82 games are too long to begin with. Lose at least 2 weeks, and let's get this on.
Positive tweets on the lockout Oct 27th
- Thread starter Basketball_Romantic23
- Start date
60 game season would be perfect.
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
Your quote has almost nothing to do with the reality of using April/May as a way to recoup missed games.
You don't see the NBA scheduling 3 games in 3 nights, 4 games in 4 nights, etc. They also try to limit back-to-backs as much as possible but obviously teams have to play them in order to get all the games in. There's a reason for that type of scheduling and the reason is that playing 3 or 4 nights in a row would be very hard on a team regardless of age.
Backloading the NBA schedule for April/May is probably going to lead to a lot of 4 games in 5 nights type of scenarios and I think it's fairly obvious that the product will suffer because of it.
agreed
I've learned to not get too excited. I've been going about my business assuming these parties haven't figured out that ****ting where you eat is not a good idea hoping I'd be wrong.
Anyway, I hope everyone realizes it's in the best interest of everyone to implement revenue sharing and a sliding scale for BRI. I don't know why that couldn't fix everything at this juncture.
Anyway, I hope everyone realizes it's in the best interest of everyone to implement revenue sharing and a sliding scale for BRI. I don't know why that couldn't fix everything at this juncture.
A sliding scale BRI ought to make sense if it rewards the owners for doing a good job of marketing and operations. It's not really incumbent upon the players to do anything other than play.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
By "sliding scale", do you mean a reduction of BRI every year from--say, 53%--down to another number (say, 50%)? It seems that that could get a deal done--especially given that these players care about the short term more than the long term (given that they are more likely to be playing in the long term.
For example, starting at 54%, with a 1% annual drop from there to 50% in the 5th year (and 50% thereafter) averages to 51%, helps the owners wind down their existing bloated contracts gradually, gives the players more than the 53% they wanted (in the first year), sets the owners up for a good bargaining in the next CBA (when most of the current players--if not the entire economy--will be long gone), and averages the players' share of BRI to 51% over 10 years.
Starting at 53% (with 1% annual drops until the 4th year) averages the BRI to 50.6% over 10 years. And the players can brag to their posse's that they get a majority of the basketball-related income <<sigh>>.
Or are you referring to expanding the sliding scale in place for rookies?
https://www.ehow.com/how_2095944_know-nba-salary-cap-rules.html
Or are you referring to the players' proposal to take more of a hit in down years?
https://www.denverstiffs.com/2011/6/9/2214121/collective-bargaining-part-2-of-3-the-players
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
The sliding scale has already been floated by the NBAPA. If the league is profitable by such and such a margin, the players get a higher percentage. If it isn't, they get a lower percentage. It's a players' proposal that has been rejected (last one I heard was 50 to 53.)
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Geesh, owners. While I've been backing 'em most of the time, I would think that they'd want to consider offering something like a 50 to 52 sliding scale, depending on where the cutoffs fall.
Then again, there are a few radical parched-earth owners who want to cut off their revenue noses despite their faces.
With November cancelled, players lose a hundred million or two, rendering at least part of any boost from 50/50 merely a compensation for lost income. Meanwhile, owners might dig in further to 50-50 for the same reason, after seemingly being willing to soften their stances on the cap and other items.
Last edited:
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Owners are looking to get heavy over the next deal. To their mind, they caved on the last two deals. They've eaten the downturn in the economy. They know (better than most) the economy isn't healed by any stretch.
Players need to accept this state of affairs as a 'correction' of sorts. At the next negotiation, they can dig in about all the profits if the economy rebounds. For now, they need to take the money they can make rather than falling on the sword of principle.
A sliding scale incentivizes the overall health of the league and the game to players. Which in my opinion is something lacking from the labor. It's the same idea behind paying employees based on revenue percentage in the first place. A greater stake in the product matters.
Marginalization of guaranteed contracts does kind of the same thing, but the players won't give those up. I'd be all about doing both.
And if anyone wasn't already clear, in all of the lauding of the NHL's system, the sliding scale is used in it and the players earn 57% currently.
Marginalization of guaranteed contracts does kind of the same thing, but the players won't give those up. I'd be all about doing both.
And if anyone wasn't already clear, in all of the lauding of the NHL's system, the sliding scale is used in it and the players earn 57% currently.
Late to the party here, so if this has already been discussed .. ignore me.
Sliding scale - I like it concept, but isn't akin to the struggles associated with defining profitability? Meaning, if there's a sliding scale based on the profitability of the franchise, doesn't it make the players too involved in the day-to-day management of the business ... questioning every employees necessity, the coach's salary, etc?
Maybe I have the complete wrong idea, but if this is tied directly to profitability, it won't work long term.
Sliding scale - I like it concept, but isn't akin to the struggles associated with defining profitability? Meaning, if there's a sliding scale based on the profitability of the franchise, doesn't it make the players too involved in the day-to-day management of the business ... questioning every employees necessity, the coach's salary, etc?
Maybe I have the complete wrong idea, but if this is tied directly to profitability, it won't work long term.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....here's the owners new sliding scale: you sign NOW at 50/50.....or for each month you refuse to sign the scale slides 51/49 owners.....then it slides 52/48 owners.....then it slides 53/47 owners....etc. etc. etc.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
But with a BRI, they already have a stake. More total revenue means more player revenue. While it might look good to increase the player BRI at profitable level, it doesn't necessarily instantly incentivize players to do well. If you want to incentivize players, put team-level metrics in their contracts. I don't see players going out of their way already to boost the NBA brand just so the NBA-level revenue goes up -> player revenue goes up -> an individual player might, just might, be able to negotiate a bit higher salary sometime. To remote a chain of events.
Yeah, and the average salary in the NHL is WAYYY lower than in the NBA, as are values of teams.
https://www.forbes.com/2006/11/09/nhl-teams-owners-biz_06nhl_cz_mo_kb_1109nhlintro.html
To me, a sliding scale is fine, but an NBA player share in the low 50s is plenty "fair," given where the average (and minimum) salaries are. Players and owners alike are shooting themselves in the foot for not getting this done.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Stupid jinx thread.
And this strengthens ownerships' arguments (help us in our poverty) more how exactly?
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Um, NBA players are better paid on average than players in pretty much any other major team sport, even at 50/50 or 47/53. Or 53/47.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major...United_States_and_Canada#High_player_salaries
If I were the NBA/owners, I'd start pointing this out publicly. And repeatedly.
And, um, that average salary (including the salary lost with each passing day and week and month and season) matters more than percent share, especially over one or two percentage point and especially in sports where the players get paid more anyway. #OpportunityCost
In other words, when NBA players are still gonna get paid FAR more (on average) than MLB, NFL, or NHL players at 50-50 (and more than NFL players, I believe), then their BRI claim really doesn't hold water (or in the case of hockey, ice).
I guess that the players' whiny comeback could be that height is a rarer commodity than ice skating (or checking), but the NBA has shown that better basketball is probably played without maxing out the height average anyway. And the risk of injury is far lower in the NBA than in the NFL or the NHL (especially orthodontically).
And the NBA player's risk of getting his uniform dirty is far lower than in the MLB :|.
Therefore, the NBA players are punks who are negotiating against themselves, and dragging down the owners and fans with them.
Last edited:
The average NHL roster is around 27-30 players I believe. Meaning their are nearly 3x as many players to pay on an average team, so of course their salaries are going to be lower.