Maybe 15-20 years ago but not now (just my opinion). And1 has made dudes household names. Their stars were on TV and some had endorsements....and this is with no NBA support. Lebron/Bosh/Wade recently had a tournament that sold out in 2 hours. Scola was making good money overseas before he even came here, and star players can go make even more money overseas. If the top players decided to form their own league I'm sure they could find 10-15 investors and make it successful. It wouldn't be the NBA and the NBA is clearly their best option, but basketball is a global sport now and technology has advanced to such a degree that these guys have options.
Why does it make sense for the owners go go below 50/50 when they haven't been over 47 in 3 decades? Based on what?
Talk to me when some And1 guy makes $15 million/year. I don't know a single one of these "household names". My point is if Scola never came to the NBA, nobody would miss him or clamor for him. Same for Lowry. If you and DD actually believe star players could start an alternative league and make anything close to what they earn now, I don't know what to say. Their options are much more limited than what you think. Plus, the non-star players who make boatloads of money off the superstars coattails would be completely up a creek without a paddle.
A_3PO, The problem is that the non star players are the ones who will take the brunt of the pain on a BRI reduction. They are looking to remove the MLE, or severly lesson it, remove the bi-annual exception etc..etc..etc... They are not looking to remove paying their families a stipend, charging it back to the organization for work which is unrelated to the revenue that was generated. It is not a strict business to business situation, without the talent there is no league, and without the league, there would be less of a stage for the talent, they need each other, but the owners right now are the ones that are being shady about their accounting. The union, IMO, should/would agree to a BRI % reduction, if the owners are willing to put a hard cap on themselves.... DD
And1 doesn't have top NBA talent or the type of owners that can pay NBA talent. I only mentioned them to show that guys don't need the NBA to get on TV or be marketable. Most basketball fans knew who Brandon Jennings was before he graduated from high school. The same goes for Doc Rivers kid, for example. You may not know any And1 players, but the dudes didn't get Sprite deals, a MTV show and a video game for nothing. If the leagues top players decide to start another league then that league would have top NBA talent and I'm sure they could find some investors. No, it wouldn't be as good as the NBA and they wouldn't make as much money. But clearly we don't need the NBA to have a competitive basketball league or a league that folks will enjoy watching where the players can also get paid. I don't think either one of us said they could make what they currently make in the NBA. We said the days of them not having other options to make good $$ playing basketball are over. Scola made good money prior to the NBA. All of these top stars can go overseas and make good money. Yes, their options are limited to have it as good as they have it in the NBA. Their options aren't limited to making a ton of money outside of the NBA.
DD, the non-star middling players are the ones who SHOULD take the brunt of the reduction. Regarding your hard cap statement, the owners are willing. The union is dead set against it. Something about a blood issue.
No, you missed my point entirely, cap the revenue the OWNERS can pay themselves, or force them into restricted payouts for scouts etc...exclude family members and owners.... DD
Well I posed a valid question. The players currently get 57%, and I don't believe they have been below 53% in 3 decades. So why should they agree to 50%?
Hard cap or a super taxed cap (which is really just a hard cap) is just another way of limiting what players can make and forcing them to pay for revenue sharing as opposed to the owners truly having revenue sharing.
Wet water. The owners don't think they get enough of the pie and have been giving too much of it to the players for too long. So, why shouldn't the players agree to 50%? Precedent? That is a poor excuse for inequality. or i could be snarky, "The owners currently get 43%, and I don't believe they have been above 47% in 3 decades. So why should they agree to anything lower than 50%?"
The players should say...sure we will agree on a lessor amount as soon as you guys agree on complete revenue sharing like the NFL has... DD
This would be where I respond and say the players aren't going to just give the owners more money because they want it. It has to be justified in some way for them to agree. I'm going to go on a limb and assume they will require the owners show that they need a 50/50 split for the league to succeed. If the league hasn't had a 50/50 split in 3 decades then the owners don't have much of an argument that one is needed for the league to succeed. The precedent is based on the league not needing a 50/50 split for owners to be profitable. So for those saying "just agree to a 50/50 split", when I ask "why" I am asking what is the owners justification for the players to do that? If I'm a player, good luck getting me to agree to something that hasn't happened in 3 decades (probably longer than my time here on Earth...for some players).
Well that's part of the issue. Some owners are opposed to true revenue sharing and the league just figures they can punk the players into footing the bill. I guess the next year will let us know if they are right or not.
Not all owners are equal, and can afford to go all year, I wonder if that is why the NBA took over the New Orleans franchise, I doubt Shin could have lasted even one month without revenue. The owner in Phoenix is not in good shape, IIRC, either. That is the players hope.....that the owners who leveraged most of their assets to buy a team cave in some. I really would like to hear what Cuban thinks......too bad Stern has him muffled.... DD
The league needing to do the lockout because it was losing money was just for the public. The league can talk about that all they want, but both sides know it is just about more profit. If I was stern, my argument would be: lockout or else. Players so far are going with lockout.
I think the players would rather go with the lockout than drop to a BRI level that hasn't existed since the NBA was the "NBA", and i wouldn't blame them. Asking them to come from 57 to 50 is ridiculous.
alanhahn Alan Hahn Not getting good feedback from sources...but let's see what is said first.... #NBA
