Author Topic: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction  (Read 4385 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« on: July 07, 2011, 01:41:11 PM »

Offline OsirusCeltics

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2013
  • Tommy Points: 198
Basketball to me is the only professional sport where the players are more important than the game itself. It is a star-driven league where marketability is needed to help it function. The players where no helmets, or face guards. So its easier for casual fans to see their faces and buy their endorsements

So its understandable that the teams struggling financially are the NBA teams with a low number of stars. Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, Miami, San Antonio, etc. really don't have a problem with losing money

My idea is just to contract the league. Make it a 20 team league
-Judge the teams that are going to be cut by how much debt/negative profit they are in. The 10 teams that are losing the most are gone
-All the staff of those teams (coaches, trainers) can be transferred to the remaining teams

Two main reasons why I want this contraction

1. No team would be losing any more money, the remaining teams would actually gain more money. The media revenue would share between 20 teams, instead of 30. Simple Math. No owners would be losing money, and able to pay players the contracts they want (I do believe in a hard cap though)

2. The wealth of talent would be so much better on each team
It started with the beginning of the 90's. The NBA is too watered down. Theres so many examples of franchises having one lone great player, with no help around them
Mitch Richmond, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone

Imagine having teams being 10 deep of all star caliber players. There won't be games where you can take a day off, and regular season games would be more watchable and competitive. Every team would have a chance to win the title each year. It wouldn't be a combination of dead-set contenders and bottom dwellers

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2011, 01:46:48 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
2. The wealth of talent would be so much better on each team
It started with the beginning of the 90's. The NBA is too watered down. Theres so many examples of franchises having one lone great player, with no help around them
Mitch Richmond, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone

Imagine having teams being 10 deep of all star caliber players. There won't be games where you can take a day off, and regular season games would be more watchable and competitive. Every team would have a chance to win the title each year. It wouldn't be a combination of dead-set contenders and bottom dwellers

Yes, because there were no bad teams in the 70s and 80s.

Also, Karl Malone never had a great teammate?
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2011, 01:49:53 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32761
  • Tommy Points: 1732
  • What a Pub Should Be
You wanna contract from 30 to 20 teams?

Good luck getting the player's union to agree to that.  Will never happen in a million years. 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2011, 01:55:45 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
Actually, the teams that are losing money are not so much the ones that are the worst of the worst, but rather the small market teams that are spending a lot in order to compete with the big boys.  The Spurs, for example, are not a hugely profitable franchise.

Put in a hard cap and limit player salaries so smaller market teams aren't forced to spend above their means in order to compete with the big market big spenders.
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2011, 01:57:16 PM »

Offline OsirusCeltics

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2013
  • Tommy Points: 198
2. The wealth of talent would be so much better on each team
It started with the beginning of the 90's. The NBA is too watered down. Theres so many examples of franchises having one lone great player, with no help around them
Mitch Richmond, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone

Imagine having teams being 10 deep of all star caliber players. There won't be games where you can take a day off, and regular season games would be more watchable and competitive. Every team would have a chance to win the title each year. It wouldn't be a combination of dead-set contenders and bottom dwellers

Yes, because there were no bad teams in the 70s and 80s.

Also, Karl Malone never had a great teammate?

The Jazz's talent 1-10 (best player to 10th best play on the depth chart) had no where near the Bull's 1-10 talent level
Thats what I meant

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2011, 02:02:48 PM »

Offline Lucky17

  • DKC Commish
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16021
  • Tommy Points: 2352

-Judge the teams that are going to be cut by how much debt/negative profit they are in. The 10 teams that are losing the most are gone


I have a feeling that the Celtics would be on your list for contraction.
DKC League is now on reddit!: http://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2011, 02:03:18 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
You wanna contract from 30 to 20 teams?

Good luck getting the player's union to agree to that.  Will never happen in a million years. 

Yeah, that would just make things worse. 

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2011, 02:39:13 PM »

Offline OsirusCeltics

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2013
  • Tommy Points: 198
Hey Lebron also wanted the idea of a contraction earlier
So if Lebron says it, its gotta be right

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2011, 02:45:35 PM »

Offline 17wasEZ

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 375
  • Tommy Points: 39
2. The wealth of talent would be so much better on each team
It started with the beginning of the 90's. The NBA is too watered down. Theres so many examples of franchises having one lone great player, with no help around them
Mitch Richmond, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone

Imagine having teams being 10 deep of all star caliber players. There won't be games where you can take a day off, and regular season games would be more watchable and competitive. Every team would have a chance to win the title each year. It wouldn't be a combination of dead-set contenders and bottom dwellers

Yes, because there were no bad teams in the 70s and 80s.

Also, Karl Malone never had a great teammate?

He must have forgotten about Greg Ostertag.  :-\
We all think we know more than we really do....

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2011, 02:53:22 PM »

Offline 17wasEZ

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 375
  • Tommy Points: 39
2. The wealth of talent would be so much better on each team
It started with the beginning of the 90's. The NBA is too watered down. Theres so many examples of franchises having one lone great player, with no help around them
Mitch Richmond, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone

Imagine having teams being 10 deep of all star caliber players. There won't be games where you can take a day off, and regular season games would be more watchable and competitive. Every team would have a chance to win the title each year. It wouldn't be a combination of dead-set contenders and bottom dwellers

Yes, because there were no bad teams in the 70s and 80s.

Also, Karl Malone never had a great teammate?

The Jazz's talent 1-10 (best player to 10th best play on the depth chart) had no where near the Bull's 1-10 talent level
Thats what I meant

The Bulls were about 3 to 4 deep with arguably the greatest player of all-time.  From 4 or 5-10, I didn't see them as anything other than role players.  The Jazz had Malone, Stockton and Hornacek to go with their share of role players (Byron Russell comes to mind).  If Malone didn't choke as often as he did in his career or could close games, he would have had at least 1 ring.

Other than that, I hear what you are saying.
We all think we know more than we really do....

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2011, 02:58:52 PM »

Offline Evantime34

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11942
  • Tommy Points: 764
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
Financially long term it makes sense. Get rid of some of the unprofitable teams so that only the financially sound teams remain. However, if you were to contract the teams you would need to pay the owners of the contracted teams the market value of the teams before they were dissolved. A time in which you are not receiving revenue after a year in which you took heavy losses (according to the league) is not the time to be shelling out hundreds of millions if not Billions of dollars.

The true answer is revenue sharing. Don't drop the under performing part of the business but find a way to make it profitable (revenue sharing and forcing new management upon those teams would work). It's not like there is a lack of good NBA players to go around.
DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2011, 03:02:50 PM »

Offline greenpride32

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1310
  • Tommy Points: 83
Just because a team with on-court success or a larget fan follwing or in a big market does not mean they are profitable.  Both the Celtics and Knicks claim to have lost money during the 2008-09 season.  

It's well known amongst Celtics fans that the team basically broke even during the 2008 title season.  Think about that for a minute; sell out every game, probably have 10-12+ home playoff games, sell a ton of KG and Ray merchandise, win the title, and break even???  How much better can you really hope for than that, and you just break even?  I understand much of that has to do with the fact the Bruins own the building and the Celtics lease/rent it from them.  But that's reality, and we don't always live in an ideal world.

Also the idea behind expansion in the league was to grow revenue.  When you have more teams, obviously you have more games played, more merchandise sold, more TV contracts etc.

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2011, 03:04:38 PM »

Offline OsirusCeltics

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2013
  • Tommy Points: 198
2. The wealth of talent would be so much better on each team
It started with the beginning of the 90's. The NBA is too watered down. Theres so many examples of franchises having one lone great player, with no help around them
Mitch Richmond, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone

Imagine having teams being 10 deep of all star caliber players. There won't be games where you can take a day off, and regular season games would be more watchable and competitive. Every team would have a chance to win the title each year. It wouldn't be a combination of dead-set contenders and bottom dwellers

Yes, because there were no bad teams in the 70s and 80s.

Also, Karl Malone never had a great teammate?

The Jazz's talent 1-10 (best player to 10th best play on the depth chart) had no where near the Bull's 1-10 talent level
Thats what I meant

The Bulls were about 3 to 4 deep with arguably the greatest player of all-time.  From 4 or 5-10, I didn't see them as anything other than role players.  The Jazz had Malone, Stockton and Hornacek to go with their share of role players (Byron Russell comes to mind).  If Malone didn't choke as often as he did in his career or could close games, he would have had at least 1 ring.

Other than that, I hear what you are saying.

Yeah i agree with Malone choking
But Bulls had players like Craig Hodges, Tony Kukoc, Ron Harper, Steve Kerr, Brandon Armstrong who sat on the bench
No one on the Jazz bench was that good

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2011, 03:14:44 PM »

Offline TheTruthFot18

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2125
  • Tommy Points: 263
  • Truth Juice
God 20 teams means every one of those teams would have a big 3 (more or less). WHile your money argument makes sense, the lockout is happening because they want all teams to make money. If the league can somehow manage to make money for all 30 teams, thats a better financial option then 20 teams making money. Its all about money and how much you can make. 
The Nets will finish with the worst record and the Celtics will end up with the 4th pick.

- Me (sometime in January)

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

Guess I was wrong (May 23rd)

Re: The answer to all this NBA Lockout talk: Contraction
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2011, 11:35:49 AM »

Offline OsirusCeltics

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2013
  • Tommy Points: 198

-Judge the teams that are going to be cut by how much debt/negative profit they are in. The 10 teams that are losing the most are gone


I have a feeling that the Celtics would be on your list for contraction.

I don't care what the stats say
A team that is sold out almost every night and top 10 in attendance is never losing money
Prob their team's net profit might not be as high as previous years, but they aren't losing money