[prediction]The CBA will remain largely unchanged after this season

This should probably be in the Dish but I somewhat agree, at least with the CBA not changing.

 

That's all well and good. But I predict no basketball will be played til probably this time in 2012, if at all.

 

Parity is not the point. The owners want to give the players less money. They are shooting for a 1/3 reduction.

The season will start after the players cave. Yes, it could take a few months.

 

Wrong forum, sure. Wrong conclusion by OP.

The tea leaves on offer say that the NFL will have a deal before the Drafy but that the NBA will either have a deal by July 7, '11 - - or the ensuing season will be NHL'ed.

There will be seminal changes in the CBA, the owners are unified and the players will ultimately have to accept an armageddon.

 

I think one of your primary assumptions -- that big market teams will have more say than small-market teams on the CBA -- is wrong. In the end, the 30 majority owners are going to vote to accept or reject the CBA that's been negotiated. Each franchise is getting one vote. It won't be up to David Stern saying he cares more about what the Knicks think than he does about what the Bobcats think. If the small market teams' needs are not addressed, they'll kill it. And, there are more of them than there are of the big guys.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ian_thomsen/01/07/parity.nba/index.html

^^ This makes a lot of sense to me.

 

IMO... give ALL players around the same amount. When they get drafted, give them X amount of dollars, and give them incremental raises per year.

If the players dont like it, then go get a real job and earn money the hard way like the average joe.

I cant stand these players' greed for money and "gotta feed my family" attitude. It makes me sick!

 

This. This. This.

1. Assuming small market teams have less clout than big market teams is wrong. Each team has one vote and will use it for their own interests. OP, if you think small market teams aren't out for blood this time around, you are severely mistaken. This chance doesn't happen often.

2. To say the owners are divided and the players united is not true. From what I've recently read, the owners are indeed united in reducing the players portion of the pie. Not all owners think alike, but their stand will be united because they have David Stern keeping everyone in line.

3. Whatever agreement is reached won't create parity. The NBA will never have revenue sharing to the extent the NFL does.

4. The improving economic situation will make it easier to reach an agreement. IMO, Stern knows what he wants but is allowing smoke to be blown to strengthen his negotiating position. Same for the players. A hard carp won't happen. Perhaps more penalty for going over the cap. A 1/3 reduction in player salaries won't happen either. There will be a less reduction.

5. Both sides realize what is at stake. The owners could crush the players by taking a hard-line stand, but I don't believe it will get that far. IMO, the worst-cast likely scenario is a short lockout. The longer it takes to reach an agreement, the worse for the players because the owners have less money to lose as time goes by.

6. Real negotiations won't begin until close to the deadline for delaying the season. Until then, pay no attention to public pronouncements from either side. I predict both sides know the PR hit with fans will be huge if the season is delayed and will act accordingly.

 

I can agree more with this. It might be helpful to think of the CBA in two parts: (1) cut the players a smaller portion of the pie, and (2) increase competitive parity between teams. Of course, each part has implications for the other. In reducing player salaries, there's no reason to think the franchises aren't united. But, I see some credibility in thinking some teams are less interested in parity than others, making efforts to change the nature of the CBA structure (hard caps, elimination of exceptions, etc) less likely to pass. In that regard, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right that the CBA basically looks the same, but just a bit tighter on player salaries and contract guarantees.

 

How long would it take to form a new league and put everything together? What arenas would this new league play in? Luxury boxes? Who would buy the apparel and logos? What about network and cable TV contracts? Etc, etc. The NBA brand itself is crucial. Your scenario never happened before and never will. Pipe dream.

When the lockout starts, both sides will be very nervous. As it gets longer and passes a certain point, the players will get more nervous and lose resolve while the owners will get more ticked off. Who wins?

 

The players will cease to be united as soon as the first paycheck is missed.

And there'll be no talk of decertification. Ever.

 

It's all part of the negotiation process.
I think player salary is the main expense for any team. Owner might still give players the same contract sizes as of now, but the players need to earn it. They can't Eddie Curry the owners. Put some restrictions onto the contracts.

 

To back up A_3PO, the players union couldn't do it either - where are they going to find 30 people who can afford at least 150 million a year just to field an NBA roster(not counting for anything else like arena, marketing, sales staff, etc). The players union mind as well forget the word decertification because there is no way it could happen without excluding most of the players in the union.

 

Exactly. Most NBA owners know that the players live too extravagantly to miss too many million dollar paychecks. The owners are hurting financially in this too, but between millionaire athletes with few other skills and few financial management resources(and mostly a longer history of being poor than being rich) and billionaire businessmen with many investments and typically a long history of building wealth - who do you think can last without a check longer?

 

I think it's foolish to think the CBA won't change. There are too many small market teams hurting on a daily basis for this to continue. The only way the current scenario continues is if some of the small market teams cash out and the league negotiates a contraction of the number of teams in the league but that would be a huge loss both for the league and for the investments these owners have made in their teams.

...but to think a little outside the box here - any of you guys think it's not a coincidence that Stern buys the Hornets right before the CBA negotiation? I mean, Stern didn't really have a voice before - the CBA is a negotiation between the league owners and it's players(more accurately their agents). Now that Stern is controlling the Hornets though, he has a more powerful voice than he had before. The association and Stern just manage the league - he doesn't get to set the rules like the players and owners do - until now.

I'm just saying if after the dust has settled Stern has MORE power than he does now, I think he becomes the ultimate Keyser Söze character. Years ago he advised George Shinn NOT to sell to Clay Bennet because it would be a PR disaster even though George knew that he was losing money even before Katrina. Flash forward to this year, Stern gives Shinn more than what he would have got from any other investor and the NBA controls the Hornets now. Stern is supposedly looking for an owner but let's be clear if someone call Stern up tomorrow he isn't selling until after the CBA is negotiated. He has had his sights on this CBA for years and Shinn gave him an opportunity to exploit so he could have a bigger say int he direction of it. If true, it's really a pretty genius scenario.

 

Trugoy,

Have you ever worked for the NBA or for any NBA team?