Do you agree the players are the product?

[mgent]

Of course owners aren't auctioning their teams, its a hypothetical, it doesn't have to make sense.  However in your hypothetical you give the current owners replacement players, but you don't give the current players replacement TV deals or gyms.  IF all the owners suddenly changed, a lot of fans wouldn't even notice.  Obviously people are still going to watch the games if all the players are the same, I'd really like to see you argue that replacement players would sell more.

I'm sorry but I don't see the logic behind any of these arguments.  You walk into a store and buy a 6 pack, you can't do that without the store, or a cashier to scan your item, or the liquor license, or your own ID, but none of that matters.  You're still paying for the beer.

Without all that other stuff the product can't be sold, but without the 6 pack you don't even have a product.

[mgent]

Replace a Mark Cubin with a Donald Sterling and it changes nothing?  

Fewer foreign guys, more "beautiful black bodies".  You'd think a cheapskate like Donald Sterling would be all about outsourcing jobs to cheaper, foreign talent, but the Clippers don't seem to like international players.  Maybe they fear the next Olowokandi.

What would be a bigger shift in the product: replacing all of the owners with random rich guys or replacing all of the players with D-Leaguers and guys bouncing around Europe?

Neither can happen.  


Both parts are needed.  



The NBA can't replace the players.


The players can't replace the league.

Why can't that happen?  The answer is obvious.

The players don't have the resources or know how. 

You're doing the same thing Chris did, including D-leaguers in the second hypothetical, but not giving the teams D-league owners in the first.  People are absolutely still going to watch the games, and A-league players are absolutely going to attract more people than A-league owners.

[wdleehi]

Of course owners aren't auctioning their teams, its a hypothetical, it doesn't have to make sense.  However in your hypothetical you give the current owners replacement players, but you don't give the current players replacement TV deals or gyms.  IF all the owners suddenly changed, a lot of fans wouldn't even notice.  Obviously people are still going to watch the games if all the players are the same, I'd really like to see you argue that replacement players would sell more.

I'm sorry but I don't see the logic behind any of these arguments.  You walk into a store and buy a 6 pack, you can't do that without the store, or a cashier to scan your item, or the liquor license, or your own ID, but none of that matters.  You're still paying for the beer.

Without all that other stuff the product can't be sold, but without the 6 pack you don't even have a product.

It is not just the owner.


Lets say all the owners are changed.  The new owners have to start with nothing.  No arenas.  No staffs.  No marketing.  No TV deals.  No uniforms.  No team names.  No history.  

No league rules.  No league offices.  No commissioner.  No officials. 


How many are watching this new start up league?

[wdleehi]

Replace a Mark Cubin with a Donald Sterling and it changes nothing?  

Fewer foreign guys, more "beautiful black bodies".  You'd think a cheapskate like Donald Sterling would be all about outsourcing jobs to cheaper, foreign talent, but the Clippers don't seem to like international players.  Maybe they fear the next Olowokandi.

What would be a bigger shift in the product: replacing all of the owners with random rich guys or replacing all of the players with D-Leaguers and guys bouncing around Europe?

Neither can happen.  


Both parts are needed.  



The NBA can't replace the players.


The players can't replace the league.

Why can't that happen?  The answer is obvious.

The players don't have the resources or know how. 

You're doing the same thing Chris did, including D-leaguers in the second hypothetical, but not giving the teams D-league owners in the first.  People are absolutely still going to watch the games, and A-league players are absolutely going to attract more people than A-league owners.

The league needs the players as much as the players need the league.


But the League is taking on all the cost to put the game on the floor. 

[mgent]

Of course owners aren't auctioning their teams, its a hypothetical, it doesn't have to make sense.  However in your hypothetical you give the current owners replacement players, but you don't give the current players replacement TV deals or gyms.  IF all the owners suddenly changed, a lot of fans wouldn't even notice.  Obviously people are still going to watch the games if all the players are the same, I'd really like to see you argue that replacement players would sell more.

I'm sorry but I don't see the logic behind any of these arguments.  You walk into a store and buy a 6 pack, you can't do that without the store, or a cashier to scan your item, or the liquor license, or your own ID, but none of that matters.  You're still paying for the beer.

Without all that other stuff the product can't be sold, but without the 6 pack you don't even have a product.

It is not just the owner.


Lets say all the owners are changed.  The new owners have to start with nothing.  No arenas.  No staffs.  No marketing.  No TV deals.  No uniforms.  No team names.  No history.  

No league rules.  No league offices.  No commissioner.  No officials. 


How many are watching this new start up league?

More than the amount of people watching bad players with the same deals.

And why are all those things gone if they're still under contracts?  If an owner sells a team they don't lose their arena and their TV contract, etc. do they?

[wdleehi]

Of course owners aren't auctioning their teams, its a hypothetical, it doesn't have to make sense.  However in your hypothetical you give the current owners replacement players, but you don't give the current players replacement TV deals or gyms.  IF all the owners suddenly changed, a lot of fans wouldn't even notice.  Obviously people are still going to watch the games if all the players are the same, I'd really like to see you argue that replacement players would sell more.

I'm sorry but I don't see the logic behind any of these arguments.  You walk into a store and buy a 6 pack, you can't do that without the store, or a cashier to scan your item, or the liquor license, or your own ID, but none of that matters.  You're still paying for the beer.

Without all that other stuff the product can't be sold, but without the 6 pack you don't even have a product.

It is not just the owner.


Lets say all the owners are changed.  The new owners have to start with nothing.  No arenas.  No staffs.  No marketing.  No TV deals.  No uniforms.  No team names.  No history.  

No league rules.  No league offices.  No commissioner.  No officials. 


How many are watching this new start up league?

More than the amount of people watching bad players with the same deals.

And why are all those things gone if they're still under contracts?  If an owner sells a team they don't lose their arena and their TV contract, etc. do they?

Both are needed.  Why is that hard to understand?


And I am including all those other things because that is what the money the players don't get pay for. 

It is not owner vs player as what is more important.


It is league vs. player.  And both need each other equally.   

[mgent]

The league needs the players as much as the players need the league.

You keep saying that, and I've agreed multiple times.  I never once said the players don't need the league, but I must've given at least 3 metaphors about how that has nothing to do with what we're talking about (the product).

If that's your only argument then I give up because we're not even in the same debate.  In fact I've also said multiple times how ridiculous it would be to argue against that point, and I haven't seen ONE person in this thread try to.

[wdleehi]

The league needs the players as much as the players need the league.

You keep saying that, and I've agreed multiple times.  I never once said the players don't need the league, but I must've given at least 3 metaphors about how that has nothing to do with what we're talking about (the product).

If that's your only argument then I give up because we're not even in the same debate.  In fact I've also said multiple times how ridiculous it would be to argue against that point, and I haven't seen ONE person in this thread try to.

The entire package is the product. 


You keep talking about replacing the owners, which no one else is arguing about.


Players get replaced all the time with drafts. 



The league is the only constant.  Everything and everybody else are moving parts that change over time. 

[KCattheStripe]

The product is the best team basketball in the world. Without the players, the owners can't make that claim.

[Chris]

The product is the best team basketball in the world. Without the players, the owners can't make that claim.

Absolutely true.  But without the league, there is no product either.  And that is the point. 

The players are an intregal part of the product, but they are not the entire product.

[wdleehi]

The product is the best team basketball in the world. Without the players, the owners can't make that claim.

Without the teams, the players can't make this claim.

[KCattheStripe]

The product is the best team basketball in the world. Without the players, the owners can't make that claim.

Absolutely true.  But without the league, there is no product either.  And that is the point. 

The players are an intregal part of the product, but they are not the entire product.

Sure there is, with No NBA players will go and be apart of another league somewhere else and in a few years one of the foreign leagues will be the premier league. High Level basketball can exist without the NBA, The NBA can't exists without the highest level of basketball. The product ( The Player's performance) can be delivered on any stage, as they're proving right now.

[KCattheStripe]

The product is the best team basketball in the world. Without the players, the owners can't make that claim.

Without the teams, the players can't make this claim.

The NBA doesn't have the global monopoly on professional basketball teams.

[mgent]

The league needs the players as much as the players need the league.

You keep saying that, and I've agreed multiple times.  I never once said the players don't need the league, but I must've given at least 3 metaphors about how that has nothing to do with what we're talking about (the product).

If that's your only argument then I give up because we're not even in the same debate.  In fact I've also said multiple times how ridiculous it would be to argue against that point, and I haven't seen ONE person in this thread try to.

The entire package is the product. 


You keep talking about replacing the owners, which no one else is arguing about.


Players get replaced all the time with drafts. 



The league is the only constant.  Everything and everybody else are moving parts that change over time. 

It was a hypothetical to prove that the players are the main reason why money is being made, AKA they're what people want to see, not the things that allow the players to do what they do.

What do constants have to do with it?  Are you saying that products can't change?

[wdleehi]

The product is the best team basketball in the world. Without the players, the owners can't make that claim.

Absolutely true.  But without the league, there is no product either.  And that is the point. 

The players are an intregal part of the product, but they are not the entire product.

Sure there is, with No NBA players will go and be apart of another league somewhere else and in a few years one of the foreign leagues will be the premier league. High Level basketball can exist without the NBA, The NBA can't exists without the highest level of basketball. The product ( The Player's performance) can be delivered on any stage, as they're proving right now.

Like the other high level sports that make all that money in the US?  



I don't care about the Euro leagues.  They are not here.  Their games are not on TV and not schedule with times that would be good with my schedule.  

Japan has great baseball.  High level.  I am a baseball fan.  I do not watch baseball from Japan.  



So, the NBA player can play somewhere else, but they would not have the star they have here.  They would not be the advertising money makers they can be with the NBA.