If the lockout cancels the whole season, who gets more blame: players or owners?

[knicksman]

LMAO, NCAA doesn't have parity. The same few schools win year after year. The small schools might get an upset or 2 in the first few rounds, but by and large the same schools from the same conferences are in the Final Four every year.

And parity does nothing to drive interest. Baseball has more parity than football, yet it doesn't get better ratings. The past 10 years, there have been 9 different World Series winners. In the same time, the NFL has only 7 different teams win the Super Bowl. On top of that, the Steelers, Colts, and Patriots have almost exclusively been the AFC representative.

If you want to take it back further, in the past 30 years the NFL has 15 different Super Bowl winners, and MLB has 19 different World Series winners.

So now tell me, is parity what drives football or is it football that drives football?

At the end of the day ncaa has more parity than nba thats why it has higher ratings.


Baseball might have more parity than football but it doesnt matter as long as the 2 have higher ratings than nba because those 2 have more parity than nba.

The reason why nfl is more popular because it is more entertaining. Just like basketball. Thats why football>basketball>baseball in college but when it comes to pro nfl>mlb>nba. Why do you think so genius?Parity.

[Droid101]

Corey Maggette?

How dare you.

[Sarcastic]

At the end of the day ncaa has more parity than nba thats why it has higher ratings.


Baseball might have more parity than football but it doesnt matter as long as the 2 have higher ratings than nba because those 2 have more parity than nba.

The reason why nfl is more popular because it is more entertaining. Just like basketball. Thats why football>basketball>baseball in college but when it comes to pro nfl>mlb>nba. Why do you think so genius?Parity.

Define "parity".

[with malice]

What risk? The owners OWN while the players are just laborers. So the owners get all the valuation increases of the franchises while the players get ZERO of that.

The moment a player can't play, he has nothing to show for it. The owners can own the franchise forever, which historically has gone up and up and up. About 10% a year supposedly.

So what's the risk exactly for these billionaires?


Lebron deserves WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than he's making, with all the revenue he generates for the league. So does Kobe.

Corey Maggette? John Salmons? Stephen Jackson?........eh........not so much.

Ummm... say what? If a player doesn't play - say injury - then his salary still gets paid. How on earth could that be considered a risk for the player - other than career-ending injuries (which are becoming rarer than before as medical science advances).
Marry that up to the fact that a disproportionate amount of NBA owners lose money on their investments.

Enough on the "the franchise is worth $XXX" guys. Surely an owner shouldn't have to sell their franchise merely to recoup lost dollars.

Something that's become a truism for the NBA:
How do you make a small fortune out of being an NBA owner? Start with a big one...

[with malice]

A pure hard cap with no exceptions is a terrible idea.
It would force Dwight Howard to leave Orlando, since they are far above the cap with a lot of bad contracts.
How is that good for the league.

The players offered 53% of BRI, which is down from 57%. So that is a good thing. The next thing is shortening contracts.

Lower the BRI down to 51.5% and 5 year max regular contracts, 3 years MLEs and a deal can be had.

I think you'll find that ownership will want a re-working of what is considered "Basketball Related Income".

[Math2]

What risk? The owners OWN while the players are just laborers. So the owners get all the valuation increases of the franchises while the players get ZERO of that.

The moment a player can't play, he has nothing to show for it. The owners can own the franchise forever, which historically has gone up and up and up. About 10% a year supposedly.

So what's the risk exactly for these billionaires?


Lebron deserves WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than he's making, with all the revenue he generates for the league. So does Kobe.

Corey Maggette? John Salmons? Stephen Jackson?........eh........not so much.

Should someone that makes tape dispensers be paid based on how many of the tape dispensers he makes sells? Bad logic.

[Droid101]

If you are still on the owner's side, please read this article. Actually, everyone should read it.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-nba-economics

[quote]Ten years ago, a New York real estate developer named Bruce Ratner fell in love with a building site at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues in Brooklyn. It was 22 acres, big by New York standards, and within walking distance of four of the most charming, recently gentrified neighborhoods in Brooklyn

[97 bulls]

Just because the value goes up, does that means he should get all of it? Who INVESTS the $$$$$$$

Oh I see. Its an investment as long as the owners make money. But if the investment doesn't pan out, then they want their money back.

[Droid101]

Continued:

[quote]
Ratner knew this would not be easy. The 14 acres he wanted to raze was a perfectly functional neighborhood, inhabited by taxpaying businesses and homeowners. He needed a political halo, and Ratner's genius was in understanding how beautifully the Nets could serve that purpose. The minute basketball was involved, Brooklyn's favorite son

[Math2]

Oh I see. Its an investment as long as the owners make money. But if the investment doesn't pan out, then they want their money back.

LOLWUT? Where'd you pull that one from? If it doesn't pan out then they sell it...lol what does that have to do with anything? and it is their fault if they pick a bad investment....

[with malice]

If you are still on the owner's side, please read this article. Actually, everyone should read it.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-nba-economics

So... because Simmon's Grantland has a particular barrow to push, and that there ARE owners who make money (quite a few only outside of the NBA tho'), that makes the disparity in financial division "A-ok"?

It blows my mind that anyone is angry that the owners want to redress the split - sheesh, it's not even a 50/50 divide, and the players aren't expected to address any of the costs.

[knicksman]

Define "parity".

equality. Hard cap which makes all owners in the same footing

[hawkfan]

"I don't want a hard cap. I like bad contracts. If you have one, send them to me. I'll take them."

[Sarcastic]

equality. Hard cap which makes all owners in the same footing

Ok, so are you telling me the University of New Hampshire has an equal chance to win as does Duke?

[Faberg]

equality. Hard cap which makes all owners in the same footing

Hard cap doesn't necessarily mean parity.