but what is their revenue ratio?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: CBA 101

                                Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                                It's always good to question conventional wisdom. I've been hearing a lot that a hard-cap promotes parity because the NFL proves that, every team can win, there are lots of teams that can win the playoffs, etc. I took that for granted because I didn't know much about the NFL but once I read they only play 20 games per season and each roster is composed by 50 guys I started having doubts.

                                I'm now convinced that the effect of the hard-cap in NFL's parity is negligible to meaningless.

                                This first article suggests it but it's still anecdotal evidence:

                                http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/...d-well-in-nfl/




                                But I found more convincing stuff. I didn't know that the hard-cap was only established in the NFL in 1995 and that before that season there wasn't one (just like there isn't one this season).

                                http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...alary-cap.html



                                These posts also point in the same general direction:

                                http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=121

                                It seems the cap had an effect, albeit not a very large one, in allowing teams to get better/worse more quickly. I suppose that could happen in the NBA too... but at the cost of throwing away team-player continuity (which is the reason for prolonged excellence) and shifting the importance from the draft process + traditional team building (making a team grow, re-signing own free agents and keep adding small pieces/role-players) to the free agency process (more teams would try to copy what Miami did this season, clear out a ton of cap room to become instant contenders). It'd certainly make GMing a lot less interesting.
                                First I just want to say you don't understand the game of football. It is much less skill based and it takes less time to figure out who is better. On top of that the physicality of the sport limits how often they can play.

                                Second I want to say good job at looking up stats that don't matter. You found stats that are blind to team or market. Yes of course there are going to be the normal distributions of wins because there are always teams that are clearly better and clearly worse every year. The difference is it changes almost every year. In the NBA it takes 4 years for there to be any real change. Usually it is the same 3 to 5 teams making the playoffs every year in each conference with the only variance being the last 3 or 4 spots. The league is very predictable. While the NFL is very unpredictable. The only teams that tend to make it every year are the teams that are the best at building through the draft. When was the last time the Colts brought in a big name FA? NE only did it though a trade. Steelers? Between those 3 teams only the Steelers were a perennial playoff team before the hard cap, in fact the other two constantly struggled to do anything worth mentioning.

                                What happened before the hard cap was the only teams that could keep their top players or bring in new ones were big market teams and teams with rich tradition like Green Bay. Smaller market teams rarely ever were able to overcome them.

                                What the NFL has turned into is a league where it is the teams who have the best managers and drafters win, not those who can afford to pay the top talent.

                                While the NBA is about who can trade for the best talent, then overpay them to stay.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X