Hunters Fault?

[indeedproceed]

I will try to be perfectly clear this time.   You say the players are the product.  I say the players are very well, and more than fairly, paid.  The players and the owners are NOT partners.  If any player thinks he is unfairly paid he is free, as anyone in the country, to try his luck at another field,  or   maybe become the first owner/player and do it his own way.

I think this is the fundamental disconnect right here:

"I say the players are very well, and more than fairly, paid."

And that's all well and good for you to say. I'm sure a lot of people feel that way. But, look at it from the players prospective. They've spent their entire lives honing their craft. Even the rookies have been basic basketball apprentices for the past 10 years of their lives or so, dedicating their lives to being the best basketball players that they can muster. And the veterans like KG, Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, they've sacrificed hours, days, weeks, and months of their lives to put out the best product they can in the form of the best basketball played in the world. And they've by and large played by Stern's rules, and mostly live their lives in such a way that most of us would likely consider pretty confined in what they can or cannot do.

And they've furthered the brand of the NBA, LeBron, Kobe, KG, Dirk, all of the superstars, have as much to do with the NBA's popularity as the owners have, and because of that they feel they're entitled to a % of the basketball that is earned when people come out to see them play, or buy it on TV, or buy things with their likeness.

You say they're more than fairly played, and a lot of times you see words like 'to play a game they love' thrown in there too, but the fact is that playing a game they love brings in a heck of a lot of money, that goes on to support and provide profit or income for a heck of a lot of people.

The players maintain that if they don't wanna play, people won't watch to see a poorer product, the owners maintain that the players should be happy with less than they're asking, because the owners own stuff. 

[thirstyboots18]

Nick and IP, I know I am not going to win this argument, and I don't even care as long as the owners and players come to some sort of agreement.  But, neither have you said to change my mind.  I feel no loyalty to a player.  I feel loyalty, right or wrong, to a brand...The Boston Celtics.  I have my favorite players for sure, but when they are gone, ultimately I am a fan of the Boston Celtics and will undoubtedly cheer for their replacements.

[KGs Knee]

I will try to be perfectly clear this time.   You say the players are the product.  I say the players are very well, and more than fairly, paid.  The players and the owners are NOT partners.  If any player thinks he is unfairly paid he is free, as anyone in the country, to try his luck at another field,  or   maybe become the first owner/player and do it his own way.

This is a fair point of view to have.

But it is just that, a point of view.

Personally, I think the players deserve a bigger cut.  The players do as well.

Just as the owners have a right to say "these are our terms, take it or leave it", the players have the same right.  If the players do tell the owners "leave it", then what?  What do the owners have?  A league with scrub-level players?

I ain't watching that garbage!

Give me the best talent in the world or get lost owners.  That is my point of view.

[hpantazo]

I will try to be perfectly clear this time.   You say the players are the product.  I say the players are very well, and more than fairly, paid.  The players and the owners are NOT partners.  If any player thinks he is unfairly paid he is free, as anyone in the country, to try his luck at another field,  or   maybe become the first owner/player and do it his own way.

I think this is the fundamental disconnect right here:

"I say the players are very well, and more than fairly, paid."

And that's all well and good for you to say. I'm sure a lot of people feel that way. But, look at it from the players prospective. They've spent their entire lives honing their craft. Even the rookies have been basic basketball apprentices for the past 10 years of their lives or so, dedicating their lives to being the best basketball players that they can muster. And the veterans like KG, Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, they've sacrificed hours, days, weeks, and months of their lives to put out the best product they can in the form of the best basketball played in the world. And they've by and large played by Stern's rules, and mostly live their lives in such a way that most of us would likely consider pretty confined in what they can or cannot do.

And they've furthered the brand of the NBA, LeBron, Kobe, KG, Dirk, all of the superstars, have as much to do with the NBA's popularity as the owners have, and because of that they feel they're entitled to a % of the basketball that is earned when people come out to see them play, or buy it on TV, or buy things with their likeness.

You say they're more than fairly played, and a lot of times you see words like 'to play a game they love' thrown in there too, but the fact is that playing a game they love brings in a heck of a lot of money, that goes on to support and provide profit or income for a heck of a lot of people.

The players maintain that if they don't wanna play, people won't watch to see a poorer product, the owners maintain that the players should be happy with less than they're asking, because the owners own stuff. 

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

[indeedproceed]

Nick and IP, I know I am not going to win this argument, and I don't even care as long as the owners and players come to some sort of agreement.  But, neither have you said to change my mind.  I feel no loyalty to a player.  I feel loyalty, right or wrong, to a brand...The Boston Celtics.  I have my favorite players for sure, but when they are gone, ultimately I am a fan of the Boston Celtics and will undoubtedly cheer for their replacements.

I think you misunderstand me. This is a star and player-driven league, but like you, I'm not going to jump ship when the Big-3 era is over and the rebuilding begins.

But the thing is, even the new guys who come in are still going to be (or at least have the potential to be) the best basketball players in the entire world. That's what the NBA offers. The best basketball players in the world. I'm not going to pay the $200 a year to buy league pass to watch Gerry McNamara and Paul Harris duke it out into their 30's when I can watch better players play better most skilled and nuanced basketball. The teams' histories, and former stars, and logos and locations all mean something, but there is a reason the Chicago Bulls sell out every game, but there is a reason the Chicago Steam or the Maine Red-Claws aren't nationally televised.

And without the best basketball players in the world, all you've got is a lot of cool stories, (mostly) empty arenas and a mediocre product.

[hpantazo]

Nick and IP, I know I am not going to win this argument, and I don't even care as long as the owners and players come to some sort of agreement.  But, neither have you said to change my mind.  I feel no loyalty to a player.  I feel loyalty, right or wrong, to a brand...The Boston Celtics.  I have my favorite players for sure, but when they are gone, ultimately I am a fan of the Boston Celtics and will undoubtedly cheer for their replacements.

I agree. To make a comparison, when you think of sending your kids to college, do you think "I want to send them to Harvard, Yale, or MIT" or do you think "I want to send them to this particular school because this great professor teaches there"? Most parents don't even know the names of any of the professors at these schools before sending their kids there, but there such as heck know the names of the schools. Harvard and Yale truly have some great professors, but they will come and go, and others will take their place, just like players do on great teams.

[indeedproceed]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

[hpantazo]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income. 

[hpantazo]

Nick and IP, I know I am not going to win this argument, and I don't even care as long as the owners and players come to some sort of agreement.  But, neither have you said to change my mind.  I feel no loyalty to a player.  I feel loyalty, right or wrong, to a brand...The Boston Celtics.  I have my favorite players for sure, but when they are gone, ultimately I am a fan of the Boston Celtics and will undoubtedly cheer for their replacements.

I think you misunderstand me. This is a star and player-driven league, but like you, I'm not going to jump ship when the Big-3 era is over and the rebuilding begins.

But the thing is, even the new guys who come in are still going to be (or at least have the potential to be) the best basketball players in the entire world. That's what the NBA offers. The best basketball players in the world. I'm not going to pay the $200 a year to buy league pass to watch Gerry McNamara and Paul Harris duke it out into their 30's when I can watch better players play better most skilled and nuanced basketball. The teams' histories, and former stars, and logos and locations all mean something, but there is a reason the Chicago Bulls sell out every game, but there is a reason the Chicago Steam or the Maine Red-Claws aren't nationally televised.

And without the best basketball players in the world, all you've got is a lot of cool stories, (mostly) empty arenas and a mediocre product.

In ten years, these "best players in the world" will be over the hill, and the NBA could regain it's glory with a new generation of "best players in the world".

[indeedproceed]

I agree. To make a comparison, when you think of sending your kids to college, do you think "I want to send them to Harvard, Yale, or MIT" or do you think "I want to send them to this particular school because this great professor teaches there"? Most parents don't even know the names of any of the professors at these schools before sending their kids there, but there such as heck know the names of the schools. Harvard and Yale truly has some great professors, but they will come and go, and others will take their place, just like players do on great teams.

Apples and Oranges.

For die-hard fans, what you're saying is true.

But most fans aren't die-hard fans. And most people will have an easier time putting names to the faces of the NBA's 30 most popular players than they will telling you what city the Warriors play in, or telling you who won the Central Division in 2008.

What you're talking about is much closer to football, or college sports. The NBA is a different breed. Stars are bigger, and fewer. Only 10 guys see the court at any one time, and fans can see their faces and hear their voices. Player-driven league.

[indeedproceed]

Nick and IP, I know I am not going to win this argument, and I don't even care as long as the owners and players come to some sort of agreement.  But, neither have you said to change my mind.  I feel no loyalty to a player.  I feel loyalty, right or wrong, to a brand...The Boston Celtics.  I have my favorite players for sure, but when they are gone, ultimately I am a fan of the Boston Celtics and will undoubtedly cheer for their replacements.

I think you misunderstand me. This is a star and player-driven league, but like you, I'm not going to jump ship when the Big-3 era is over and the rebuilding begins.

But the thing is, even the new guys who come in are still going to be (or at least have the potential to be) the best basketball players in the entire world. That's what the NBA offers. The best basketball players in the world. I'm not going to pay the $200 a year to buy league pass to watch Gerry McNamara and Paul Harris duke it out into their 30's when I can watch better players play better most skilled and nuanced basketball. The teams' histories, and former stars, and logos and locations all mean something, but there is a reason the Chicago Bulls sell out every game, but there is a reason the Chicago Steam or the Maine Red-Claws aren't nationally televised.

And without the best basketball players in the world, all you've got is a lot of cool stories, (mostly) empty arenas and a mediocre product.

In ten years, these "best players in the world" will be over the hill, and the NBA could regain it's glory with a new generation of "best players in the world".

Right. But not if they're not compensated in manner they feel commiserate with their share of the overall product. Hence, the lockout. 

[KGs Knee]

Nick and IP, I know I am not going to win this argument, and I don't even care as long as the owners and players come to some sort of agreement.  But, neither have you said to change my mind.  I feel no loyalty to a player.  I feel loyalty, right or wrong, to a brand...The Boston Celtics.  I have my favorite players for sure, but when they are gone, ultimately I am a fan of the Boston Celtics and will undoubtedly cheer for their replacements.

I think you misunderstand me. This is a star and player-driven league, but like you, I'm not going to jump ship when the Big-3 era is over and the rebuilding begins.

But the thing is, even the new guys who come in are still going to be (or at least have the potential to be) the best basketball players in the entire world. That's what the NBA offers. The best basketball players in the world. I'm not going to pay the $200 a year to buy league pass to watch Gerry McNamara and Paul Harris duke it out into their 30's when I can watch better players play better most skilled and nuanced basketball. The teams' histories, and former stars, and logos and locations all mean something, but there is a reason the Chicago Bulls sell out every game, but there is a reason the Chicago Steam or the Maine Red-Claws aren't nationally televised.

And without the best basketball players in the world, all you've got is a lot of cool stories, (mostly) empty arenas and a mediocre product.

In ten years, these "best players in the world" will be over the hill, and the NBA could regain it's glory with a new generation of "best players in the world".

Who's to say if those future players will want to play in the NBA though.  Maybe by then a foreign league has grown enough to pay more than the NBA can.  The NBA could easily be bankrupt by then.

Maybe an international league forms.  The only surviving US cities are the major markets.  Can't think the owners like that possibility very much.

[indeedproceed]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income.  

How much does it cost to go to Harvard? How much does it cost to have the best surgeons in the world treat you?

The elite get their due. Otherwise, they go somewhere where they can.

[hpantazo]

I agree. To make a comparison, when you think of sending your kids to college, do you think "I want to send them to Harvard, Yale, or MIT" or do you think "I want to send them to this particular school because this great professor teaches there"? Most parents don't even know the names of any of the professors at these schools before sending their kids there, but there such as heck know the names of the schools. Harvard and Yale truly has some great professors, but they will come and go, and others will take their place, just like players do on great teams.

Apples and Oranges.

For die-hard fans, what you're saying is true.

But most fans aren't die-hard fans. And most people will have an easier time putting names to the faces of the NBA's 30 most popular players than they will telling you what city the Warriors play in, or telling you who won the Central Division in 2008.

What you're talking about is much closer to football, or college sports. The NBA is a different breed. Stars are bigger, and fewer. Only 10 guys see the court at any one time, and fans can see their faces and hear their voices. Player-driven league.

Although I don't fully agree with this, lets say this is true, and the NBA is a star driven league because of name and face recognition. This is because of Stern and the NBA's marketing efforts and tactics, not because of the players. How many people knew the names and faces the best NBA players before the 80's? Only diehard fans knew. If this is the case, and Stern and the NBA built this recognition, then they deserve a good share of the profit.

[hpantazo]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income.  

How much does it cost to go to Harvard? How much does it cost to have the best surgeons in the world treat you?

The elite get their due. Otherwise, they go somewhere where they can.

That's a misrepresentation of my argument. My point is yes, exactly, it costs a lot, but the cost of tuition at Harvard doesn't go to the professors, no where near half of it, and they don't demand it either. 50% of the cost of a hospital bill doesn't go to the surgeons either, and they also don't demand to have it.