Do you agree the players are the product?

[mgent]

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

That's not true though.  The product is still there, the players are still alive.  They just don't have anyone to market them.

If they went and joined a similar league, it would be about the same.  It could never be the same for the NBA without the current players, because there's no similar product for them to sell.  There are tons of other people capable of running a business, but there's nobody as talented as NBA players.

Where is the similar league with teams in the NY market?  The LA market?  The Boston market?  The Chicago market?  


Those markets allow players to make more money.  (and not just the superstars)  

Since when is New York, LA, etc. exclusive to the NBA?

Then we are back to the players having to create themselves a new league.  

Which, again, would make more money than the owners having create themselves new teams/players.  Who's going to watch this already established league when there's a new league with much better, more entertaining players?

[wdleehi]

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

That's not true though.  The product is still there, the players are still alive.  They just don't have anyone to market them.

If they went and joined a similar league, it would be about the same.  It could never be the same for the NBA without the current players, because there's no similar product for them to sell.  There are tons of other people capable of running a business, but there's nobody as talented as NBA players.

Where is the similar league with teams in the NY market?  The LA market?  The Boston market?  The Chicago market?  


Those markets allow players to make more money.  (and not just the superstars)  

Since when is New York, LA, etc. exclusive to the NBA?

Then we are back to the players having to create themselves a new league. 

Which, again, would make more money than the owners having create themselves new players.  Who's going to watch this already established league when there's a new league with much better, more entertaining players?

And which player has the know how to start a league?  Where do they get the money to start a league. I can guarantee they will not be in the same arenas as the NBA team have contracts with so they need to find a location.


They need to find a national and local media partner because the media partners of the NBA isn't going to work with them.  And in many locations, the Cable company is connected to the NBA franchises, so good luck with a new TV station.


So, the players are going to give up higher salaries for the chance to take on the financial risk of owning and running a start-up league. 


What was the last successful start-up league in the US?

[KCattheStripe]

You think my opinion on this is unique?  Then why doesn't ESPN show more of these international games?  Or Versus as they are trying to create their sports station?  Or Fox Sports?


Because it doesn't draw the ratings.  

I don't think your opinion on this is unique. But I also know that foreign athletes have lead wealthy lives without the aid of ESPN, Fox Sports or Versus. I also know that those networks don't show those leagues right now because it's an inferior product. However, if american athletes were going abroad to play basketball, then they might start because the quality of those leagues would be better than a league where team's best players are Avery bradley.

[wdleehi]

You think my opinion on this is unique?  Then why doesn't ESPN show more of these international games?  Or Versus as they are trying to create their sports station?  Or Fox Sports?


Because it doesn't draw the ratings.  

I don't think your opinion on this is unique. But I also know that foreign athletes have lead wealthy lives without the aid of ESPN, Fox Sports or Versus. I also know that those networks don't show those leagues right now because it's an inferior product. However, if american athletes were going abroad to play basketball, then they might start because the quality of those leagues would be better than a league where team's best players are Avery bradley.

If there was more money over there for all the NBA players, they would be over there. 


But there isn't.


And, their isn't the same level of endorsement money over there for players. 

[KCattheStripe]

You think my opinion on this is unique?  Then why doesn't ESPN show more of these international games?  Or Versus as they are trying to create their sports station?  Or Fox Sports?


Because it doesn't draw the ratings.  

I don't think your opinion on this is unique. But I also know that foreign athletes have lead wealthy lives without the aid of ESPN, Fox Sports or Versus. I also know that those networks don't show those leagues right now because it's an inferior product. However, if american athletes were going abroad to play basketball, then they might start because the quality of those leagues would be better than a league where team's best players are Avery bradley.

If there was more money over there for all the NBA players, they would be over there. 


But there isn't.


And, their isn't the same level of endorsement money over there for players. 

Not for the calibre of players they have now, but for the players currently in the NBA, there absolutely would be. And I know this because NBA athletes have endorsement deals over there without beven playing a game overseas.

There is the potential for more money over there, and NBA players are already willing to go abroad than work for people who are demanding working conditions that are unacceptable to them. The NBA owners are behind a bigger eight ball then they realize.

[mgent]

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

That's not true though.  The product is still there, the players are still alive.  They just don't have anyone to market them.

If they went and joined a similar league, it would be about the same.  It could never be the same for the NBA without the current players, because there's no similar product for them to sell.  There are tons of other people capable of running a business, but there's nobody as talented as NBA players.

Where is the similar league with teams in the NY market?  The LA market?  The Boston market?  The Chicago market?  


Those markets allow players to make more money.  (and not just the superstars)  

Since when is New York, LA, etc. exclusive to the NBA?

Then we are back to the players having to create themselves a new league. 

Which, again, would make more money than the owners having create themselves new players.  Who's going to watch this already established league when there's a new league with much better, more entertaining players?

And which player has the know how to start a league?  Where do they get the money to start a league. I can guarantee they will not be in the same arenas as the NBA team have contracts with so they need to find a location.


They need to find a national and local media partner because the media partners of the NBA isn't going to work with them.  And in many locations, the Cable company is connected to the NBA franchises, so good luck with a new TV station.


So, the players are going to give up higher salaries for the chance to take on the financial risk of owning and running a start-up league. 


What was the last successful start-up league in the US?

Are you really saying that if every NBA player suddenly became a FA that no one in the United States would try to swoop in and scoop them all up?  All it takes is one player tweeting "somebody start a league for us" and there's gonna be loads of business men looking to take that risk and cash in.

Plus you're probably selling some of the players a bit short.  I'm sure at least whoever the guy is from the players association that is bargaining with them to end the lockout knows all the current business actions of the league.  And if they can't figure it out, I'm sure their managers would.

[Celtics18]

If there's no end in sight to this lock out, I'm guessing that a majority of NBA players could find good jobs overseas.  If a majority of players went overseas, then I'm pretty sure that the international leagues would be able to sign a deal with a major US TV network or two. 

Players would keep making a living (although, sure, they might take somewhat of a salary cut), US basketball fans would be able to continue watching the best players in the world, and NBA owners would have to give up on their multi-million dollar hobbies, and go back to the grind of making millions or billions at their real jobs.

It would really suck to lose the Boston Celtics, but I won't be shedding any tears for any spoiled millionaires who are crying because their expensive hobby doesn't show a profit when they run it foolishly. 

[KCattheStripe]

If there's no end in sight to this lock out, I'm guessing that a majority of NBA players could find good jobs overseas.  If a majority of players went overseas, then I'm pretty sure that the international leagues would be able to sign a deal with a major US TV network or two. 

Players would keep making a living (although, sure, they might take somewhat of a salary cut), US basketball fans would be able to continue watching the best players in the world, and NBA owners would have to give up on their multi-million dollar hobbies, and go back to the grind of making millions or billions at their real jobs.

It would really suck to lose the Boston Celtics, but I won't be shedding any tears for any spoiled millionaires who are crying because their expensive hobby doesn't show a profit when they run it foolishly. 

Celticsblog needs a like button.

[wdleehi]

If there's no end in sight to this lock out, I'm guessing that a majority of NBA players could find good jobs overseas.  If a majority of players went overseas, then I'm pretty sure that the international leagues would be able to sign a deal with a major US TV network or two. 

Players would keep making a living (although, sure, they might take somewhat of a salary cut), US basketball fans would be able to continue watching the best players in the world, and NBA owners would have to give up on their multi-million dollar hobbies, and go back to the grind of making millions or billions at their real jobs.

It would really suck to lose the Boston Celtics, but I won't be shedding any tears for any spoiled millionaires who are crying because their expensive hobby doesn't show a profit when they run it foolishly. 

It is a shame that selfish stars took less money to kill the league of Russel, Bird, Wilt, Magic and Jordon.

It is also a shame they left their teammates without a job (since there are only so many jobs in Europe) because they would not negotiate a new deal that would allow everyone to make a profit.


You can spin it any way you like.  Both parties are needed for the league. 



PS, NBA ownership is not a hobbies.  It is a big business.  Being a fan is a hobbies. 

[nickagneta]

I read about three pages of explanations on this and then had enough so here is my take and I am sorry if it is repetitive.

Basketball is the product.

Now basketball without the most elite players in the world will sell, just look at NCAA basketball, the Olympic basketball tournament and the Euro leagues for proof of that.

But, if the goal is to make HUGE money while at the same time paying the players and those players being the best of the best so that you can optimize your money making ability, then, yes, the players are a gigantic, enormous, humongous part of the product. And so, they need to reap the financial benefits of being the product.

That said, they can't sell the product and BE the product at the same time so they need the owners as much as the owners need them.

So it's easy, make it a 50% split of the BRI, change some of the basic components of the CBA around so that owners have a bit more power than they currently do in player movement, have an easier time getting out of bad contracts because of injury, and limit the guaranteed part of part of player contracts to stop players from getting "Eddy Curry" syndrome.

[Eja117]

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. 

I agree the players don't have the resources (as individuals presently),  but I disagree they don't have enough no how. They'd have to work at it, but there is one former player who is an owner, and there will be more. Also there have been many former players who have been GM's, which is only a step away from owner. I think there are many players that if you were to suddenly thrust them into role of owner would do well.  Grant Hill, Duncan, Battier, etc.  And there are plenty of owner types that have run teams into the ground.  Heck. D Wade could get consideration as GM of the year. Except he built a loser

[KCattheStripe]

You can spin it any way you like.  Both parties are needed for the league. 

You're right, both parties are needed to have a league. However, One of those parties doesn't need the other to participate in other leagues. The players don't need the NBA but the NBA needs the players.

[KCattheStripe]

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. 

I agree the players don't have the resources (as individuals presently),  but I disagree they don't have enough no how. They'd have to work at it, but there is one former player who is an owner, and there will be more. Also there have been many former players who have been GM's, which is only a step away from owner. I think there are many players that if you were to suddenly thrust them into role of owner would do well.  Grant Hill, Duncan, Battier, etc.  And there are plenty of owner types that have run teams into the ground.  Heck. D Wade could get consideration as GM of the year. Except he built a loser

Hey now, he built a runner-up. 

[TerreHaute]

Hello. My name is Bennet Salvatore. All of you customers pay your hard earned dollars to come see me put on a show. I AM THE 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.  

I agree the players don't have the resources (as individuals presently),  but I disagree they don't have enough no how. They'd have to work at it, but there is one former player who is an owner, and there will be more. Also there have been many former players who have been GM's, which is only a step away from owner. I think there are many players that if you were to suddenly thrust them into role of owner would do well.  Grant Hill, Duncan, Battier, etc.  And there are plenty of owner types that have run teams into the ground.  Heck. D Wade could get consideration as GM of the year. Except he built a loser

Derek Fisher was the guy I was thinking of.  He's the president right?  If nobody else, he's got to know something.  Past presidents like Cousy and the Big O did a lot for the business side of the NBA.