How about a tiered system?

[action781]

And the Grizzlies, as an example, have a lease (an NBA lease for NBA games) with FedEx Forum until 2021.  If the NBA breaks this lease, they owe millions of dollars to FedEx Forum as there are steep penalties for breaking the lease.

It isn't as simple as just telling four teams to go away.  It isn't as simple as making four teams into D-League teams.

This idea would cost the NBA about a billion dollars. Easily.  When you break leases and agreements, you have to pay them off.  That isn't pure speculation, it's the law.

So, a few things on your two posts:

1.  Of course it's not all just pure speculation and I thought about adding that.  But to peons like us who don't have access to all the financials, then all we can do is speculate. 

2.  The contraction doesn't have to happen all at once and right now.  You don't necessarily contract a team in the middle of a long term agreement that would be very costly.

3.  You don't just relegate the teams to the d-league.  You buy them from the owners that realize the franchises they bought are crap and they made a poor investment (like New Orleans).

And I would actually not contract just 4 teams, I'd ideally contract 6 to have an even 24 teams.  That would give them all potential to be competitive and stack the d-league further to make it more competitive and make more money.  Lots of top draft picks and former college stars would be playing in this new d-league for a little while.

[celtsfan84]

And the Grizzlies, as an example, have a lease (an NBA lease for NBA games) with FedEx Forum until 2021.  If the NBA breaks this lease, they owe millions of dollars to FedEx Forum as there are steep penalties for breaking the lease.

It isn't as simple as just telling four teams to go away.  It isn't as simple as making four teams into D-League teams.

This idea would cost the NBA about a billion dollars. Easily.  When you break leases and agreements, you have to pay them off.  That isn't pure speculation, it's the law.

So, a few things on your two posts:

1.  Of course it's not all just pure speculation and I thought about adding that.  But to peons like us who don't have access to all the financials, then all we can do is speculate. 

2.  The contraction doesn't have to happen all at once and right now.  You don't necessarily contract a team in the middle of a long term agreement that would be very costly.

3.  You don't just relegate the teams to the d-league.  You buy them from the owners that realize the franchises they bought are crap and they made a poor investment (like New Orleans).

And I would actually not contract just 4 teams, I'd ideally contract 6 to have an even 24 teams.  That would give them all potential to be competitive and stack the d-league further to make it more competitive and make more money.  Lots of top draft picks and former college stars would be playing in this new d-league for a little while.

We don't have the exact financials, but we do have rough estimates.

The NBA bought the Hornets from George Shinn for $300 million and sold them for $380 million.  The least valuable NBA team is the Bucks at $280 million.  The Grizzlies are in the process of a sale for $340 million.  If the NBA were to buy 6 teams at $300 million apiece (which is by the way, a very low-end estimate), they'd have to pay $1.8 billion.  Add to this any potential leases, sponsorships, marketing agreements, etc... and you are looking at about a $2 billion expense.

Would the other 24 owners agree to pay $2 billion to eliminate 6 teams? 

[BballTim]

  What if they'd implemented this 6 years ago? Boston would be in a lower tier. That means they'd lose PP (who wouldn't want to play in the D league and they couldn't afford, given a much smaller fan base and no national tv contract and a much smaller local tv contract. They can then try and claw their way into the top tier for one season, since all of the star players will be on 7-8 teams. Sound like a peachy future, or a great investment for Wyc and his partners? You'd basically be contracting 20 teams, and the nba as a whole would have a smaller footprint and much smaller fanbase.

If they'd done this 6 years ago, Paul Pierce probably wouldn't have missed half the season and the Celtics would have had to find a way to stay competitive enough not to get relegated.  If they couldn't manage that, then I'm rooting for them to win the second division and get back to the top.

I knew I'd be alone on this.  If it's an awful idea, then I'd rather see half the teams eliminated.  If they balk at that, offer them the tiered option as an alternative. 

  First of all, I don't think PP would have played through stress fractures or else he'd be this generation's McHale. Secondly, they'd have been fighting to stay in the second division, not the top division. Secondly, it's the nba, you need stars to win. Even if you get up into the top division you won't be able to sign any stars for that first year so they'd never have enough firepower to avoid relegation after the first year.

I don't get your comment about not being able to sign stars for that first year.  Are you saying that the Boston Celtics would go completely broke based on one year outside the top division?  No way that would happen.  

I wouldn't stop watching if the team had to spend a season battling it out with DEN, ORL, NYK, UTA, DAL, PHI, HOU, PHO, MIL, and POR.  There's even some reasonable star power in that division.  

Sure you would, at least over time.  Boston wouldn't be "Boston", and Denver wouldn't be "Denver".  We wouldn't have Paul Pierce, the Knicks wouldn't have Amare or Carmelo, Denver wouldn't have McGee or Gallinari, etc.  Instead, the rosters would be stacked with all the players the top tier teams didn't want to pay.

Really?  So, the Heat and the Lakers would have every good player in basketball?

  Yes, there would be 6-7 teams with almost all of the top 20-30 players in the league. How many superstars do you think you'll find in the 2nd division in England? Answer: none.

Roy's saying that a second division team wouldn't even be in the running for a Danilo Galinari or a Javale McGee.  

A major difference between soccer and basketball is that in basketball you can only have 5 guys on the court at one time.  In soccer you get eleven.  

There's no way the Heat are going to have Kevin Durant, Dirk Nowitzki, Kobe Bryant, Blake Griffin, Tony Parker, and Russell Westbrook all on the bench just because they can afford it.

I think there's enough talent in the league for this to work.  

  The top 7 teams, for example, would have a total of 35 starters and about 45-50 players who get a lot of minutes. They'll have all of the top players and the majority of the next level player. Would Blake Griffin rather com off the bench and play 25 minutes a game on a top team or 35 minutes a game on a lower level team playing before small crowds and, in all reality, locked out of things like all-star games and postseason awards? His stats probably wouldn't even count as nba stats.

[spinz]

Let's make the NBA competitive again.  As a fan, the single most frustrating thing about the NBA is watching half of the teams in the league simply not being competitive and not even wanting to be competitive.

 

I know most will hate this idea, saying that the rich will only get richer, but I say "so what?"  This is competition.  It shouldn't be about parity.  

im confused.
Your solution to having teams that dont compete... is to make it so all the good rookies can sign with the big market teams.. and section the bad teams off into their own bad corner.

[celtsfan84]

Let's make the NBA competitive again.  As a fan, the single most frustrating thing about the NBA is watching half of the teams in the league simply not being competitive and not even wanting to be competitive.

  

I know most will hate this idea, saying that the rich will only get richer, but I say "so what?"  This is competition.  It shouldn't be about parity. 

im confused.

Ditto, my friend. TP.

The point of all of this makes precious little sense to me and I am trying to understand it.

[Celtics18]

If NBA is going to adopt a system, how about a real farm system like MLB or NHL.

I'm for that as well.  That's an essential component of my system.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

You arbitrarily made up that depreciation.  I don't think a team would go from being worth $400 million to $50 million overnight if some kind of tiered system were implemented.  I think some of the worse teams might even be able to increase revenue due to being in a division where they were actually competing for something. 

[BballTim]

If NBA is going to adopt a system, how about a real farm system like MLB or NHL.

I'm for that as well.  That's an essential component of my system.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

You arbitrarily made up that depreciation.  I don't think a team would go from being worth $400 million to $50 million overnight if some kind of tiered system were implemented.  I think some of the worse teams might even be able to increase revenue due to being in a division where they were actually competing for something. 

  So you think that if the Bobcats went down to the D league and were among the best teams instead of the worst they'd increase revenue and wouldn't see a huge drop in the value of their franchise?

[celtsfan84]

If NBA is going to adopt a system, how about a real farm system like MLB or NHL.

I'm for that as well.  That's an essential component of my system.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

You arbitrarily made up that depreciation.  I don't think a team would go from being worth $400 million to $50 million overnight if some kind of tiered system were implemented.  I think some of the worse teams might even be able to increase revenue due to being in a division where they were actually competing for something.  

You're right.  I probably guessed way too high.  Probably closer to $10 million.  Either way, there would be an enormous lawsuit.

Did you know, for instance, that the max salary in the D-League is 25 thousand?  Kobe makes over 25 million.  The max D-League player makes 25 thousand.

So you actually think the best minor league teams make more money than the worst major league teams?

I'm going to have to beg you to give up on this tier thing.  It just makes zero financial sense.

[BballTim]

I just want to ask you all, Tim, Roy, Celts84;  how do the teams in Europe, the teams not named AC Milan, Barcelona, Manchester United, Arsenal, etc., survive?    

  They simply operate on a smaller scale. How do soccer and lacross teams in the US survive? They operate on a shoestring budget and have small payrolls. If you look at last year's schedule for one of those teams (AC Milan, for example) and check out the attendances for the games you'll see that the home games are in the 50k-80k range, some of the away games are in the 12k-20k range. That's because those teams, who aren't perrenial Serie A teams, don't have larger stadiums. They just exist on a lower level.

[Celtics18]

If NBA is going to adopt a system, how about a real farm system like MLB or NHL.

I'm for that as well.  That's an essential component of my system.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

You arbitrarily made up that depreciation.  I don't think a team would go from being worth $400 million to $50 million overnight if some kind of tiered system were implemented.  I think some of the worse teams might even be able to increase revenue due to being in a division where they were actually competing for something. 

  So you think that if the Bobcats went down to the D league and were among the best teams instead of the worst they'd increase revenue and wouldn't see a huge drop in the value of their franchise?

I'm not suggesting making them a D-League team.  They'd still be in the NBA, they'd still play in the same huge arena, and they'd still be able to shell out massive payrolls.  They'd just be in a separate division is all.  I don't think they'd necessarily lose revenue at astronomical rates the way you and CelticsFan84 do.  I actually think they might earn more money based on being guaranteed to be in a division where they could be a competitive team.  If they did well in that division, they could move up and do even better financially.

I also think there would be a considerable amount of movement between divisions from year to year.  I don't think being relegated to a lower division for a year would signal the end of the franchise.   

[BballTim]

If NBA is going to adopt a system, how about a real farm system like MLB or NHL.

I'm for that as well.  That's an essential component of my system.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

You arbitrarily made up that depreciation.  I don't think a team would go from being worth $400 million to $50 million overnight if some kind of tiered system were implemented.  I think some of the worse teams might even be able to increase revenue due to being in a division where they were actually competing for something. 

  So you think that if the Bobcats went down to the D league and were among the best teams instead of the worst they'd increase revenue and wouldn't see a huge drop in the value of their franchise?

I'm not suggesting making them a D-League team.  They'd still be in the NBA, they'd still play in the same huge arena, and they'd still be able to shell out massive payrolls.  They'd just be in a separate division is all.  I don't think they'd necessarily lose revenue at astronomical rates the way you and CelticsFan84 do.  I actually think they might earn more money based on being guaranteed to be in a division where they could be a competitive team.  If they did well in that division, they could move up and do even better financially.

  The top tier is going to get about 90% of the television revenue and will be playing to full arenas. The lower teams will be playing in mostly empty arenas. The best player in the entire second tier might be someone like Paul Milsap, the best player in the 3rd tier might be Taj Gibson. How many fans are going to flock to see a team without an above average nba starter on their team (or any opposing teams) just because the games (played against bad teams) are more competitive? You can probably be more profitable with a much smaller payroll, but you're living off of a *much* smaller revenue stream.

[celtsfan84]

If NBA is going to adopt a system, how about a real farm system like MLB or NHL.

I'm for that as well.  That's an essential component of my system.  

So what would be the point of your farm system if there is only enough talent for 10 good teams?

I still don't understand why the NBA, a business I should remind you, is voluntarily bankrupting 20 teams, most of them likely profitable.

Wasn't the GM's main claim to the lockout that the majority of teams were not profitable?

Yes, not because the league doesn't generate revenue, because they were giving too big a share to their players.  That was their argument and the reason the split is now 50/50 and not 43/57.

I don't see where you are going with that question.

Also, there is a difference between "My team is not profitable and I have to sell my team for $400 million." and "My $400 million team is suddenly worth $50 million overnight because now I am part of a pointless minor league".

You arbitrarily made up that depreciation.  I don't think a team would go from being worth $400 million to $50 million overnight if some kind of tiered system were implemented.  I think some of the worse teams might even be able to increase revenue due to being in a division where they were actually competing for something.  

  So you think that if the Bobcats went down to the D league and were among the best teams instead of the worst they'd increase revenue and wouldn't see a huge drop in the value of their franchise?

I'm not suggesting making them a D-League team.  They'd still be in the NBA, they'd still play in the same huge arena, and they'd still be able to shell out massive payrolls.  They'd just be in a separate division is all.  I don't think they'd necessarily lose revenue at astronomical rates the way you and CelticsFan84 do.  I actually think they might earn more money based on being guaranteed to be in a division where they could be a competitive team.  If they did well in that division, they could move up and do even better financially.

I also think there would be a considerable amount of movement between divisions from year to year.  I don't think being relegated to a lower division for a year would signal the end of the franchise.  

You can say it isn't the D-League all you want.  You can say they are in the "NBA's second division". You can call it "The Magical Awesome Division of Super Basketball" if you want.  It would still be viewed as a minor league.  The top tier would be viewed as the major league.  That's just fact.  Can you name the star players in England's second division?  How much do they make?   How much do the franchises make?  Pennies for every dollar that Manchester United makes.

The Austin Toros won the D-League title.  They play in a stadium that seats 6,800 people and charge $100 for a front row seat.  

The Charlotte Bobcats are the worst team in NBA history.  They play in a stadium that seats about 20,000 people and charge $750 for a front row seat.

What in the world makes you think that performing well in a minor league (or second division or second tier, whatever) would be more profitable than going 0-82 in a major league?

The Bobcats are worth around $280 million according to Forbes. More than most of your English soccer Premier League teams.  Nevermind the lower divisions.

This idea, once again, would bankrupt 20 teams. At least.

[Celtics18]

Based on last year's results, the second division would consist of the Nuggets, the Magic, the Knicks, the Jazz, the Mavs, the Sixers, the Rockets, the Suns, the Bucks, and the Trailblazers.

Stars such as Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, and Dirk Nowitzki would be playing in that league along with up and coming young stars like Galinari, Aldridge, Al Jefferson, Monta Elis, Gortat, and Andre Iguodala.

To me, that's an exciting, competitive division.  

The third division would have the likes of Deron Williams, Kevin Love, John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Bargnani, Greg Monroe, Gortat, Steph Curry, and Ricky Rubio.  If I'm a Wizards, Warriors, or Raptors fan, I like my teams chances of winning the division and moving up a level.

We are not talking the Idaho Stampede or the Bolton Wanderers, here.  These are big league franchises and they'll stay big league franchises.  

Obviously, this is just a crazy fantasy and will never actually happen, but I think you guys are completely overreacting when you say that established NBA franchises would turn into D-League teams overnight.  

[celtsfan84]

Based on last year's results, the second division would consist of the Nuggets, the Magic, the Knicks, the Jazz, the Mavs, the Sixers, the Rockets, the Suns, the Bucks, and the Trailblazers.

Stars such as Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, and Dirk Nowitzki would be playing in that league along with up and coming young stars like Galinari, Aldridge, Al Jefferson, Monta Elis, Gortat, and Andre Iguodala.

To me, that's an exciting, competitive division.  

The third division would have the likes of Deron Williams, Kevin Love, John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Bargnani, Greg Monroe, Gortat, Steph Curry, and Ricky Rubio.  If I'm a Wizards, Warriors, or Raptors fan, I like my teams chances of winning the division and moving up a level.

We are not talking the Idaho Stampede or the Bolton Wanderers, here.  These are big league franchises and they'll stay big league franchises.  

Obviously, this is just a crazy fantasy and will never actually happen, but I think you guys are completely overreacting when you say that established NBA franchises would turn into D-League teams overnight.  

See, this is just where you are missing the point here.

Dwight Howard would demand a trade instead of playing for a second tier team.  The team would have to trade Dwight Howard.  Players demand trades.  It happens all the time.  And as BBallTim pointed out, any smart agent would negotiate in a player's contract that the player would be released immediately if the team was relegated to a lower tier.  Dwight, Carmelo, Amar'e, and Dirk would not play a single minute in that league.

You would never have a star player in the second tier.  How many star players are in England's second tier?  How many star players are in England's third tier?

These players would be distributed to the HEAT, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, etc... in very quick fashion.

Dwight Howard is a top 5 basketball player.  Think to yourself.  Name the top 5 soccer players.  How many of them play in second divisions?  I only slightly follow soccer, but the answer is none.

[Jon]

Oops, wrong thread.  Feel free to delete.