Because the NBA requires the least amount of players on a roster than any other major sport.
Positive tweets on the lockout Oct 27th
- Thread starter Basketball_Romantic23
- Start date
Because the NBA requires the least amount of players on a roster than any other major sport.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Further support for my conclusion (thanks). No matter how you get there, the point remains: the NBA players are the highest-paid in professional team sports, and they still want more (or want to give up less), even though the world's changed, and even though they are worse off in the end (by way of lost salary during the lockout).
Even at 47% or 50% share, each player (on average at least) gets a bigger piece of the pie.
Yes, because they are apart of a more elite club. It's harder to become (odd wise at least) a NBA player than an NFL,NHL, or MLB player. So they should be paid more.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Not sure why you're being an apologist for the players, but the supply of NBA-quality players exceeds demand, so the fewer spots in the NBA does not warrant the substantially higher average salary that they are receiving. Even at 50-50. #TakeTheMoneyAndRun
Feel free to put some numbers to your claim, btw. I'm not sure that you're gonna find the NBA much more elite than the NFL or MLB. Most schools that have a basketball team also have a football team, and it is possible that more people play basketball than football.
Exceeds demand? NBA players have to work harder to become a professional in their field and have less chance of becoming one than any other sport. Every year in Football and Baseball there are tons of new players coming into the league.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Don't know why anybody would want to see less basketball.
There are less NBA players in the world than MLB or NFL. That means your odds of becoming an NBA player are significantly less than any other sport. That is what makes NBA players are more elite group.
Also, numbers are not needed when common sense is involved.
And in real life that is a major factor in dictating pay. Someone with an Engineering degree is going to get paid more than someone with a Psychology degree because the Engineering degree is a more exclusive,difficult to obtain degree.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Really? Feel free to back up your claim that NBA players have to work harder than NBA players to become skilled in your sport. In my limited experience, I didn't see that basketball players practiced harder than football players; if anything, it was the opposite. And the fact that the average college years per NFL player (and average years in the minor leagues or college for the MLB) being far higher than the average college years per NBA player flies in the face of your claim that NBA players work harder to get into the NBA.
You're ignoring supply vs. demand; just because there are fewer spots in the NBA doesn't mean that there aren't enough players to fill those spots--or that players should earn more for getting there unless there is a scarcity of NBA-quality players relative to positions available.
While some would argue that sometimes erratic quality of the NBA games might suggest that there is a scarcity of NBA-quality players, it can be argued the erratic quality of the NBA has to do more with players not being as trained (perhaps "working hard enough" in your terms) before the NBA (i.e., minimum of one year of college) than in other sports (e.g., NFL typically has players with at least 2 or 3 years' college experience, and MLB players typically do college or the minor leagues).
In other words, the prior experience to get in the NBA is lower than the NFL or the MLB (and maybe the NHL), but they still get paid more. You have not proven that the scarcity of NBA-quality players is significantly higher than the scarcity of NFL-quality players. You are merely strengthening my argument that NBA players are overpaid and should take 50-50 and run.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Just to underscore the point:
There are about 119 Division I NCAA football teams.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070715172350AASeqmY
There are over 300 Division I NCAA basketball teams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_basketball#Division_I
The NBA has 30 teams; the NFL, 32. About the same.
So, assuming that the rate of talent development is comparable between sports and that the respective team size is about the same in college vs. pros for each sport, the labor supply for basketball is substantially higher.
Add in international players (which are rare in football), and the NBA labor supply is even higher, thus warranting a lower "price of labor" than in the NFL.
Add in the average college time per football player vs. basketball player, and your argument about the "more difficult degree" further supports that NBA players should be paid less than football players because they are usually required to obtain more pre-NFL training (i.e., college, including practice) than NBA players do.
Add in relative risk of injury, and the NFL has further basis for warranting higher salaries.
You've got your work cut out for you if you're gonna continue to argue that NBA players deserve more pay relative to other major sports (or pretty much any other profession in the world) on the basis of having to work harder.
The big difference in the salary disparity is that the NFL owners have been more effective in negotiating more reasonable salaries.
And that's exactly what the owners want to fix now. 50-50 is reasonable; it's in line with the NFL, and the average salaries stay #1 among major professional sports.
But during the lockout, the players' earnings (besides money owed from last year) is dead last: $0.
Wtf are you talking about? You are by far one of the most annoying posters on this forum.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Lol. I know its extremely difficult to tell what sort of tone an internet-delivered message contains, but IGS's posts just come across as so ****ing pompous. Not sure if its just me.
Let me explain this to you in a way even a child could understand.
Group A: There is a pie. There are 54 people who want to eat it.
Group B: There is another pie. There are 13 people who want to eat it.
Who is going to get more pie on average? Huh? Any guesses?
Is it fair? Maybe not, but maybe those people from Group A should of joined Group B. They probably didn't join group B because there is only a 2 round draft and 15 (most of whom only usually use 13) roster spots among 30 teams compared to the 7 round draft, 54 roster 32 team group A.
That equates to a total of 450 NBA players (if each team uses its 15 man roster). 1728 players on the NFL side.
Group A: There is a pie. There are 54 people who want to eat it.
Group B: There is another pie. There are 13 people who want to eat it.
Who is going to get more pie on average? Huh? Any guesses?
Is it fair? Maybe not, but maybe those people from Group A should of joined Group B. They probably didn't join group B because there is only a 2 round draft and 15 (most of whom only usually use 13) roster spots among 30 teams compared to the 7 round draft, 54 roster 32 team group A.
That equates to a total of 450 NBA players (if each team uses its 15 man roster). 1728 players on the NFL side.
And maybe "work harder" wasn't the best choice of words. It is harder to become an NBA player than it is NFL player. The level of talent,skill, and size you need is just unmatched compared to any other team sport. I think it is pretty clear unless we are talking about becoming a starting QB. The two best TE's in the NFL are former college basketball players who didn't even play college football (Jimmy Graham and Antonio Gates, Graham played 1 year of college football actually).
sportsguy33 Bill Simmons
Going to a Halloween party dressed as the NBA. I'm just going to mutilate myself for no reason and make everyone hate me.
Going to a Halloween party dressed as the NBA. I'm just going to mutilate myself for no reason and make everyone hate me.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
You only have a chance to argue size on that--and that's debatable, given that the NBA could put together a very nice league with--say, an average height of 6'4" instead of 6'6" and--as I have already said--the NBA has reduced the number of 7-footers. And your claim still flies in the face of the fact that a large number of NBA players have less than one year of college. Even your example of Jimmy Graham doesn't work fully because he was in college for five years and played football for one year--the amount that many NBA players do anyway.
You have also failed to prove that demand for NBA-quality players is greater than supply. Simply not true. The NBA owners could start the league over without the union. Within three years, they could have the league up and running at a far lower average salary. Instead of joining the new NBA, the top players could foolishly have their traveling squad of all-stars, but they would be hard-pressed to make the same amount of money that they make as an NBA player.
WTF does this have to do with anything? NFL players stay in school longer becasue they have too. Plus it's much more important for NFL players to be completely physically mature before coming into the league.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
You can answer your own question: you claimed that NBA players "work harder", and then stated that it wasn't the best use of words. [Understatement of the year.]
Not only is that notion countervailed by the relative rigor of football practice vs. basketball practice (imagine b-ballers going through "two-a-days" or hitting the weight room with the same regularity as FB players; it took Big Al until his 7th year in the league to get around to working out seriously), it's also discredited by NBA players who coast through the league (e.g., "We're talking about practice!").
You already acknowledged the imprecision (at best) of such a phrase, and then you try to argue in favor of it <<sigh>>.
Big W for Whatever regarding your claim that football players just hang around college, waiting to physically mature. They hang around college because if they don't know what they're doing, they could get injured permanently. Part of that is getting stronger--physical maturity of their own doing. Simply doesn't happen so often in the NBA; usually the worst is that you get dunked on and have to buy the team Crown Burgers.
Last edited:
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
If the "pie" that you are talking about is the BRI, then you are basically supporting the notion that the NBA BRI should be less--if anything--than the NFL BRI, because there's nothing that says that the BRI should necessarily a given number; it's what they negotiate. In the case of the NBA, the alternative for players is to go overseas at 1/3 the price or start their own failed league, so the alternative to taking their NBA pie and being grateful is to choose a far less attractive pie. The owners don't get any NBA pie until the players agree to a share of the pie, but the owners have other pies; most players don't (unless you count serving apple pies at McDonald's).
You haven't convinced me that the talent in the NBA is more scarce than the talent in the NFL.
Height scarce? Fine. Use players a bit shorter. And they did.
Shooting scarce? Not so much anymore. Ronnie Brewers aside, more players are coming in as good shooters.
Athleticism scarce? The NBA is far more athletic than it was, say, 20 years ago.
Defense scarce? Well, that's another story.
The fact that there are more players on an NFL team is not particularly relevant, given that there are 10 or 20 football players and basketball players who graduate or leave school every year per available position; i.e., the possible labor supply is far higher than the demand. Not every college athlete is pro-worthy, but that applies to basketball and football.
Each year, the NBA labor demand is probably somewhere between 30 and 45 players. The NBA doesn't have much turnover; because NBA players are p-u-s-s-i-e-s compared to the NFL and usually have longer careers. I estimate that about 4000 upperclass football players are eligible to declare for (7*32 =) 224 NFL spots (plus free agency). Of the 300+ basketball teams, a minimum of 3 or 4 graduate or leave school per year, leaving about 1000 players for (generously) 60 spots. In both cases the ratio, is somewhere between 10 and 20 to 1. Nothing in this ratio suggest that basketball players should command the vastly higher salaries than football players.
In other words, the NBA players should take 50% (or maybe 51%) of the pie and be extremely grateful, given that they are not all that scarce and get more pie per person than any other pro league.
Last edited:
You are truly a clown. I end this argument now and declare myself the winner because you are clearly to dense to realize your faulty logic and responding to your unnecessarily long post is a major pain in my ***.