Billy Hunter tells NBA players to prepare to miss half a season

[Roy H.]

The NBA owners don't want Red Sox/Yankees every single year.  You've got LAL with $100m payroll vs SAC with a $45m payroll.   I'm going to assume most people on here are Red Sox fans so you probably just dismiss the competitive balance in baseball because your team is in it every year.  But let's say you're a TOR or BAL fan; then how would you feel about it? 

While I agree with you, baseball is also a good example that robust revenue sharing can bring some level of parity.  However, like I said, I agree that revenue sharing alone isn't enough to solve baseball's competitive balance problems.

The other question is, is having dominant teams better or worse for the sport?  I like parity, but fans seem to respond more when the Sox or Yankees are on TV.  What's better, a Yankees / Dodgers World Series, or Brewers / Royals?

[cman88]

I dont think having a few dominant teams is good for the sport...unless you are from that area.

I think part of the reason NFL is so successful, and that the NHL is gaining popularity is that while not every team has a good year, or can make it to the championship. Most of the teams are competitive enough that they have a chance....you can falter in the regular season, get enough luck and win the whole thing(GB, bruins)..you can be horrible one year, and improve enough to make it next year.

can you really have that much hope if you're a fan of the Pacers? sure they made the playoffs. but half the teams that do arent legit contendors..or the bobcats? if anything, I think teams need to have more options to rebuild so that you arent looking at a LONG TERM deal


obviously, theres always goign to be bottom feeders of the league. there is in the NHL and the NFL and it all comees down to management/ownership

But if you are danny ainge and you look at the bruins, and look at the patriots..you have to be pretty confident that you can build a competitive team under a hard cap and get back to the championship than with the current system.

[greenpride32]

The other question is, is having dominant teams better or worse for the sport?  I like parity, but fans seem to respond more when the Sox or Yankees are on TV.  What's better, a Yankees / Dodgers World Series, or Brewers / Royals?

Look at it from an owner's standpoint, and not as a fan. You're going to have a team that can never compete on the field or off the field.  You are at a considerable business disadvantage, without assistance from the success of the overall league.  Without any help there is no point in owning the team.

[Roy H.]

The other question is, is having dominant teams better or worse for the sport?  I like parity, but fans seem to respond more when the Sox or Yankees are on TV.  What's better, a Yankees / Dodgers World Series, or Brewers / Royals?

Look at it from an owner's standpoint, and not as a fan. You're going to have a team that can never compete on the field or off the field.  You are at a considerable business disadvantage, without assistance from the success of the overall league.  Without any help there is no point in owning the team.

While I see your point, that actually hasn't happened, at least in MLB.  "Lowly" franchises, like Tampa Bay and Florida, have made it to the World Series.  Yes, the teams that spend the most -- the Yankees and Red Sox -- make the playoffs the majority of the time, but the Yankees have, what, one title in ten years?  The league gets the best of both worlds:  parity in terms of actual winners, while getting revenue from having its glamor teams consistently in contention.

I'm not saying that's the perfect model, but it's worth discussing.  MLB is extremely successful right now, without a cap.  Would a hard salary cap make things better?

Lastly, is there any league where a team / owner is "without assistance from the success of the overall league"?  In MLB, there is substantial revenue sharing, meaning that the small clubs do quite well when the big clubs are making a lot of money.  Additionally, the teams all share in the national television deals and all get a cut of overall merchandise sales.  Perhaps most importantly, the overall success of the league drives franchise values through the roof.  The life of a team owner who owns a non-contending team isn't so bad, at least under the MLB model.

I prefer a hard cap, due to competitive advantage reasons.  However, I definitely understand the counter-argument, and it has some compelling points.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I don't think having a few dominant teams is good for the sport...unless you are from that area.

I think part of the reason NFL is so successful, and that the NHL is gaining popularity is that while not every team has a good year, or can make it to the championship. Most of the teams are competitive enough that they have a chance....you can falter in the regular season, get enough luck and win the whole thing(GB, bruins)..you can be horrible one year, and improve enough to make it next year.

We were just discussing this. I still don't see it?

The best five teams in the Eastern Conference at the end of 2009-10 season were, in order, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, Boston and Miami. All five of those teams won fewer than twenty-five games at some point in the decade — Atlanta won as few as thirteen. While at the bottom of the standings were New Jersey, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit and New York - three of those five were Finalists over the same span. The NBA already has parity to rival the NFLs.

By my count, over the past ten season the NBA has had six different champions, that's with 15 man rosters and best of seven series.

Over the same span, the NFL has had seven different champions with 53 man rosters and a single elimination tournament.

[cman88]

how many winning teams in the NBA are REAL contendors though?? those NJ, Philly teams were weak had no chance at a championship...did Indy,Philly or Atlanta or even the magic last year have any realistic chance? theres just such a HUGE disparity from the top 2-3 teams in the conference and anyone who comes after...theres alot of mediocre teams in the NBA that never will be good enough to actually compete for a championship

in the NFL, a wildcard team who barely makes the playoffs could make the superbowl...

thats more parity than "Hey my team is good enough to make the playoffs and get swept in the first round"

whats the obsession with having a soft cap?

Id think any fan of the celtics would want a hard cap...whiel a big market team, we dont have a very enticing market to attract superstar free agents. we have a better chance of getting back to the finals with a hard cap.

instead of a team like Miami being able to sign 5million$ players each year and take over the league, theyll be limited to how well they can get which means teams like the Celtics can potentially put together a deeper team and beat them.

[KCattheStripe]

how many winning teams in the NBA are REAL contendors though?? those NJ, Philly teams were weak had no chance at a championship...did Indy,Philly or Atlanta or even the magic last year have any realistic chance? theres just such a HUGE disparity from the top 2-3 teams in the conference and anyone who comes after...theres alot of mediocre teams in the NBA that never will be good enough to actually compete for a championship

in the NFL, a wildcard team who barely makes the playoffs could make the superbowl...

thats more parity than "Hey my team is good enough to make the playoffs and get swept in the first round"

whats the obsession with having a soft cap?

Id think any fan of the celtics would want a hard cap...whiel a big market team, we dont have a very enticing market to attract superstar free agents. we have a better chance of getting back to the finals with a hard cap.

instead of a team like Miami being able to sign 5million$ players each year and take over the league, theyll be limited to how well they can get which means teams like the Celtics can potentially put together a deeper team and beat them.

If the NFL played 7 game series, the Pats would have 8 rings by now.

[Moranis]

how many winning teams in the NBA are REAL contendors though?? those NJ, Philly teams were weak had no chance at a championship...did Indy,Philly or Atlanta or even the magic last year have any realistic chance? theres just such a HUGE disparity from the top 2-3 teams in the conference and anyone who comes after...theres alot of mediocre teams in the NBA that never will be good enough to actually compete for a championship

in the NFL, a wildcard team who barely makes the playoffs could make the superbowl...

thats more parity than "Hey my team is good enough to make the playoffs and get swept in the first round"

whats the obsession with having a soft cap?

Id think any fan of the celtics would want a hard cap...whiel a big market team, we dont have a very enticing market to attract superstar free agents. we have a better chance of getting back to the finals with a hard cap.

instead of a team like Miami being able to sign 5million$ players each year and take over the league, theyll be limited to how well they can get which means teams like the Celtics can potentially put together a deeper team and beat them.

If the NFL played 7 game series, the Pats would have 8 rings by now.

I don't know about 8, but they certainly would have more then 3.  The one and done rule plays a huge part in the upsets in the NFL. 

And any team that makes the NBA Finals has a legitimate shot at winning the title and is a real contender.  Heck any team that makes the conference finals is a real contender. 

[Roy H.]

If the NFL played 7 game series, the Pats would have 8 rings by now.

They probably wouldn't have won their first one, though.

[LB3533]

The NBA owners don't want Red Sox/Yankees every single year.  You've got LAL with $100m payroll vs SAC with a $45m payroll.   I'm going to assume most people on here are Red Sox fans so you probably just dismiss the competitive balance in baseball because your team is in it every year.  But let's say you're a TOR or BAL fan; then how would you feel about it? 

Tell me about TOR and BAL problems in signing players?

Didn't TOR sign huge deals to a couple players (Rios/Wells) who kinda stunk afterwards and were traded away?

MLB teams have funds, they just have to spend it on the right player.

How do the NYY and Sox feel about sharing their revenue with other teams so these other teams can sign players to compete against the NYY and the Sox?

[KCattheStripe]

If the NFL played 7 game series, the Pats would have 8 rings by now.

They probably wouldn't have won their first one, though.

True, but they prolly wallop the 05 Broncos and the 06 Colts.

[Donoghus]

If the NFL played 7 game series, the Pats would have 8 rings by now.

They probably wouldn't have won their first one, though.

True, but they prolly wallop the 05 Broncos and the 06 Colts.

Agreed on the '05 team.  (Would've done the same to Steelers & Seahawks.

'06 is tough.  Do they beat that '06 14-2 San Diego team that they defeated in the divisional playoff, in a 7 game series?  Tough call.  Same goes for the Colts especially since they'd have home field advantage.  However, if they somehow get through those two, they take down the Bears.

'07?  Definitely.

'08?  No way

'09?  No

'10?  Possibly although I think that Green Bay team would've taken down the Pats in the Super Bowl.


Apologies for going off-topic but interesting topic.

[LB3533]

Kinda off topic: I would love to see playoff series format in the NFL. (Not sure if feasible though)

Wouldn't more NFL playoff games = more revenue?

Bsck on topic: NBA popularity isn't necessarily about parity with teams...but more reliant on star power and brand. Magic and Bird lifed the league up from decay. Jordan soared the popularity of the NBA to newer heights.

[Roy H.]

Kinda off topic: I would love to see playoff series format in the NFL. (Not sure if feasible though)

Wouldn't more NFL playoff games = more revenue?

Well, think of it this way:

There are a max of 28 games in the NBA playoffs.

There are a max of 4 playoff games in the NFL, plus 16 regular season games.

There's just no feasible way you could have 28 games worth of playoffs in the NFL.  Heck, there's no way you could have 12 playoff games, by having 4 rounds of best of 3.  It would extend the season way, way too long, and would change the nature of the game.

[Donoghus]

Kinda off topic: I would love to see playoff series format in the NFL. (Not sure if feasible though)

Wouldn't more NFL playoff games = more revenue?

Well, think of it this way:

There are a max of 28 games in the NBA playoffs.

There are a max of 4 playoff games in the NFL, plus 16 regular season games.

There's just no feasible way you could have 28 games worth of playoffs in the NFL.  Heck, there's no way you could have 12 playoff games, by having 4 rounds of best of 3.  It would extend the season way, way too long, and would change the nature of the game.

Guys would be dead.

Curtis Painter! Matt Flynn!!

It's Super Bowl 46 on NBC!