This is the second time somebody has had this idea, and it just doesn't make sense.
Yes, if a team plays more home games during the playoffs, it will make more revenue. Probably between $1 million and $2 million per extra game, from what I've read. That means by "tanking" and going to Game 7 with both Atlanta and Cleveland, Wyc and Co. made, say, $3 million extra.
However, in doing so they risked advancing to the next round. There is *a lot* more money to be made by locking up a trip to the Finals, and in winning a championship, than $3.0 million. The valuation of the franchise on the open market probably jumps at least another $10 million with another championship, and that's at bare minimum. Does it make sense to risk that -- by tiring out your players, and by putting all your chips down on a "do or die" Game 7 -- just for $3 million in the short term?
Gonna play devil's advocate here, just because it's fun every now and then... not in regards to saying, yeah they're losing on purpose, but in regards to my area of "expertise", valuation.
I actually think it is a definite economic benefit for them to go to game 7s, in both the short and long term. Short term is obvious because of the extra per game revenue. Long term is insignificant expect for the future gains that come out of the short term boost. I don't think a franchise's valuation jumps all that much from a championship. I suppose there is all that champions merchandise they can sell. But I think ticket prices, attendance, and all the normal stuff that seems to be correlated with winning are going to end up about the same whether the team wins a ring or wins 66 games and flames out in the postseason. These things are priced based on expectations, and the expectations for the Celtics in the near future will be roughly the same either way. When someone like Forbes assigns a value to a team, I don't think past championships play too big of a part in it. Valuation is all about future cash inflows/outflows and I don't think those change too drastically by winning it all as opposed to losing in the finals.
But hey, I'm probably wrong.
I think championships won does play a fairly significant role in franchise valuation, which is why you see the marquis franchises at the top of the list. One of the reasons the Cavaliers jumped 20% in terms of valuation this year was because they made a trip to the Finals. The other thing that plays into that is that the team can use its success to get a better television deal, which has a huge effect on franchise value. Advertising "The World Champion Boston Celtics" brings in a ton of interest, and thus, money.
In return for roughly $3 million (or $4.5 million, if Detroit goes 7), the team is risking a loss, risking injury, and tiring out its players. Does that sound like a good cost/benefit?
