What's new
By:

Owners are replaceable

freakazoid said:
Both come into play.
-

Say it takes 3 years to get to a point similar to NBA now. You don't just clone it over night in one season. Think Lebron/KD/entire spurs team is willing to give up a shot at 3 more rings while making millions? Maybe some players might make that sacrifice, but not most, let alone all, IMO.
Click to expand...

The stars are the guys leading the charge.

Many of the league’s highest-paid and most visible superstars have spoken out against this system, including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban suggested that players should give up guaranteed contracts if they want maximum salaries eliminated; Kevin Durant did not take kindly to that idea.
Click to expand...

https://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/16/nbpa-director-michele-roberts-on-max-salaries-the-premise-offends-me/

Ps Chris Paul is the president of the players association.
 
heyhey said:
It could happen and it could happen quickly.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that it's possible, although extremely unlikely. If it could happen quickly, it already would have.
-
"Spoken out against the system" is a long ways from ready to make the necessary sacrifices. They're speaking out because they know they are not paid fairly, and they're trying to get back some of what they lost last time around. However, at the end of the day, most of the players just want to take their check and get back on the court. As a group, I just don't believe the majority would be in.
-
Also, if the players did start their own league, I'm assuming they would want to implement a free market system, considering that's what seems to be the issue with the stars. Such a system would allow for about half or less of the teams we have now to be competitive. That league doesn't rake in nearly the cash the NBA does. I think this is way more complicated than people want to admit.
 
Last edited:
ONE LOVE said:
I agree.


I was thinking about this the other day. What do the "owners" actually own? Basically just the "brands" and the "right" to be included in the NBA. They don't own the stadiums. They don't "own" the players. They own very little as a matter of act. The players could just as easily collectively walk away and start their own league if they don't like what they're getting.
Click to expand...

They also own TV contracts. A players league would be starting from scratch, there, with networks having committed huge amounts to the NBA.
 
ONE LOVE said:
This is a good point. Much easier now to get a new league up and running and simply sell subscriptions via online streaming. Investors will jump all over this to get in on the action. The NBA had already done a lot of the marketing to make these players household names, it won't be hard.
Click to expand...

It's easier, but not more profitable. The NBA rakes in a lot more money from TNT than it does from League Pass, as I understand it.
 
L
freakazoid said:
I'll buy that it's possible, although extremely unlikely. If it could happen quickly, it already would have.
-
"Spoken out against the system" is a long ways from ready to make the necessary sacrifices. They're speaking out because they know they are not paid fairly, and they're trying to get back some of what they lost last time around. However, at the end of the day, most of the players just want to take their check and get back on the court. As a group, I just don't believe the majority would be in.
-
Also, if the players did start their own league, I'm assuming they would want to implement a free market system, considering that's what seems to be the issue with the stars. Such a system would allow for about half or less of the teams we have now to be competitive. That league doesn't rake in nearly the cash the NBA does. I think this is way more complicated than people want to admit.
Click to expand...

Right which ultimately means less guys getting paid. The NBA would live on, stars would decide which league to play in and the stars start up would be squashed like a bug in three years. Funny how some see this scenario as easy.
 
If it were free market you'd almost certainly have major contraction with maybe 12-15 teams and 3-4 "good" teams.

Most of the players in the NBA would be out of a job.

Might actually improve the product, but the smaller market teams would be gone.

The players union doesn't take a leap of faith that at best will put most players out of work.
 
heyhey said:
The players starting their own league is a very real threat to the owners. They could get a similar TV deal. They could lease places to play. They could sell shares in teams like any corporation and retain majority ownership by the players union. It could happen and it could happen quickly.
Click to expand...


heyhey said:
pretty much yeah.

The Nba is especially vulnerable because it is so star driven. If the stars decided they wanted to do it they could. They wouldn't necessarily need a majority of the NBA players to make it work, as long as they had a super majority of the stars.
Click to expand...
The reason I think it wouldn't work....... fans like myself (of which there are alot) would stop watching.
I'm a jazz fan. If my team was broken up, moved, changed logos, etc. Then I would not care about the nba.

Alot of people would do the same.
Without the fans, players lose
 
For ****s and giggles let's say google decides to play the patron

google products
Youtube
Chromecast
Google TV
Android

So let's say the world's leading advertiser offers the players union the same ten year TV deal the owners got.

Their stipulations might be:

-a list of players that must agree
-30 teams in specific markets
-independent management
-a single league wide corporation(the league owns all the teams)
-and since google is taking the risk ownership share in the league/profit sharing

Remember Google isn't the only possible patron FOX was not even given the opportunity to place a bid on the new TV rights. A few more possible patrons off the top of my head: apple, Verizon, Amazon
 
fishonjazz said:
The reason I think it wouldn't work....... fans like myself (of which there are alot) would stop watching.
I'm a jazz fan. If my team was broken up, moved, changed logos, etc. Then I would not care about the nba.

Alot of people would do the same.
Without the fans, players lose
Click to expand...

Yep, 0% chance I give a **** about pro bball if there isn't a team in SLC.
 
heyhey said:
For ****s and giggles let's say google decides to play the patron

google products
Youtube
Chromecast
Google TV
Android

So let's say the world's leading advertiser offers the players union the same ten year TV deal the owners got.

Their stipulations might be:

-a list of players that must agree
-30 teams in specific markets
-independent management
-a single league wide corporation(the league owns all the teams)
-and since google is taking the risk ownership share in the league/profit sharing

Remember Google isn't the only possible patron FOX was not even given the opportunity to place a bid on the new TV rights. A few more possible patrons off the top of my head: apple, Verizon, Amazon
Click to expand...
Is there still going to be a team called the utah jazz, with the jazz note logo, and exum, burks, favors, Hayward, kanter, trey, hood, gobert, and booker on it?

If not, I stop watching. So does alot of other fans in other cities.
 
heyhey said:
No one is Seattle, Vegas, Baltimore, Nashville, St. louis, etc gives a **** if SLC has a team
Click to expand...
Are you saying that all thirty nba cities well be replaced by 30 new cities?

Cause the fans in new York, and LA will have some of the same feelings as the fans in slc.
 
Once the CBA expires, do the players individual team contracts also expire? If not, they could potentially be prevented from playing in another league until their contract ends. With the majority of players on multi-year contracts, this could be a big sticking point for never having a new league start.
 
"I don't know of any space other than the world of sports where there's this notion that we will artificially deflate what someone's able to make, just because," she said, talking about a salary cap -- a collectively bargained policy that, in its current form, has constrained team spending in the NBA since 1984-85. "It's incredibly un-American. My DNA is offended by it."
Click to expand...

Sure, bitch. Let's dissolve the union and get rid of veteran and rookie minimums, and the pension fund while we're at this market-based switch over.
 
heyhey said:
No one is Seattle, Vegas, Baltimore, Nashville, St. louis, etc gives a **** that SLC has a team
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that. I don't care that they don't have a team, either.

But you'll be playing pro bball in LESS cities. You'll have FEWER teams.

If moving to new cities is part of the plan as well you'll also be building new markets while abandoning established ones.

It sounds like it'd be a smaller pie, the elite players will take a bigger portion of it, half of current pro players would get none of it, and the half that made the cut will probably get less than they're getting now.

Yep, let's put it to a vote of the player's association. DOWN WITH THE NBA!
 
fishonjazz said:
Are you saying that all thirty nba cities well be replaced by 30 new cities?

Cause the fans in new York, and LA will have some of the same feelings as the fans in slc.
Click to expand...

No.

I'm saying that if the clippers can become the darlings of LA by acquiring Cp and Griffin that if Cp and Griffin decided to play elsewhere but still in LA that people would show up.

I'm just saying that there are cities like Nashville that have stadiums ready for a pro team. Small markets could leave.

Like I said earlier though it won't happen because the owners are not that stupid. The players will get a raise precisely because them leaving the league is feasible. The players probably have more leverage than they have ever had. I think they are more prepared as well.(experience from last time) The owners won't be able to claim that they are losing money this time around. The players will get a greater share of the revenue.
 
heyhey said:
The players starting their own league is a very real threat to the owners. They could get a similar TV deal. They could lease places to play. They could sell shares in teams like any corporation and retain majority ownership by the players union. It could happen and it could happen quickly.
Click to expand...

The notion that it's so easy yet it hasn't been done already makes this a very silly idea.
 
Gameface said:
Yes, I get that. I don't care that they don't have a team, either.

But you'll be playing pro bball in LESS cities. You'll have FEWER teams.

If moving to new cities is part of the plan as well you'll also be building new markets while abandoning established ones.

It sounds like it'd be a smaller pie, the elite players will take a bigger portion of it, half of current pro players would get none of it, and the half that made the cut will probably get less than they're getting now.

Yep, let's put it to a vote of the player's association. DOWN WITH THE NBA!
Click to expand...

Why would you have fewer teams? Many markets would not be abandoned especially the big ones.
 
heyhey said:
Many markets would not be abandoned especially the big ones.
Click to expand...

But team names, logos, gear, etc would have to be abandoned cause the nba owns that kind of stuff right?

People will not like that and stop following thier "new team" cause it's not thier old team.

People are creatures of habit and sentiment. Alot of people are resistant to change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top