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

Why would all of those teams go under? Do you really believe that all of those teams are losing money?

Even if you believe what you are saying, explain why the other 2/3 of the owners would vote to prevent that from happening. If, as you say, losing those teams would improve revenues then isn't that even more of a case for the other 2/3 to not give in? Fewer teams and even higher revenues sounds like a much better deal to me.

[EDIT] I forgot to mention one thing. If decertifying the union truely could cause 1/3 of the teams to go under then does that sound like a smart move for the union? Why decertify if it means that there will be 1/3 less jobs? Sounds like even more reason for the middle class and lower to vote against decertification.

Yes, several teams have voted to approve decertification but that's just a threat,they won't do it.

Think of it this way, if the union decertifies then the owners can't lock them out, agreed?

Now take a look at this quote from Billy Hunter :

“I’d be 99 percent sure as of today that there will be a lockout,” Billy Hunter, the executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, said in an interview at his Harlem office. “I’ve said, ‘Save your money because in all probability there’s going to be a lockout.’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/sports/basketball/23hunter.html?_r=1&src=tptw

See what he says "99 percent sure as of today that there will be a lockout". That's from a Nov. 23, 2010 interview. So if Hunter thinks that there is a 99% chance of a lockout then that leaves a 1% chance that the sides will either reach an agreement prior to a work stoppage or that the union will decertify to prevent a lockout.

Unless they reach an agreement then there will be a lockout. Then the only way the players association can prevent a lockout is by decertification. If the players decertify then the league can't lock them out so if Hunter says that he's 99% sure of a lockout then that tells me that they don't plan to decertify. If he's planning for a lockout then he's not planning to decertify.

I don't think that the players association is banking on collecting any substantial punitive damages. The USFL won their lawsuit against the NFL for unfair practices and their award was less than $4.00. The NFPA decertified, how much did they collect in punitive damages? The NFL has much deeper pockets than the NBA and they didn't have to pay substantial damages so why would the NBA?

 

The key to this whole thing is how many of the owners are bonded together on this issue. If the owners have met and they have a plan to get back to profitability and they agree on it, then the players are in for a rough time of it.

 

Agreed. The NFL has a hard cap and because of that they have to do things differently.

If it's a true hard cap then you can't have exceptions.

The equivilent of Bird Rights in the NFL is the Franchise and Transition tags that help teams retain players.

If it were a hard cap then you'd probably see less guarenteed deals because they do have the tie up your cap for years. You see no guarenteed deals in the NFL, the only money that is guarenteed is signing bonuses.

With a hard cap there's no trade rules other than at the end of the deal you have to be under the cap. You do lose the additional 25% matching that you have today but if you had fewer fully guarenteed contracts then it's not that much of an issue. If you want to acquire additional salary then you just release players.

Here's a pretty interesting alternate proposal that I saw the other day. It's the author's attempt at a compromise between the owners and players requests:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chi...union-decertification-the-players-hammer.html

 

You could be taking his words too literally (although decertification is too far fetched with all the guaranteed money). Is it not possible the union could decertify during the lockout if terms aren't close to being reached?

 

Does anyone have links showing higher TV audiences, revenue, attendance figures, etc.?

It's a decent article, but owners aren't going to take the risk of doing away with bird rights in hopes of retaining their key players for $50 mil a year. Sure, LeBron and Dwight are no brainers, but when it comes to Joe Johnson and Manu Ginobili no one really wants to spend more than $15 million a year on them... but you'll always have one stupid owner from say the Warriors throwing out a $25 million contract at them to lure them away. Also, non-guaranteed contracts where players have to meet certain statistical requirements will put pressure on the coach's to go against their game plan, as well as increase selfish play.

The writer seems to forget it's not in the league's interest to take away the advantage from big market teams.

 

If there's a lockout the union could decertify but then they can no longer negotiate for the players. Each individual player would have to negotiate their own contract. That might be a good deal for a Carmello Anthony but for guys that aren't stars then they'll get offered much less than they make now.

Of course if you are the players why would you wait until you lose checks before you decertify? If they are going to decertify then it seems that they would do it before the lockout so that it doesn't cost them money.

The revenue is the big issue. The owners won't show the players their books so nobody except the owners know what the true state of the league is. The players certainly have access to all the revenue streams that make up the Basketball Related Income (BRI) because that is part of the CBA. The revenue that isn't part of the BRI isn't made available to the players or anyone else. Of course if the union decertified then they wouldn't even have access to the BRI number anymore either.

 

Personally, I just care about a hard cap, regardless of the number. Then we can see Morey's business sense really shine. Maybe a franchise tag for one player.

And I can definitely see both big and small teams go for it. It's simply to save teams from screwing themselves(see Denver, Harrington).

 

You mean other than the fact that players want to play in NY, LA and Chicago?

The league's new CBA proposal contains a hard cap so the owners must be ok with it.