And 6 years post-lockout for the NHL, it is still pretty much irrelevant in the US. Last year, game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals drew a 3 rating on NBC. Going back 15 years, the highest ratings a STanley Cup series got was a 4 b/t Detroit-Philly in 97. And this is all with "different" teams winning the Stanley Cup; the "parity" the league wanted instead of the Red Wings or Avalanche winning every other year. The NBA is entirely different from the NHL in that its product is more well-known, and last year was its strongest year since the mid-90s in terms of ratings. It can't afford a long lockout or else its momentum may be blunted. Therefore, the thoughts of losing an entire season should not be in the minds of the players or owners. Both sides need to do whatever it takes to end this ASAP. The NBA, going off of last year, could advance itself further and increase its popularity and overall product.
"Too stupid"? "Intelligence side of the equation"? DD, you may want to tone down the rhetoric. Stupidity doesn't have anything to do with it. For numerous reasons, the notion of the players starting another league is DOA no matter how smart they are. Calm down.
It has a lot to do with it, most players are broke within 2 years of leaving the league, how smart is that? Just because they can dunk a basketball or make a nice pass does not make them smart, it makes them dedicated, and able to take advantage of what the good lord gave them. That does not mean they are smart enough to start a league, and run it. Most players are just not that smart.... DD
Over 50% of doctor who start private practice primary care clinics have either barely broken even or gone into the red. Wow doctors are so stupid and idiots. Just because they go to med school does mean they are smart enough to run a business...
You don't think the owners are aware of this? http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6405002 The players will cave, only stubbornness, pride, and ego have kept this from already happening.
That really isn't that big a factor as compared to other things, really. If the players, say, decided to let Shane Battier and Steve Nash run everything in their new league, the same structural problems would exist regardless. The intelligence of basketball players would be far from their biggest problems.
Of course there are exceptions and intelligent players, but for the most part, you have a bunch of uneducated coddled athletes. The point was the players are not smart enough, nor are they organized enough to create a seperate league, and if they did the owners could simply end the lockout and they are all back under contract, which would kill the other league. Tell ya what though, if the players were so smart, why haven't they decertified? That is the only thing that could force the owners hand. DD
Not really. the players have very little "future" to protect. The owners have A LOT. What you did broke down right there.
My understanding of decertification is that if the player do that, that's going to pretty much mean no season. That's something I'm sure the players would really like to avoid period. Now, if there's no deal by January? I think decertificiation becomes a real risk. But not before.
I think they lack the unity more than they lack the brains to start a league. Players would have to sacrifice time, and paychecks early on. They would need private investors, who are always looking out for the best interest in their money. Most players have smart agents that are trying to help them make the most money. Sure, those agents don't specialize in starting a league, but not many people do. Starting a league is a lot of work, and takes years of planning. If they do it too fast, it could collapse. I doubt it will happen. Some stadiums are owned by NBA owners. I'm sure those owners would either a) charge the players a ridiculous rate, or b) simply not sell them the space. I'm sure that would cause them to relocate some teams, which means a lot of fans would lose interest.
They should have done it already and been in court, the day they were locked out they should have decertified... DD
I'd also say - it is indefensible that an arbitrator was not brought in a month ago...if not several months ago. Owners certainly wouldn't want a third party calling out their BS.
The arbitor did not call BS on anything, they tried to mediate.....the owners lost some money, their franchises took a hit in value. They can not pay the same wages to their employees as their revenues go down. The players are being completely unreasonable, they are a commodity that is replaceable..... DD
That's actually quite false. The future is for the future generation of players, not necessarily for themselves. Yes, some of these guys are thinking about the future generation....as "silly" as that sounds. Future CBA's are impacted by prior ones.
And the players offered to almost double that loss, going by their calculations of what the loss truly is. This is why the players offered to almost double their losses. If that were the case then the league would bring in some scabs and try.
They do that and then: 1. concede right then and there that they won't be playing AT ALL in 2011-2012. Why would they do that? 2. And if they lose? The best offer they would get at that point would be worse than the worst the owners will offer them at this point. Decertification, as far as I can tell, is a nuclear option. It's not something you use flippantly like you describe. So, if the top 50 players all dropped dead tomorrow, the league would be just fine, right? After all, they're replaceable.
