PDA

View Full Version : Should the NBA follow a European model?



NYKalltheway
07-28-2010, 01:07 PM
With all the talk about the new CBA, the NBA losing money, perhaps a major overhaul.

The major concern for this model implemented in the NBA is college basketball/draft. I know that until some time players had to complete college before moving to the NBA, but 22 year old rookies is not something of our age, is it?

In Europe(and South America as well) every sports team has youth teams.

I see a lot of you talking about Ricky Rubio, who is 19-20 years old and is Spain's biggest prospect. Greece has Chrysikopoulos who is 17 years old.

Teams develop their own talents. Wouldn't every kid in New York want to play for the Knicks, even at age 12? Same goes for Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Denver etc. Thus, new legacies will be created, players who are absolutely loyal to their teams, and not selected on a draft randomly. Freedom for players before their pro career to follow their dream of "being a Laker", "being a 76er" etc.
Players going to be eligible after they turn 18 years old or something like that.


Screw the salary cap. Reform the contract rules. eg maximum contract length 4-5 years, absolute maximum salary $18m or something. No 5th year with $24m etc. (contract length exists in Europe, salaries are unlimited)

This might cause smaller markets to be less competitive, but if there's huge taxation for a total salary of over $70-80m, only a few would spend much much more.

All players should have a buy out clause included in their contract which will be agreed with his team OR, maybe minimum and maximum values for the clause could be agreed by the NBA.
eg Lebron James with 7 years experience can have a clause of up to $70m...

Players MUST agree on new contracts after a team enables the buy out clause. All teams can enable the buy out, and the player decides where he goes. That team gets to pay his team.

This will also make it much easier for NBA teams to reach European and South American based players. So NBA teams want Rubio( just using him as example), come and get him. He has a buy out of let's say $3m, pay up and watch him coming. No more "I will stay in Europe for 2 more seasons after being drafted by team X"

Contracts are non-transferable. You transfer players, not contracts. No more chances of poor decision making in strategy by trading players for expiring contracts etc. You wanna build a team, buy the players you need outright.
This will also end the trading of players/contracts.


I know some people will keep saying that it's the big clubs that will benefit from this. Cause they can set up more youth camps throughout the USA and buy more expensive players. But if teams produce their own players, I can't see how most of the players will move around the league as much.
Youth teams would compete in youth leagues as well.

This will also make room for new franchises in new cities. Aren't there kids in St.Louis, Seattle and other large cities that want to play basketball and try their luck? Why wait for scouts that will appear once in their lifetime at most when they could sign up at age 9 or 11?

High school kids in Europe are members of both high school & youth team. It's not a problem over here. Actually, it's much better this way.

Giving it a second thought, college basketball does not have to 'die' if ever the NBA decides to follow a European model, but it will definitely suffer some setbacks.
College teams could easily approach youth team players and offer them scholarships. Most parents would force their kids to join those college teams as it will give them something more than just a basketball career.

There are many more stuff that I would like to say as well, but for starters I'll stick with this.

hgtiger32
07-30-2010, 11:11 PM
it will never happen, there would be lesser talented players playing in smaller cities. for example, there's no way my Milwaukee/Wisconsin Bucks could compete with the Chicago/Illinois Bulls...

There's a reason European players want to come play in the NBA, not other way around...

NYKalltheway
07-30-2010, 11:13 PM
There's a reason European players want to come play in the NBA, not other way around...

$$$$$$$$$$$$

We've seen Josh Childress and Linas Kleiza going to Europe just for money :p

Hellcrooner
07-30-2010, 11:21 PM
Im thinking on writing a ful article on this, ive thought it many times.

Hellcrooner
07-30-2010, 11:23 PM
it will never happen, there would be lesser talented players playing in smaller cities. for example, there's no way my Milwaukee/Wisconsin Bucks could compete with the Chicago/Illinois Bulls...

There's a reason European players want to come play in the NBA, not other way around...

mistake.

Euroepan way.


Cleveland ) is a bad market for example and they got lebron and lebron wants to go to other makert.

Nba he wai and walks for free.

Europe cleveland revceives TONS of MONEY offers for him fduring the years,.

Lebron i wants to plya for the knics? ok the knicks hve to offer them MONEY, since half the legue will be offering money there wilbe a bidding war.

in teh end cleveland sells lebron for say 100 million dollars.

they couldnt have generated that money with ticks but now they HAZVE tha tmoney so they CA N BUY and PAY a bnew star from other team.

PutMeInCoach
07-30-2010, 11:24 PM
$$$$$$$$$$$$

We've seen Josh Childress and Linas Kleiza going to Europe just for money :p

do you really want to compare those 2 vs. all the euros that are in/trying to get into the nba?

show34
07-30-2010, 11:28 PM
I made a thread sinilar to this a couple of days ago so i say yes so people without jobs like iverson asnd shaq and a few more others penny hardaway people like that dont have to go all the way the hell overseas and let the overseas peeps get your money nba

NYKalltheway
07-30-2010, 11:32 PM
do you really want to compare those 2 vs. all the euros that are in/trying to get into the nba?

There are some people who have dreamt since their birth of playing in the NBA, and there are those who don't want to go. Group 1 is slightly larger than group 2.

Biggest factor is $$$
Second factor is that there's greater competition.
Third factor, is to improve their game, in terms of athleticism.

Americans go to Europe:
1) To end their careers and receive more money than in the NBA in their final years(eg Byron Scott, Dominique Wilkins...)
2) To get experience (Brandon Jennings etc)
3) To pursue a career after being undrafted or unsuccessful in the NBA

Why would Americans leave their homes where they can earn 10x the money to cross the Ocean?

Hellcrooner summed up a major advantage of the European model.

cowboyz180
07-30-2010, 11:32 PM
no, it is fine as it is

Hellcrooner
07-30-2010, 11:33 PM
thething is that the change would be very ifficult

what do you do with ncaa?

if teams can contrct freely no one woudl pla there?

Youth schemes? nba teams do not hav them.

You would have to somehow apply the vertical division systems so every city would have a teamm wich could overtime get to the FIRST nba division or be relegated from it if it sucks.

You would need to make teams sigh contract with universitys of their zone to ed them their players and function as their yout scheme.

Is omplicated.

show34
07-30-2010, 11:33 PM
All these cities without teams like vegas montgomery providence matter of fact you should take some of the lower level teams and put them in that league clippers for 1 to many los angeles teams

NYKalltheway
07-30-2010, 11:43 PM
Relocating teams should be a crime in sports :/

Geargo Wallace
07-30-2010, 11:50 PM
$$$$$$$$$$$$

We've seen Josh Childress and Linas Kleiza going to Europe just for money :p

I think there's a reason why they're back in the NBA.

Hellcrooner
07-30-2010, 11:50 PM
^yes and unecesary with the vertical Divisions thing, you dont have many nmoney right now'? ok you buy worse players and get relegted but you will be able to go on watching bsket and your team will One day be back at top flight.

Jaji
07-30-2010, 11:53 PM
What would be the purpose of that?

Jaji
07-30-2010, 11:54 PM
I was interested to see what would happen and even posed this question about a year ago or so: What if LeBron signed with a Euro team?

Geargo Wallace
07-30-2010, 11:59 PM
I was interested to see what would happen and even posed this question about a year ago or so: What if LeBron signed with a Euro team?

No.

NYKalltheway
07-31-2010, 12:03 AM
I think there's a reason why they're back in the NBA.

Not my fault that they went to the worse possible team :p

And Childress SUCKED :D

Jaji
07-31-2010, 12:13 AM
No.

Thanks for the insight :rolleyes:.

It was a hypothetical question that requires intellect and reflection, clearly not your strengths though.

NYKalltheway
07-31-2010, 12:24 AM
I was interested to see what would happen and even posed this question about a year ago or so: What if LeBron signed with a Euro team?

He probably would have won the ring he eagerly awaits to win :)
And it will mean that Europe market would open widely for NBA stars, and it would inflate it as well.

Kobe Bryant stated he wants to end his career in Italy. Can't wait to see him perform in the Euroleague.

On topic... can you honestly say that the European model is worse than the NBA with the salary cap/trades/teams relocating?

Geargo Wallace
07-31-2010, 12:24 AM
Thanks for the insight :rolleyes:.

It was a hypothetical question that requires intellect and reflection, clearly not your strengths though.

Sorry it looked more like a joke than a question. Would you rather me use a facepalm? LeBron would never sign with a Euro team. Teams here would offer more than enough money to LeBron. Not to mention the fact that black American stars find Canada too different (Chris Bosh). Its just ******** to think the best player in the world would even consider playing against inferior competition in a whole different continent. I don't even think LeBron would like to play with 10 other white dudes that can't speak English. So my answer remains NO. Happy? I know HellCrooner ain't.

NYKalltheway
07-31-2010, 12:26 AM
Sorry it looked more like a joke than a question. Would you rather me use a facepalm? LeBron would never sign with a Euro team. Teams here would offer more than enough money to LeBron. Not to mention the fact that black American stars find Canada too different (Chris Bosh). Its just ******** to think the best player in the world would even consider playing against inferior competition in a whole different continent. I don't even think LeBron would like to play with 10 other white dudes that can't speak English. So my answer remains NO. Happy? I know HellCrooner ain't.

1) What's wrong with white dudes playing basketball?:p
2) 90% at least speak English(plus 1-2 other languages)
3) There are many Americans in Europe
4) Never say never

Geargo Wallace
07-31-2010, 12:30 AM
1) What's wrong with white dudes playing basketball?:p
2) 90% at least speak English(plus 1-2 other languages)
3) There are many Americans in Europe
4) Never say never

I'm white so there's nothing wrong. But most ppl like to hang with ppl they can relate to. Boris, Sergei and Jorge aren't very relatable. Ya there's some Americans in Europe but don't act like there's the same ratio as there is in the NBA.

Also I think LeBron is fed up with playing with ****** teammates.

I'm gonna say never. I can't even see Kobe doing it either. It's just more blah blah blah coming from him. I guess he wants Italy to like him since Philadelphia doesn't.

Jaji
07-31-2010, 12:44 AM
Sorry it looked more like a joke than a question. Would you rather me use a facepalm? LeBron would never sign with a Euro team. Teams here would offer more than enough money to LeBron. Not to mention the fact that black American stars find Canada too different (Chris Bosh). Its just ******** to think the best player in the world would even consider playing against inferior competition in a whole different continent. I don't even think LeBron would like to play with 10 other white dudes that can't speak English. So my answer remains NO. Happy? I know HellCrooner ain't.

The money would be the same. Obviously he wouldn't go if the money wasn't right. Do you remember the Rocket Ismail turning down being the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft to go to the CFL? Besides, the majority of LeBron's money comes from endorsements. Playing overseas would just make him even more marketable- globally. But we can tell what country you're from and have probably spent 100% of your life in.

Oh, and "No" as an answer makes no sense at all to that question. But you can probably look in the mirror and say it and it would make a lot more sense.

NYKalltheway
07-31-2010, 12:45 AM
I'm white so there's nothing wrong. But most ppl like to hang with ppl they can relate to. Boris, Sergei and Jorge aren't very relatable. Ya there's some Americans in Europe but don't act like there's the same ratio as there is in the NBA.

Also I think LeBron is fed up with playing with ****** teammates.

I'm gonna say never. I can't even see Kobe doing it either. It's just more blah blah blah coming from him. I guess he wants Italy to like him since Philadelphia doesn't.

Italians are not sheep. They don't need words of promise etc. They will like him WHEN he goes there. Till then, it's gonna be the same feeling as everyone else.

I don't think many expected Byron Scott to finish his career in Greece.

NYKalltheway
07-31-2010, 12:49 AM
On topic... can you honestly say that the European model is worse than the NBA with the salary cap/trades/teams relocating?
:rolleyes:

AI4MVP
07-31-2010, 01:14 AM
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Weeducatekids
07-31-2010, 02:09 AM
Seems like a lot of work to fix a system that imo is not that broken. its nice to have two different system. europe has its way and we have our way. For the most part the talent still rises to the top and teams are able to draft them in a reasonable way. I cant complain

Hellcrooner
07-31-2010, 02:56 AM
mmm an interesting fact to ponder.

Nba Draft, Salary cap, max salaryas, obligation to trad eplayers or picks for other players i s something that the league does in theory to avoid bigger markets geting all the god players and so having a balanced championship where everybody has a chance to win.

Europe does not have such a system and its based on free market , ofer and demmand, bigher bugets and trading payers for money to invest in other players.

Ok lets do a comparison .

How many different cahmpions have Euroleague and Nba had in the last 30 seasons (80-81 Until 09-10)


Nba . CHampions .

Lakers .: 8
Bulls 6
Spurs 4
Celtics 4
Pistons3
Rockets 2
Heat 1
Sixers 1

thats just 8 differente champions with 4 of them gathering 75% of the rings and one of them having lik 33% of them.

Euroleague.
CHampions

Barelona.2
Panatinaikos5
Cska2
Macabbi4
Kider bologna2
Zalgiris
Olympiakos
Real Madrid
Jouventut
Limoges
Partizan
Yougoplastika3
Tracer Milan 2
Cibona2
Banco Roma
Ford Cantu2


thats 16 teams TWICE the amount than nba champions and wich the leaders ahving many less rings than laers in the same period.

Its important to note that oympiakos has the biggest budget in all europe year after year after year. and only once have they won the thing.

So one woudl say all those measures nba takes do nort really fgrant the ecua chance for all times.

Maybe free market woudl?

Becks2307
07-31-2010, 03:02 AM
Relegation would be extremely interesting in the NBA, no more tanking at all. But i like the american system, keep it as it is. We need variety in life.

Hellcrooner
07-31-2010, 03:09 AM
Relegation would be extremely interesting in the NBA, no more tanking at all. But i like the american system, keep it as it is. We need variety in life.

not to mention with say 3 vertical divisions around 72 cities woudl have their nba team wich theyll could relate to forever cheer when they are up nd cheer when they hit rock bottom beause they can go back to first flight with effeort instead of seing the franhise be moved.

NYKalltheway
07-31-2010, 04:05 AM
Partizan is the best "feeder" team in Europe. Always renews its team with local talent and every year 1-2 of their best players move to richer clubs.

I'm gonna add the Final Four appearances to Hellcrooner's post(from 1987-88 till now):

Maccambi Tel Aviv (Israel) 10
Panathinaikos (Greece) 9
Yugoplastika (former Yugoslavia/Croatia) 3
Barcelona (Spain) 11
Real Madrid (Spain) 3
CSKA Moscow (Russia) 10
Olympiakos (Greece) 6
Virtus Bologna (Italy) 3
Partizan (Serbia) 4
Joventut Badalona (Spain) 2
Limoges (France) 3
Olimpia Milano (Italy) 2
Zalgiris (Lithuania) 1
Benetton Treviso (Italy) 4
Tau Ceramica/Caja Laboral (Spain) 4
Fortitudo Bologna (Italy) 2
Siena (Italy) 3
Aris (Greece) 3
PAOK (Greece) 1
Olimpia Ljubljana (Slovenia) 1
AEK (Greece) 1
Efes Pilsen (Turkey) 2
Unicaja Malaga (Spain) 1
Scavolini Pesaro (Italy) 1
Estudiantes (Spain) 1
Lyon-Villeurbaunne (France) 1

That's 26 teams in 23 years, with 16 different winners. Most teams participating in a competition are 32, and they change according to domestic championship.

NBA Finals(and Conference finals) in the same time:

Los Angeles Lakers 11
Chicago Bulls 8
Detroit Pistons 10
Houston Rockets 3
Utah Jazz 6
Seattle Supersonics 2
Minnesota Timberwolves 1
New York Knicks 4
Indiana Pacers 6
San Antonio Spurs 5
Boston Celtics 4
Orlando Magic 3
Cleveland Cavaliers 2
Milwaukee Bucks 1
Phoenix Suns 6
Portland Trail Blazers 5
Dallas Mavericks 3
Denver Nuggets 1
New Jersey Nets 2
Philadelphia 76ers 1


20 teams out of 30(around). Similar values, given that Europe has renewable teams with its setup.

In the NBA there are short-term dynasties, while in Europe there's rarely back-to-back wins.

Pretty much the same in this aspect. I think the NBA would thrive if it used the European transfers model. It would create more competition, and instantly.

Hellcrooner
07-31-2010, 11:56 AM
Partizan is the best "feeder" team in Europe. Always renews its team with local talent and every year 1-2 of their best players move to richer clubs.

I'm gonna add the Final Four appearances to Hellcrooner's post(from 1987-88 till now):

Maccambi Tel Aviv (Israel) 10
Panathinaikos (Greece) 9
Yugoplastika (former Yugoslavia/Croatia) 3
Barcelona (Spain) 11
Real Madrid (Spain) 3
CSKA Moscow (Russia) 10
Olympiakos (Greece) 6
Virtus Bologna (Italy) 3
Partizan (Serbia) 4
Joventut Badalona (Spain) 2
Limoges (France) 3
Olimpia Milano (Italy) 2
Zalgiris (Lithuania) 1
Benetton Treviso (Italy) 4
Tau Ceramica/Caja Laboral (Spain) 4
Fortitudo Bologna (Italy) 2
Siena (Italy) 3
Aris (Greece) 3
PAOK (Greece) 1
Olimpia Ljubljana (Slovenia) 1
AEK (Greece) 1
Efes Pilsen (Turkey) 2
Unicaja Malaga (Spain) 1
Scavolini Pesaro (Italy) 1
Estudiantes (Spain) 1
Lyon-Villeurbaunne (France) 1

That's 26 teams in 23 years, with 16 different winners. Most teams participating in a competition are 32, and they change according to domestic championship.

NBA Finals(and Conference finals) in the same time:

Los Angeles Lakers 11
Chicago Bulls 8
Detroit Pistons 10
Houston Rockets 3
Utah Jazz 6
Seattle Supersonics 2
Minnesota Timberwolves 1
New York Knicks 4
Indiana Pacers 6
San Antonio Spurs 5
Boston Celtics 4
Orlando Magic 3
Cleveland Cavaliers 2
Milwaukee Bucks 1
Phoenix Suns 6
Portland Trail Blazers 5
Dallas Mavericks 3
Denver Nuggets 1
New Jersey Nets 2
Philadelphia 76ers 1


20 teams out of 30(around). Similar values, given that Europe has renewable teams with its setup.

In the NBA there are short-term dynasties, while in Europe there's rarely back-to-back wins.

Pretty much the same in this aspect. I think the NBA would thrive if it used the European transfers model. It would create more competition, and instantly.

we got also to fator that regerdless the market EVERY nba team has a MILLIONARE as owner so they an spend enough i to get competitive.
IN europe teams relay a lot on sponsors and tickets to make their budget.

Oh and bout market thats another funny things.
One of the strongest contenders in Euroleague ias Tau vitoria.
Talk bout small market 160000 Inhabitants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

daleja424
07-31-2010, 12:07 PM
this sounds like a bad idea.

I think the nba needs to SCRAP the d-league. The amount of money it costs to keep that thing running is not worth the 2 guys a year that get called up to sit in a suit on the roster. Maybe Europe doesn't realize it, but the European leagues are our minor leagues. When a guy cant make the nba or needs polishing, they go to Europe to play.

I think that we should do away with the college requirement though. There are too many people doing the one and done thing.

The system I propose is simple. After highschool you have 3 options. Enter the draft, go play in Europe to get experience, go to college (min 2 year commitment before they gain eligibility again).

The youth can be developed at the cost of Europe and the NCAA.

show34
07-31-2010, 12:28 PM
It would look good for the league to have some of its former allstars to have a league and it wont look bad on them trying to play in the nba past their prime and this league should have an age limit if the ncaa feels threatened i say the limit should be 22 people like ai shaq and a host of others can still play and be a part of something it can only bring good outta this so i say go for it where you at jerry jones mark cuban nolan ryan and the owner of the nets and all you big time media groups

dougie5627
07-31-2010, 12:32 PM
the major reason euros go to america is not the money but the talent level... the nba has far better talent and international athletes want to prove themselves on the highest level. a transfer market in which players could be bought wouldnt be a bad thing as even though players could choose to screw the team and leave for free at the end of a contract losing a player like lebron for huge amount of transfer fund could lead to other players with high potential being bought instead of having no assests. from being from a european country i like youth teams it promotes loyalty a sense of community and even youth players can go to other clubs for a fee.

lakers4sho
07-31-2010, 12:47 PM
But...no...we're Americans...our system HAS TO BE better than EVERYONE ELSE's...

xbrackattackx
07-31-2010, 01:39 PM
America is the greatest. Any other way is flawed. End thread.

NYKalltheway
07-31-2010, 05:18 PM
the major reason euros go to america is not the money but the talent level... the nba has far better talent and international athletes want to prove themselves on the highest level. a transfer market in which players could be bought wouldnt be a bad thing as even though players could choose to screw the team and leave for free at the end of a contract losing a player like lebron for huge amount of transfer fund could lead to other players with high potential being bought instead of having no assests. from being from a european country i like youth teams it promotes loyalty a sense of community and even youth players can go to other clubs for a fee.

The current generation is the last imo that has this NBA DREAM. It's the generation that grew up with Michael Jordan.
After Michael Jordan no one caught the attention of the world at that rate.
Shaquille was overhyped in Europe from 98 to 2002, then it was Lebron mania coz he was touted as new Jordan, now Kobe has risen again as the top player. Kobe is the last shot for the NBA to get in international player's minds to have this NBA dream.

Half of the players do it simply for money. A career in the NBA will generate them 10 times more money than in Europe or elsewhere.

Talent level of the NBA is indeed much better. American players are the best.
But we are talking about two different sports in a way. Americans have teams based on superstars, Europeans would rarely accept that. Even if Lebron or Kobe was in a European team, only a few coaches would accept building a team around him.

MrfadeawayJB
07-31-2010, 05:45 PM
Should the NBA follow a European model?

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

To the thread title.

European basketball is like womens basketball with a few dunks scattered in..

nanablvd
07-31-2010, 05:52 PM
The NBA dont need to follow a European model, but instead they should consider expanding their NBDL model.

thekmp211
07-31-2010, 05:53 PM
mmm an interesting fact to ponder.

Nba Draft, Salary cap, max salaryas, obligation to trad eplayers or picks for other players i s something that the league does in theory to avoid bigger markets geting all the god players and so having a balanced championship where everybody has a chance to win.

Europe does not have such a system and its based on free market , ofer and demmand, bigher bugets and trading payers for money to invest in other players.

Ok lets do a comparison .

How many different cahmpions have Euroleague and Nba had in the last 30 seasons (80-81 Until 09-10)


Nba . CHampions .

Lakers .: 8
Bulls 6
Spurs 4
Celtics 4
Pistons3
Rockets 2
Heat 1
Sixers 1

thats just 8 differente champions with 4 of them gathering 75% of the rings and one of them having lik 33% of them.

Euroleague.
CHampions

Barelona.2
Panatinaikos5
Cska2
Macabbi4
Kider bologna2
Zalgiris
Olympiakos
Real Madrid
Jouventut
Limoges
Partizan
Yougoplastika3
Tracer Milan 2
Cibona2
Banco Roma
Ford Cantu2


thats 16 teams TWICE the amount than nba champions and wich the leaders ahving many less rings than laers in the same period.

Its important to note that oympiakos has the biggest budget in all europe year after year after year. and only once have they won the thing.

So one woudl say all those measures nba takes do nort really fgrant the ecua chance for all times.

Maybe free market woudl?


it's on a different scale, though. the nba is a very closed, established market that generates hundreds of millions of dollars. comparing that to a smattering of national leagues doesn't work. the margin is also extremely exaggerated in the nba. the free market works in europe because even the richest teams dont stand to gain a ton by maintaining an enourmous budget to win. if there were no salary cap in the nba, the knicks would simply outbid teams for talent every year.

the global economic downturn has crushed the brief golden era of spending in europe. why do you think childress is coming home?

i do think this poses an interesting question though, and that is whether or not the domestic system is broken. ive long thought that the college minimum is absurd. often times 4 year college players don't learn anything. 1 year is a joke. i think there should be a system in place similar to baseball where there is a minor league professional system. its a travesty how much the ncaa makes off of college sports in general, these kids should make a little money while they hone their skills. set up some mandatory business and econ classes. but, that is a whole different story.

Geargo Wallace
07-31-2010, 06:17 PM
why do I look like the bad guy?

NYKalltheway
07-31-2010, 06:20 PM
Should the NBA follow a European model?

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

To the thread title.

European basketball is like womens basketball with a few dunks scattered in..

1) The title does not suggest to change the NBA and make it less entertaining(as you seem to believe dunking=entertainment) It's about the model, the organization...
2) European basketball is entering the world of the NBA and in a few years it might even dominate it, by having the best NBA players coming from Europe
3) Fans in Europe have way better time than fans in the NBA. You can simply youtube that and you'll realise what I'm talking about.

lakers4sho
07-31-2010, 11:44 PM
no use talking to them man

Gators123
07-31-2010, 11:52 PM
1) The title does not suggest to change the NBA and make it less entertaining(as you seem to believe dunking=entertainment) It's about the model, the organization...
2) European basketball is entering the world of the NBA and in a few years it might even dominate it, by having the best NBA players coming from Europe
3) Fans in Europe have way better time than fans in the NBA. You can simply youtube that and you'll realise what I'm talking about.

That's your biased opinion.

NYKalltheway
08-01-2010, 04:16 AM
That's your biased opinion.

That's mostly a general opinion.
Maybe they don't "have a better time" but they create better atmosphere. NBA fans don't create any atmosphere unless it's playoffs and still they have little to offer. (eg De-fense or let's go "team x"... :p)

A lot of players would prefer to play in top European clubs than the NBA for its atmosphere, but that's something you can't change in the States. It's how people are.
People go to games to relax in the NBA. In Europe they go to have fun, make a fuss. People DON'T SIT in Europe. They don't want to sit! What does that tell you? When do you see fans not sitting in the NBA? After a great moment right? ;)
Games are too intense in Europe to sit down. And fans are part of the spectacle, not sit & watch. That makes it better. In Europe every basket is worth celebration. I haven't seen any neutral going to a game and leaving in disappointment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4FpOJc8Dss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bXAc2T1iU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtQAJH_JoXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3KqUCwVDUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48hieuh5va4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59nc7RSbo_0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iikLw64nV7s

I can easily find at least 200 more. These are more than enough to see what's going on.

You can't be serious about what you said. I can't even find 3 videos of NBA fans... They're not part of the game. In Europe they're essential. You can't play with such noise against you. That's home team advantage :)

jmtapia
08-01-2010, 05:13 AM
it will never happen, there would be lesser talented players playing in smaller cities. for example, there's no way my Milwaukee/Wisconsin Bucks could compete with the Chicago/Illinois Bulls...

There's a reason European players want to come play in the NBA, not other way around...

GM???

...drafting?? fa?? trading??

knickfan33
08-01-2010, 06:54 AM
i followed a european model.... she now has a restraining order

NYKalltheway
08-01-2010, 01:49 PM
How about a league with 40 teams, 4 divisions of 10 teams. (could also be 8 of 5 and top 2 earn playoff spot, but seems quite unfair to me) 8 best teams from each conference(2 divisons) get to play in the conference playoffs just like the situation is now
Play twice against teams from other divisions, and three times against teams of own division(5 more home games for each team, not absolutely random selection). Total 87 games. That should cover a lot of the cost

So you get 10 more cities to have NBA teams using the expansion draft, plus a larger draft pool with 1-2 more picks for new teams). I don't think there's an NBA owner who is not spending big, so there's no problem of major markets being dominant all the time. Sure, they'll have an advantage, but not forever, and teams could be achieve their goals faster and more effectively. So fans will watch what they want to and won't need to wait for a disastrous season to get a good prospect etc.

So Seattle, St.Louis, San Francisco, San Diego, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Nashville, Louisville, Kansas City and maybe Austin...
Survival of the fittest, no relocations(except Sonics back to Seattle and Oklahoma have a new team or something)
These teams could buy out players from the existing teams.

So for example new San Francisco team buys Kevin Durant for $70m and new Nashville team buys Dwight Howard for $110m let's say. They will still have their expansion and normal draft picks, and the other teams will not lose them for nothing or for scrubs but for money, which they could use to buy a great replacement(let's say Carmelo Anthony) or, they could decide to simply cash in and use that money somewhere else and get a cheaper replacement.

The NBA would thrive under this model imo, but they need more teams to maximize the potential.
Trading players is like using them as marbles or cards.

GAWDtv
08-02-2010, 01:27 PM
Because B-Ball is global. European teams are now competing with NBA saleries and attracting players out of the US. As the Chinese league grows, and revinues increase, they will attract more talent away from the NBA. The world is Global, the NBA should follw suite and develop talent. Instead of paying all the money to the cream, trickle some down to the crop and grow the grassroots talent. The Knicks can sell a 15 year old to a European team and give him a great opperrtunity while taping into a new revenue stream. Euro Football is the original blueprint and the US neglected to recognize the value of grassroots development when creating their pro-sports. Amature sports should be the foundation of the pro leagues. Instead of giving back for tax breaks they should focus and adapt a amature b-ball model for US/Canadian (Toronto having an entire country to pool) grassroots basketball development.

Team USA saw the need to step up their develpoment model and the NBA/NCAA/AAU should follow suit.

ValuePick
08-02-2010, 07:15 PM
I'm admittedly ignorant to how the European model goes, but from what I gather (I'll use an American example) the Milwaukee Bucks would scout and sign players from their area to their camps from the age of around 12 and on all the way through to the pro level?

5ass
08-02-2010, 07:36 PM
:up:
i followed a european model.... she now has a restraining order

billyocean15
08-02-2010, 07:42 PM
The Euro League: Where players (old and young) go to rot away into obscurity and try to make an extra buck. Much like the MLS

NYKalltheway
08-02-2010, 07:44 PM
I'm admittedly ignorant to how the European model goes, but from what I gather (I'll use an American example) the Milwaukee Bucks would scout and sign players from their area to their camps from the age of around 12 and on all the way through to the pro level?


Could happen as well. There are some rules about poaching players and ages.
for example there's this upcoming Greek super talent, Linos Chrysikopoulos, who is turning 18 in December. He's not allowed to sign a professional contract with any team until he turns 18. Half of Europe will try to poach him when he does.

Using the Bucks as an example, being the only NBA team in Wisconsin, and given that the USA has more potential basketball players than the whole of Europe, they could set up PERMANENT camps all over the place.

So Wisconsin has around 6-7(random number) towns with quite enough population. They set up a camp in each of these towns, and maybe 2-3 in Milwaukee being the main city of interest. Kids sign up and play basketball. If they're good after the age of 16-18, they could be promoted to the first team, have practice sessions with the Bucks senior team(or simply the Bucks) , instead of playing against other juniors who are inferior they'll have the chance to compete against great players.

Parents/kids pay subscription, so it's running against the team. Instead of playing in a park/court with strangers from the neighborhood, wouldn't they prefer to send them some place safe with professional trainers and a bunch of kids their age?
U12(example for low age) academies which would be strictly for leisure, but also usually the beginning of the whole process.

The state of Wisconsin could as well fund camps of their own, or private camps could be created, which would promote basketball and develop young players so they'll have a chance to play for the Bucks.

So let's say the Milwaukee Bucks scout a tournament where a youth Clippers side and a youth Grizzlies side are involved, and see 1-2 players they like. They would approach the player's team and ask for his rights(to buy him out). The Clippers might refuse to do so, but then the Bucks say they would give them $500.000 for that kid. Then the Clippers would accept, and it's up to the player if he's going to Milwaukee (there's the parents factor etc at such young age and the fact that the player has to change schools)

This way, everyone who wants to play basketball gets the chance to, and in all cases their talent is reviewed by NBA scouts and the opinion of their coach will count a lot as the coaches are franchise employees as well.

Also, most important, the team actually gets money in return instead of bad players with terrible contracts forced upon them.

Still going with the Bucks, I hear that Michael Redd is not needed that much anymore following his injury and the Bucks look to offload him. The European way would be transfer list him, name an asking price(let's say $3m since his condition is not good) and a team would be willing to pay that amount + the player's re-negotiated contract with the new team. The Bucks would have one bad contract off their books + $3m to spend as they please.

It goes way more deep than this tbh.

ValuePick
08-02-2010, 08:19 PM
So in Europe are players typically on the hometown teams or do the major markets/most successful operations dominate?

For example, I tried to make a Milwaukee Bucks Euro model team and they wouldn't compete well with the NBA.

The team could be:
Devin Harris
Wes Matthews
Caron Butler
Carl Landry
Mike Dunleavy Jr.
and a bunch of borderline NBA players like Travis Diener, Steve Novak, Marcus Landry, Brian Butch.

This looks like a team that would be relegated to the lower division, I guess I'm not really sure how that all works in Europe either.

rabzouz 96
08-02-2010, 08:51 PM
the european model is horrible, i have no idea why anybody would want to develop players like that. club policy interferes with developing the players properly. its a big problem in germany for example, where young players have a hard time getting on the court and theres not much new talent thats properly developed. american system is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better.

edit: wrong thread -.- american free agency system is still better.

NYKalltheway
08-02-2010, 09:02 PM
Well, Europe is not one country, it's over 50, and around 30 of them have professional basketball leagues.

Each country has different rules.

Greece limits squads to 6 foreigners, and at most 3 of them being non Bosman(google it if you want, it's an interesting rule about contracts) nations. Which means European Union(25 countries) plus everyone else who is considered a Bosman nation.
Spain has no foreigners limit.

So a Spanish team, let's say Joventut Badalona, who is in a small market, could have 4-5 homegrown players and 2-3 low budget players from the States, maybe undrafted college kids, and complete their roster with Spanish players from smaller "market" teams and a couple of foreigners who would prefer to play in the Spanish League rather than Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia etc.

While Greek teams, have to have 6-9 Greek players, from whatever youth ranks. So they have to breed their own kind instead of import it. Then they could sign 3 American players from colleges or from other teams and complete their 15man roster with 3 other players, maybe 1 from Russia, 1 from Latvia and 1 from Bosnia. Greek teams are also allowed to have 15 Greeks,there's no rule that makes you have foreigners, and there's no rule that forces you to use your homegrown players either(UEFA, the European football committee is now forcing that)

Those players you've stated, those would most certainly be part of the youth development project of Milwaukee. The Bucks could easily bring over 3-4 better players from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or wherever, as well as lose let's say Devin Harris who would want to be transfered to the Pacers for example.

European teams usually have their young players locked until age 18.
After that, the player either signs with his team, the team that brought him up as a player, if the team wants to of course, or he goes to the highest bidder. (when people turn 18, their contracts are unprotected and a small fine is paid to their teams if they sign elsewhere) There are many ways to protect these contracts.
Some countries force contracts on youth members when they turn 18.

eg.
John Wall would probably have been a Charlotte Bobcats player. The Timberwolves could approach the Bobcats and make a bid of $20m for him + give them Johnny Flynn(to negotiate a new contract with).

It's really simple stuff.

ValuePick
08-02-2010, 09:30 PM
It sounds like the Euro model would work pretty well in the NBA. I've thought about what basketball would be like here under that system when discussions come up about the NBA going global. I figured fan support would be higher if American players stayed here and international players played in Europe and China.

Unfortunately I don't think it could ever happen here due to the giant cash cow that is NCAA basketball.

NYKalltheway
08-11-2010, 05:53 PM
*** Warning LONG POST ***


Found this article, I think it's good enough to analyze it in a more American way(compares European football with NFL). In bold are worth-mentioning phrases from the article.

European Soccer: The Last Bastion of Free-Market Capitalism?

“A distinction should be made that [American] football is democratic capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist [sport].”

—Jack Kemp

It is fashionable among conservative circles to bash soccer as a socialist sport, because after all it is "European" and we all know those Europeans are nothing more than a bunch of big fat socialists.

Socialist, the words itself, has always seemed to be a buzz word for the American right, few of whom realize what it actually means.

However, as conservative as we might think, we are as a nation or in terms of our economic policies, there is one place where true capitalism reigns supreme.

Top flight professional European soccer.

Not only is European soccer played at the highest levels as capitalistic, but American professional sports, and in particular the Holy Grail of all that is truly American, the National Football league is in fact...

...socialism.

Oh No! Not, El-Rush-Beau's favorite sport. The opiate of the masses every Sunday in the fall is one of the world's biggest socialist enterprises.

Look at professional sports, each team is in fact a business who exists to make money for their owners.

Capitalist theory tells us that the teams who make money do so by being successful, by investing in capital expenditures (in this case players), because it is human nature that people love winners. Winners sell tickets, beer, concessions and merchandise, which put money in their team's coffers.

If professional sports teams are businesses, then the leagues they are a part of are the governing bodies (or the government if you will), whose job it to regulate the commerce within the league? In this case the National Football League and English Premier League in fact act as a government.

How then is the NFL socialist and the major European soccer leagues capitalist?

There are four major factors that account for this paradox (with thanks to University of Houston business professor Sergei Boukhonine).

1. Salary Caps and Free Trade

"Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."

-Milton Friedman

For the past 15 years the NFL has restricted free markets by engaging in a salary cap, which is the antithesis of free market economics.

In a free market, the market that decides worth through supply and demand.

For example if the market bears that an employee or capital expenditure (depending on how you want to view a player) is worth a certain amount then a business will pay that to acquire that player's services.

Except in the NFL, where teams can only spend a set amount on players thus meaning the governing body not the market decides the worth of a player. This because teams can only spent a set amount on player salaries.

Even more socialistic is the reasoning behind salary caps, it makes the sport more competitive. In other words, "It's not fair that all the rich teams get the best players."

European soccer has no such restrictions and the free market reigns supreme. If Manchester United wants to pay one million Euros’s a week (1.3 million) for Cristiano Ronaldo, so be it.

Sure many soccer fans in England complained when Russian oil billionaire, Roman Abramovich, "bought his titles" at Chelsea, but nobody in the EPL ever asked for the rules of commerce in English soccer to be changed.

Why not you might ask? Free trade or in soccer terms, transfer fees.

If Chelsea "bought" their championships through acquiring players from other clubs, which means someone profited from Abramovich's spending.

Why are the "lesser clubs" in England (even in the Premiership) don't complain about the big club's spending? Because they are making money.

In the NFL you would never see the Vikings sell Adrian Peterson to the Giants for $25 million, however earlier this season Manchester City paid nearly $40 million for Robhino.

The NFL tightly controls the movement of players through trade restrictions (often based on the salary cap) and free agency.

However, in European soccer employees may be bought and sold (and well compensated as well) almost at will.


2. Revenue Sharing


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

-Karl Marx

Marx made this statement in 1875; however, it could have just as easily been made by any NFL executive.

One of the things that former NFL Commissioner, Pete Rozelle, did that was so "revolutionary" was to pool all of the revenue made by every team and divide it equally with no bias.

This is why the Detroit Lions, Cincinnati Bengals, and until last season Arizona Cardinals were so dreadfully bad for so long. They didn't have to be successful in order to succeed.

Financially speaking, the winless Detroit Lions received as much gross revenue for the 2008 season as the Super Bowl Champion Steelers.

This should be even more despicable any believer of free markets. The Steelers have been, both financially and competitively, one of the NFL's best franchises over the past four decades, while the Detroit Lion's have been the NFL's worst.

Rozelle's theory behind revenue sharing wasn't only that every team should profit but also that revenue sharing promoted parity, meaning that if every team has the same amount of money then every team can afford good players.

The parity theory believes, if one or two teams dominate every year, it's bad for the league. The good of the league over the good of the individual owner, that is just about the definition of not only Socialism but...Communism.

If professional sports are indeed an industry (and they most certainly are) then name another industry that operates in America, where competitors are made to pool their revenues and each company is guaranteed an equal share?

For years Toyota, Nissan, and Honda have been building and selling cars in the U.S that people want to buy, while Detroit's "big three" have been struggling in the marketplace.

Does anyone honestly think the U.S Department of Commerce should force the Japanese auto makers to "share revenues" with competitors just so the big three can compete in the market?

No! BUT the NFL does, and by any name, it's socialistic.

Aside from T.V revenue negotiated by the leagues themselves, European soccer has no such revenue sharing.

For example, in the NFL, if you buy a Ben Roethlisberger jersey for $100, the NFL might make $32 in licensing fees with $1 going to the Steelers but that same amount also goes to the Bengals as well.

On the other hand if you buy a Wayne Rooney jersey for $75, Manchester United pockets all of the $32 in licensing fees.

If a team plays in the prestigious UEFA European Champions League, then that's an extra $2-to-10 million dollar (U.S) payout, based on how far the team advances, that is pocketed solely by the team as a reward, for their excellence that season.

There is nothing more capitalistic than that.

3. Player Drafts

"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason."

-Ayn Rand

Player drafts are nothing more than a means of equalizing outcomes by allowing underperforming teams to acquire resources at below market value.

In layman's terms, if your favorite NFL team sucks, they can pick a good college player, who might make a great pro, and for at least three years have his salary locked in because no other team can hire him away on the free market.

Take for example the aforementioned Adrian Peterson, the best running back in the NFL.

Just because the Minnesota Vikings were terrible in 2006, they gained the right to a high draft pick. They chose Peterson and signed him to a deal making around $8 million a year.

Not only that but because Peterson is not yet a free agent, he cannot get more than that $8 million price tag (unless the Vikings choose to give him a raise), even if his value on the free market might be closer to $15 million.

Peterson in worth the football free agency, however because of the draft and free agency rules, the Vikings will get his rights for three years at below market value.

For the most part in all American professional sports (even MLS) this is how teams acquire young players. Rewarding failure and punishing success.

In Europe on the other hand young players are acquired two ways. They are either developed by "youth systems" or are bought from other teams.

For example, England's brightest young star, Theo Walcott, entered the training program at Championship club Southampton at age 14, broke into the senior team at 16, and at 17 was sold to London glamour club, Arsenal.

This produced a win-win situation. Southampton got a much needed payment of around $12 million dollars and Arsenal got the next great star.

In both cases, hard work was rewarded. Southampton identified a top young player. Southampton developed him effectively then sold his rights at a profit to a team with money from past successes.

4. Relegation and the Champions League

"Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game."

-Donald Trump

Any conservative scholar or media mouthpiece will tell you that life in life there are winners and there are losers.

In our capitalist system, some people end up being doctors living in a mansion and driving a BMW, and others are on welfare living in a trailer park.

The lover of capitalism will tell you, that system of economics rewards success and punishes failure. If you have a talent, you can market this society. You get paid if you win and don't lose.

This is the reality of life in America, except in professional sports.

In professional sports, if you lose there is no penalty. The next season you are right 0-0, forgiven of past mistakes and given a bailout by the league.

The Bengals have been bad since Tim Krumrie snapped his leg in Super Bowl XXIII and the Lions haven't won a conference championship in half a century, yet any punishment.

In the NFL, NHL, NBA, and Major League Baseball you can be bad for seemingly ever and regardless, even if you're the L.A Clippers, Chicago Blackhawks, or Kansas City Royals. In fact, you will actually get rewarded with a high draft pick and revenue sharing for failure.

However, in that socialistic bastion of Europe, in the "socialist sport" or soccer, if you finish at the bottom of the top division, you actually are punished.

The concept of relegation is foreign to Americans, but in England if you finish in spots 18-through-20 in the 20 team Premier League you will find yourself in English soccer's equivalent of AAA baseball, and three teams from the second division will be in the Premiership the following year.

Imagine if you will the Cincinnati Reds, the oldest team in Major League Baseball. You finished last in the N.L Central and found them replaced by the Louisville Bats or Scranton-Wilks Barre Yankees.

European soccer rewards success and punishes failure through relegation, while American sports reward failure and aside from a trophy and bragging rights, winners see no other rewards.

Aside from a fraction-like bonus players receive, the Steelers gained no additional money for winning the Super Bowl, and nor did the Celtics, the Phillies, or the Red Wings for winning their respective championships.

Europe has own version of the Super Bowl is called the UEFA Champions League. A yearlong competition where the top teams in Europe compete as a reward for a successful season in their previous year’s domestic league.

The Champions League is a big deal and to put it into perspective, this year around 100 million people watched Super Bowl XLIII. This is half of the number of fans who watched the Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea. This is a conservative number.

For winning the English Premier League last season, Manchester United took home over $33 million U.S. and another $10 million for winning the UEFA Champions League.

This is money straight to Manchester United not to be shared with anybody; even the three other English teams who didn't win the Champions League took home a minimum of $3.6 million U.S.



The general perception of soccer as socialistic seems to now be based solely in bias and pseudo-xenophobia because in terms of pure socialism as represented in sports Americans need to look no further than their own beloved sports.

(http://bleacherreport.com/articles/153183-the-last-bastion-of-free-market-capitalism-european-soccer)



Here's another one:
(http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2053)

Malcolm Gladwell came in for a lot of surprisingly intense criticism after his most recent story went to press. The premise — that underdogs should opt for more extreme strategies — was illustrated in part by a tale about a girls youth basketball team that beat more talented squads by ruthlessly deploying a full court press. Every basketball nut in the land, seemingly, had an issue with the piece. I don’t really get it; Gladwell’s just out there to make you think, and his broader point — that underdogs are generally far too risk averse — strikes me as absolutely true.

Anyway, the story gets mentioned some in this fun email exchange between Gladwell and ESPN’s Bill Simmons. But I particularly liked another part of the conversation, where Gladwell writes:

The consistent failure of underdogs in professional sports to even try something new suggests, to me, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the incentive structure of the leagues. I think, for example, that the idea of ranking draft picks in reverse order of finish — as much as it sounds “fair” — does untold damage to the game. You simply cannot have a system that rewards anyone, ever, for losing. Economists worry about this all the time, when they talk about “moral hazard.” Moral hazard is the idea that if you insure someone against risk, you will make risky behavior more likely. So if you always bail out the banks when they take absurd risks and do stupid things, they are going to keep on taking absurd risks and doing stupid things. Bailouts create moral hazard. Moral hazard is also why your health insurance has a co-pay. If your insurer paid for everything, the theory goes, it would encourage you to go to the doctor when you really don’t need to. No economist in his right mind would ever endorse the football and basketball drafts the way they are structured now. They are a moral hazard in spades. If you give me a lottery pick for being an atrocious GM, where’s my incentive not to be an atrocious GM?

I have to say that one of the most disappointing things about sports in America is that none of the major team sports leagues follows the kind of radical libertarian set-up seen in, say, continental soccer leagues. For some reason, Americans feel the need to regulate their professional leagues within an inch of their lives — strict rules on entry and relocation, no relegation or promotion, wholesale redistribution of resources, strict limits on pay and payroll. Where’s the fun in that?

Rather than spending their money on ads fighting transit investments, libertarian organizations should focus their efforts on making at least one professional league in this country like a European soccer league.

Hellcrooner
08-11-2010, 06:46 PM
*** Warning LONG POST ***


Found this article, I think it's good enough to analyze it in a more American way(compares European football with NFL). In bold are worth-mentioning phrases from the article.

European Soccer: The Last Bastion of Free-Market Capitalism?

“A distinction should be made that [American] football is democratic capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist [sport].”

—Jack Kemp

It is fashionable among conservative circles to bash soccer as a socialist sport, because after all it is "European" and we all know those Europeans are nothing more than a bunch of big fat socialists.

Socialist, the words itself, has always seemed to be a buzz word for the American right, few of whom realize what it actually means.

However, as conservative as we might think, we are as a nation or in terms of our economic policies, there is one place where true capitalism reigns supreme.

Top flight professional European soccer.

Not only is European soccer played at the highest levels as capitalistic, but American professional sports, and in particular the Holy Grail of all that is truly American, the National Football league is in fact...

...socialism.

Oh No! Not, El-Rush-Beau's favorite sport. The opiate of the masses every Sunday in the fall is one of the world's biggest socialist enterprises.

Look at professional sports, each team is in fact a business who exists to make money for their owners.

Capitalist theory tells us that the teams who make money do so by being successful, by investing in capital expenditures (in this case players), because it is human nature that people love winners. Winners sell tickets, beer, concessions and merchandise, which put money in their team's coffers.

If professional sports teams are businesses, then the leagues they are a part of are the governing bodies (or the government if you will), whose job it to regulate the commerce within the league? In this case the National Football League and English Premier League in fact act as a government.

How then is the NFL socialist and the major European soccer leagues capitalist?

There are four major factors that account for this paradox (with thanks to University of Houston business professor Sergei Boukhonine).

1. Salary Caps and Free Trade

"Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."

-Milton Friedman

For the past 15 years the NFL has restricted free markets by engaging in a salary cap, which is the antithesis of free market economics.

In a free market, the market that decides worth through supply and demand.

For example if the market bears that an employee or capital expenditure (depending on how you want to view a player) is worth a certain amount then a business will pay that to acquire that player's services.

Except in the NFL, where teams can only spend a set amount on players thus meaning the governing body not the market decides the worth of a player. This because teams can only spent a set amount on player salaries.

Even more socialistic is the reasoning behind salary caps, it makes the sport more competitive. In other words, "It's not fair that all the rich teams get the best players."

European soccer has no such restrictions and the free market reigns supreme. If Manchester United wants to pay one million Euros’s a week (1.3 million) for Cristiano Ronaldo, so be it.

Sure many soccer fans in England complained when Russian oil billionaire, Roman Abramovich, "bought his titles" at Chelsea, but nobody in the EPL ever asked for the rules of commerce in English soccer to be changed.

Why not you might ask? Free trade or in soccer terms, transfer fees.

If Chelsea "bought" their championships through acquiring players from other clubs, which means someone profited from Abramovich's spending.

Why are the "lesser clubs" in England (even in the Premiership) don't complain about the big club's spending? Because they are making money.

In the NFL you would never see the Vikings sell Adrian Peterson to the Giants for $25 million, however earlier this season Manchester City paid nearly $40 million for Robhino.

The NFL tightly controls the movement of players through trade restrictions (often based on the salary cap) and free agency.

However, in European soccer employees may be bought and sold (and well compensated as well) almost at will.


2. Revenue Sharing


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

-Karl Marx

Marx made this statement in 1875; however, it could have just as easily been made by any NFL executive.

One of the things that former NFL Commissioner, Pete Rozelle, did that was so "revolutionary" was to pool all of the revenue made by every team and divide it equally with no bias.

This is why the Detroit Lions, Cincinnati Bengals, and until last season Arizona Cardinals were so dreadfully bad for so long. They didn't have to be successful in order to succeed.

Financially speaking, the winless Detroit Lions received as much gross revenue for the 2008 season as the Super Bowl Champion Steelers.

This should be even more despicable any believer of free markets. The Steelers have been, both financially and competitively, one of the NFL's best franchises over the past four decades, while the Detroit Lion's have been the NFL's worst.

Rozelle's theory behind revenue sharing wasn't only that every team should profit but also that revenue sharing promoted parity, meaning that if every team has the same amount of money then every team can afford good players.

The parity theory believes, if one or two teams dominate every year, it's bad for the league. The good of the league over the good of the individual owner, that is just about the definition of not only Socialism but...Communism.

If professional sports are indeed an industry (and they most certainly are) then name another industry that operates in America, where competitors are made to pool their revenues and each company is guaranteed an equal share?

For years Toyota, Nissan, and Honda have been building and selling cars in the U.S that people want to buy, while Detroit's "big three" have been struggling in the marketplace.

Does anyone honestly think the U.S Department of Commerce should force the Japanese auto makers to "share revenues" with competitors just so the big three can compete in the market?

No! BUT the NFL does, and by any name, it's socialistic.

Aside from T.V revenue negotiated by the leagues themselves, European soccer has no such revenue sharing.

For example, in the NFL, if you buy a Ben Roethlisberger jersey for $100, the NFL might make $32 in licensing fees with $1 going to the Steelers but that same amount also goes to the Bengals as well.

On the other hand if you buy a Wayne Rooney jersey for $75, Manchester United pockets all of the $32 in licensing fees.

If a team plays in the prestigious UEFA European Champions League, then that's an extra $2-to-10 million dollar (U.S) payout, based on how far the team advances, that is pocketed solely by the team as a reward, for their excellence that season.

There is nothing more capitalistic than that.

3. Player Drafts

"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason."

-Ayn Rand

Player drafts are nothing more than a means of equalizing outcomes by allowing underperforming teams to acquire resources at below market value.

In layman's terms, if your favorite NFL team sucks, they can pick a good college player, who might make a great pro, and for at least three years have his salary locked in because no other team can hire him away on the free market.

Take for example the aforementioned Adrian Peterson, the best running back in the NFL.

Just because the Minnesota Vikings were terrible in 2006, they gained the right to a high draft pick. They chose Peterson and signed him to a deal making around $8 million a year.

Not only that but because Peterson is not yet a free agent, he cannot get more than that $8 million price tag (unless the Vikings choose to give him a raise), even if his value on the free market might be closer to $15 million.

Peterson in worth the football free agency, however because of the draft and free agency rules, the Vikings will get his rights for three years at below market value.

For the most part in all American professional sports (even MLS) this is how teams acquire young players. Rewarding failure and punishing success.

In Europe on the other hand young players are acquired two ways. They are either developed by "youth systems" or are bought from other teams.

For example, England's brightest young star, Theo Walcott, entered the training program at Championship club Southampton at age 14, broke into the senior team at 16, and at 17 was sold to London glamour club, Arsenal.

This produced a win-win situation. Southampton got a much needed payment of around $12 million dollars and Arsenal got the next great star.

In both cases, hard work was rewarded. Southampton identified a top young player. Southampton developed him effectively then sold his rights at a profit to a team with money from past successes.

4. Relegation and the Champions League

"Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game."

-Donald Trump

Any conservative scholar or media mouthpiece will tell you that life in life there are winners and there are losers.

In our capitalist system, some people end up being doctors living in a mansion and driving a BMW, and others are on welfare living in a trailer park.

The lover of capitalism will tell you, that system of economics rewards success and punishes failure. If you have a talent, you can market this society. You get paid if you win and don't lose.

This is the reality of life in America, except in professional sports.

In professional sports, if you lose there is no penalty. The next season you are right 0-0, forgiven of past mistakes and given a bailout by the league.

The Bengals have been bad since Tim Krumrie snapped his leg in Super Bowl XXIII and the Lions haven't won a conference championship in half a century, yet any punishment.

In the NFL, NHL, NBA, and Major League Baseball you can be bad for seemingly ever and regardless, even if you're the L.A Clippers, Chicago Blackhawks, or Kansas City Royals. In fact, you will actually get rewarded with a high draft pick and revenue sharing for failure.

However, in that socialistic bastion of Europe, in the "socialist sport" or soccer, if you finish at the bottom of the top division, you actually are punished.

The concept of relegation is foreign to Americans, but in England if you finish in spots 18-through-20 in the 20 team Premier League you will find yourself in English soccer's equivalent of AAA baseball, and three teams from the second division will be in the Premiership the following year.

Imagine if you will the Cincinnati Reds, the oldest team in Major League Baseball. You finished last in the N.L Central and found them replaced by the Louisville Bats or Scranton-Wilks Barre Yankees.

European soccer rewards success and punishes failure through relegation, while American sports reward failure and aside from a trophy and bragging rights, winners see no other rewards.

Aside from a fraction-like bonus players receive, the Steelers gained no additional money for winning the Super Bowl, and nor did the Celtics, the Phillies, or the Red Wings for winning their respective championships.

Europe has own version of the Super Bowl is called the UEFA Champions League. A yearlong competition where the top teams in Europe compete as a reward for a successful season in their previous year’s domestic league.

The Champions League is a big deal and to put it into perspective, this year around 100 million people watched Super Bowl XLIII. This is half of the number of fans who watched the Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea. This is a conservative number.

For winning the English Premier League last season, Manchester United took home over $33 million U.S. and another $10 million for winning the UEFA Champions League.

This is money straight to Manchester United not to be shared with anybody; even the three other English teams who didn't win the Champions League took home a minimum of $3.6 million U.S.



The general perception of soccer as socialistic seems to now be based solely in bias and pseudo-xenophobia because in terms of pure socialism as represented in sports Americans need to look no further than their own beloved sports.

(http://bleacherreport.com/articles/153183-the-last-bastion-of-free-market-capitalism-european-soccer)



Here's another one:
(http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2053)

Malcolm Gladwell came in for a lot of surprisingly intense criticism after his most recent story went to press. The premise — that underdogs should opt for more extreme strategies — was illustrated in part by a tale about a girls youth basketball team that beat more talented squads by ruthlessly deploying a full court press. Every basketball nut in the land, seemingly, had an issue with the piece. I don’t really get it; Gladwell’s just out there to make you think, and his broader point — that underdogs are generally far too risk averse — strikes me as absolutely true.

Anyway, the story gets mentioned some in this fun email exchange between Gladwell and ESPN’s Bill Simmons. But I particularly liked another part of the conversation, where Gladwell writes:

The consistent failure of underdogs in professional sports to even try something new suggests, to me, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the incentive structure of the leagues. I think, for example, that the idea of ranking draft picks in reverse order of finish — as much as it sounds “fair” — does untold damage to the game. You simply cannot have a system that rewards anyone, ever, for losing. Economists worry about this all the time, when they talk about “moral hazard.” Moral hazard is the idea that if you insure someone against risk, you will make risky behavior more likely. So if you always bail out the banks when they take absurd risks and do stupid things, they are going to keep on taking absurd risks and doing stupid things. Bailouts create moral hazard. Moral hazard is also why your health insurance has a co-pay. If your insurer paid for everything, the theory goes, it would encourage you to go to the doctor when you really don’t need to. No economist in his right mind would ever endorse the football and basketball drafts the way they are structured now. They are a moral hazard in spades. If you give me a lottery pick for being an atrocious GM, where’s my incentive not to be an atrocious GM?

I have to say that one of the most disappointing things about sports in America is that none of the major team sports leagues follows the kind of radical libertarian set-up seen in, say, continental soccer leagues. For some reason, Americans feel the need to regulate their professional leagues within an inch of their lives — strict rules on entry and relocation, no relegation or promotion, wholesale redistribution of resources, strict limits on pay and payroll. Where’s the fun in that?

Rather than spending their money on ads fighting transit investments, libertarian organizations should focus their efforts on making at least one professional league in this country like a European soccer league.

good luck with that


Ive been preaching that Nba is in fact COMMUNIST and 100% opposed to waht america its supposed to be for YEARS.

Also iv ebeen telling Nba rules are BARELY legal for years
No one listens to me.

geraptor
08-11-2010, 08:53 PM
good luck with that


Ive been preaching that Nba is in fact COMMUNIST and 100% opposed to waht america its supposed to be for YEARS.

Also iv ebeen telling Nba rules are BARELY legal for years
No one listens to me.

okay first of all what is it that you want? do you want the draft pick to go to the nba champions so that they can be more dominant?
the thought behind it is actuallly that the worst team has the most playing time to offer for the best talent in the draft class.
do you want these 3-4 clubs to dominate like in europe?
do you want another real madrid throwing millions after millions around like in soccer ?
if so then you are not a fan of competitive sports

communist are you serious?
a few rules here and there as opposed to letting money dominate everything is not communism bro

NYKalltheway
08-11-2010, 09:14 PM
The situation in the USA is much more different than Europe. There's more prosperity scattered in the USA. It would work better.

Which 3-4 teams actually dominate in Europe?(basketball right?)

Barcelona? With 2 Euroleague wins in 20 years?
Panathinaikos? With 1 Euroleague in mid-90s, 2 in 3 years(2000+2002, 2007+2009)
CSKA Moscow? With 2 Euroleague wins in this decade? (2006+2008)
Maccambi Tel Aviv twice in a row? Back in 2004... where are they now?
TAU? With several F4 appearances with no titles won?

The balance in Europe SHIFTS. There are the superpowers that always will be there because they have owners & fans that want their teams to be competitive.

What did Real ever achieved by throwing millions? Selling jerseys? Coz it definitely didn't get them any championships.

In the USA there would be at least 20 teams pouring the cash in, maybe even all.
Europe has different countries, different economies, different leagues/championships, someone tends to dominate. Look at the ACB. Who dominates? Barcelona? They collapsed after their frenzy Euroleague win and were swept by Caja Laboral in the final.

When did this "super" Barcelona come from? First F4 appearance after 3 years was in 2009. 2010 they won. Does that mean they're dominant? Panathinaikos won in 2007, didn't participate in F4 of 2008, won in 2009, didn't participate in F4 2010. One of the best teams? Yes. Dominates? Not exactly.

As for the draft. Personally, I like college basketball as it's closer to European, BUT it does not work for the NBA. Not anymore. Draft/trades etc I think should all get done with. Why being the worst team in a league gives you such an advantage for next season? It's just absurd.
To some extent, it guarantees that the league will be slightly more balanced, but the major point is, the league's quality is recycled instead of improved.
How about trades? Is it honestly logical to trade contracts of players against their will, sending them across the nation(which is a similar distance from Iceland to Cyprus) just to get expiring contracts or future all-stars? I can't imagine trading Diamantidis for Rubio for example in Europe :D That would be extremely irrational. (both are top 5 point guards)

Can you imagine an NBA league where every team REALLY had a chance to win?
I guess Stern and his friends do not want that. An NBA league where teams actually make money and run themselves instead of be run by Stern and the NBA organization?

Hellcrooner
08-11-2010, 09:28 PM
not to mention ROOKIS out fom ollege woudl join the teams that OFFER them PLAYING time, and money not the contenders where they wont see the court.

geraptor
08-11-2010, 09:50 PM
i was not talking about basketball in specific and i was not talking about the european competitions like euroleague or championsleague for soccer. i agree there is a great variety of winners in these competitions
i was thinking more on a national base. coming from germany i have seen bayern münchen win like 5-6 championchips in the past ten years. not because their youth development was great or anything, but because they had the MONEY.they bought all the talent from the clubs that were close to them in the standings and just won it again.
this was one major reason for me to follow the nba because i liked the system and how all that cap thing worked.

fair enough madrid did not win anything recently but i still hate to see that much money being spent on attracting all the superstars.

dont feel too bad for nba players being traded to another city they might not like... if they dont want to play there they can not be forced to like we are seeing right now with all that chris paul fuzz.

and most importantly the draft is a great thing. i like the idea of a bad team getting talent better than the idea of some rich russian guy to buy the talent away from a poor team but again that could aswell be just me because i belive that the talent distribution is a good thing.

geraptor
08-11-2010, 09:51 PM
not to mention ROOKIS out fom ollege woudl join the teams that OFFER them PLAYING time, and money not the contenders where they wont see the court.

i am not so sure about that

Hellcrooner
08-11-2010, 11:05 PM
i was not talking about basketball in specific and i was not talking about the european competitions like euroleague or championsleague for soccer. i agree there is a great variety of winners in these competitions
i was thinking more on a national base. coming from germany i have seen bayern münchen win like 5-6 championchips in the past ten years. not because their youth development was great or anything, but because they had the MONEY.they bought all the talent from the clubs that were close to them in the standings and just won it again.
this was one major reason for me to follow the nba because i liked the system and how all that cap thing worked.

fair enough madrid did not win anything recently but i still hate to see that much money being spent on attracting all the superstars.

dont feel too bad for nba players being traded to another city they might not like... if they dont want to play there they can not be forced to like we are seeing right now with all that chris paul fuzz.

and most importantly the draft is a great thing. i like the idea of a bad team getting talent better than the idea of some rich russian guy to buy the talent away from a poor team but again that could aswell be just me because i belive that the talent distribution is a good thing.

Funny Mein Freund.
Id swear that one of the greatest and most richest citys on your country has an horrible team that never does good nd is in bundelsiga B right now.....Hertha you know?

I also remeber that one of your greatest more competitive teams is absed in a not so big MINERS town, Gelsenkirchen ( sorry for bad spelling).

I also remember soe other "poor places" winning bundesliga like Moencehngladbacj, Dortumd ( that even won champions leaguee)

and i quite remember Hamburg, Brehmen, Sttugart, Kaisrslautren, Koln winning Bundesliga too so i think its enough of variety in germany.

Of course Bayenr is a giant, but arent Lakers and celtics giants too?

jrodmesche
08-11-2010, 11:19 PM
No never

rabzouz 96
08-11-2010, 11:52 PM
not to mention ROOKIS out fom ollege woudl join the teams that OFFER them PLAYING time, and money not the contenders where they wont see the court.

so wheres the difference to now?

Hellcrooner
08-12-2010, 12:05 AM
so wheres the difference to now?

that if players can chose where to go Collison would not sign with NO, Rudy does not sign with Portland Millsap wouldt hwave signed with Utah etc etc.

Inthe end it woudl be intersting because good propsect s wouldnt go to waste because they are drafted by a team that has a star to play thir position.

geraptor
08-12-2010, 06:51 AM
Funny Mein Freund.
Id swear that one of the greatest and most richest citys on your country has an horrible team that never does good nd is in bundelsiga B right now.....Hertha you know?

I also remeber that one of your greatest more competitive teams is absed in a not so big MINERS town, Gelsenkirchen ( sorry for bad spelling).

I also remember soe other "poor places" winning bundesliga like Moencehngladbacj, Dortumd ( that even won champions leaguee)

and i quite remember Hamburg, Brehmen, Sttugart, Kaisrslautren, Koln winning Bundesliga too so i think its enough of variety in germany.

Of course Bayenr is a giant, but arent Lakers and celtics giants too?

well i have to correct you because first of all berlin is not a rich city to begin with. and also te wealth of the respective city has nothing to do with the club... i thougt you would know that

and for the variety
2000 bayern
2001 bayern
2002 dortmund
2003 bayern
2004 bremen
2005 bayern
2006 bayern
2007 stuttgart
2008 bayern
2009 wolfsburg
2010 bayern

that is beyond being a giant and more importantly every time they struggeled they went ahead and bought thr talent frpm the competition and thats just cheap you cant argue that and i hate to see it

a system that allows this .... i dont want it in the nba

NYKalltheway
08-12-2010, 07:27 AM
You seem to be missing the point.

Nobody here argues that each state should have competitions of their own and play in the NBA as an "achievement" in their state championship.

The NBA has a few teams, as many as the Champions League and Euroleague has let's say.
Those teams ALL have fanbases over the minimum needed to get their funds back.
Those teams ALL have great arenas.
Those teams ALL already have good players.

Can you tell me who's going to win the Champions League this season? Or the Euroleague? I can easily tell you that the NBA will be won by the Lakers or the Miami Heat, maybe the Celtics.

This will not transform the NBA into Germany/Italy/England etc. It will increase competition, create real fanbases and rivalries(no relocations and that sort of things) and it will allow players to play at full potential EVERY YEAR. Not perform their 110% in their final contract year so that they can get a raise or a good contract through free agency, but FEAR that they will be sent away and get less money elsewhere.

Nobody is arguing that the NBA should become a Bundesliga. We are arguing that some of its transfer policies/rules are unethical to players. And all this CBA going every few years that might cause a lockout. You think this would ever become the case in a European competition? A lockout?!?! The team that does not pay gets fined/relegated and loses lots of its players, that's what's going to happen. Not close down the league because some people don't want to pay more than they want

The NBA does not have a competitive nature. 4-5 teams compete for the NBA title, the rest either are fine as they are as medium-calibre teams and the rest are "rebuilding"(ie sucking so that they can get a good college kid)

geraptor
08-12-2010, 08:13 AM
every nba player knows that he could be traded when he signs the contract you know and i rather see that than having this eurpean system.
its easy to just list the positives of the euro system and dont get me wrong it has a lot of good parts but there are a lot of negatives aswell

for me if i want to see the european system and i dont guess what i watch european basketball its that simple. there is a reason all the major sports leagues in the us are considered the best in the world...and almost every basketball player wants to play in the nba.
it has a certain myth to it and i dont want that to change.

rabzouz 96
08-12-2010, 08:35 AM
that if players can chose where to go Collison would not sign with NO, Rudy does not sign with Portland Millsap wouldt hwave signed with Utah etc etc.

Inthe end it woudl be intersting because good propsect s wouldnt go to waste because they are drafted by a team that has a star to play thir position.

millsap could be on another team if he wanted to, but chose to resign.
those guys you named are not exactly high name players. usually the good rookie players land on a team where they can get most playing time, because those teams tend to get a bad record. stacked teams win and therefore get a very late pick, so the supreme talents dont have to rot on their bench. thats pretty fair to me.
these guys can still be on the bench in the european system if the club choses to improve the position after signing them and find themselves behind a better player.

Hellcrooner
08-12-2010, 08:54 AM
every nba player knows that he could be traded when he signs the contract you know and i rather see that than having this eurpean system.
its easy to just list the positives of the euro system and dont get me wrong it has a lot of good parts but there are a lot of negatives aswell

for me if i want to see the european system and i dont guess what i watch european basketball its that simple. there is a reason all the major sports leagues in the us are considered the best in the world...and almost every basketball player wants to play in the nba.
it has a certain myth to it and i dont want that to change.

Marketig and dollars.

NYKalltheway
08-12-2010, 09:23 AM
Also...

who else plays American football(NFL)?
who else plays Baseball? Japan?

Ice Hockey is popular in northern Europe, but it's not worth investing. Not much to come from it. Players could easily move to the States and earn their living.
Basketball is popular in southern Europe mostly,and former Soviet nations, where money is a huge problem. Only a few teams can handle big salaries.
Volleyball, handball and football(soccer) have virtually no fanbase in the States while they thrive in Europe and South America. It's also a matter of interest.

You think European players would want to leave Europe if all of them were back in Europe with huge contracts? I agree that the best players in the world are American and in the NBA, but money is what lures them. Why do you think players like Henry who could still play top flight football for at least 2 years went to the States? Because it's better? No, it's because they offer more money. Same reason why some American basketball players end their careers in Europe.

Did you know that the NBA does "not allow" EA Sports to launch a game for European basketball? Marketing is a huge concern in professional sports for the Americans. Europeans should learn a few marketing tricks from the Americans, but Americans should learn more about the European way in sports in general.

Neither system is denying players from moving around, but Europe=free, American=enslaved under a contract with the NBA, not the team, which in the end might hurt either team or player, could be both as well.

As for rivalries which I said earlier. In Europe rivalries are heated. That's because we have sports clubs mainly. Each club has 4-5 teams in different sports. Imagine the Lakers and Celtics competing against each other in NFL and MLB as well. That would heat things up, wouldn't it?

Seems like Americans do not care about their teams. They only care about what's served to them. Like Charlotte fans for example. They had the Hornets, now they have the Bobcats. Bobcats Vs Hornets? What the heck will happen? Who do you support? It just does not make any sense as a fan. But in the States, it does make sense because people do not get attached to their teams as much as every other country in the world!
If Americans really cared about their teams, they would get rid of trading/drafting etc and would start following the Europeans. It's more profitable as well, if people get to care about their teams.

Hellcrooner
08-12-2010, 09:33 AM
Also...

who else plays American football(NFL)?
who else plays Baseball? Japan?

Ice Hockey is popular in northern Europe, but it's not worth investing. Not much to come from it. Players could easily move to the States and earn their living.
Basketball is popular in southern Europe mostly,and former Soviet nations, where money is a huge problem. Only a few teams can handle big salaries.
Volleyball, handball and football(soccer) have virtually no fanbase in the States while they thrive in Europe and South America. It's also a matter of interest.

You think European players would want to leave Europe if all of them were back in Europe with huge contracts? I agree that the best players in the world are American and in the NBA, but money is what lures them. Why do you think players like Henry who could still play top flight football for at least 2 years went to the States? Because it's better? No, it's because they offer more money. Same reason why some American basketball players end their careers in Europe.

Did you know that the NBA does "not allow" EA Sports to launch a game for European basketball? Marketing is a huge concern in professional sports for the Americans. Europeans should learn a few marketing tricks from the Americans, but Americans should learn more about the European way in sports in general.

Neither system is denying players from moving around, but Europe=free, American=enslaved under a contract with the NBA, not the team, which in the end might hurt either team or player, could be both as well.

As for rivalries which I said earlier. In Europe rivalries are heated. That's because we have sports clubs mainly. Each club has 4-5 teams in different sports. Imagine the Lakers and Celtics competing against each other in NFL and MLB as well. That would heat things up, wouldn't it?

Seems like Americans do not care about their teams. They only care about what's served to them. Like Charlotte fans for example. They had the Hornets, now they have the Bobcats. Bobcats Vs Hornets? What the heck will happen? Who do you support? It just does not make any sense as a fan. But in the States, it does make sense because people do not get attached to their teams as much as every other country in the world!
If Americans really cared about their teams, they would get rid of trading/drafting etc and would start following the Europeans. It's more profitable as well, if people get to care about their teams.

worse they onlyc are bout their team if its winning, as soon as they lose the rafters are empty.

I remmebr some years ago when Atletico Madrid , a powerhouse in spain got surprosingly relegated to second division after 50 years.
Guess what , the amount of seaosn ticket holders went up to TWICE the number of them, they stayed loyal and wanted to help the team back to their place.
If there was a second division in nba and celtics or lakers fell there the team woudl need to b moved because of lack of ticket selling.

jensbalboy
08-12-2010, 12:56 PM
I think Stephon Marbury had said like a year ago that he sees the NBA going overseas. I don't think so I don't see any NBA star who has lived his whole live in the USA going overseas.Soccer is the number 1 sport overhere in Europe and I don't Think it gonna change even a NBA star comes over here. And lot of you guys think the euroleauge is full with white guys who don't speak English well that is not true over here are a lot of US basketball players the most come straight out of college!!

montazingmvp
08-12-2010, 06:14 PM
every nba player knows that he could be traded when he signs the contract you know and i rather see that than having this eurpean system.
its easy to just list the positives of the euro system and dont get me wrong it has a lot of good parts but there are a lot of negatives aswell

for me if i want to see the european system and i dont guess what i watch european basketball its that simple. there is a reason all the major sports leagues in the us are considered the best in the world...and almost every basketball player wants to play in the nba.
it has a certain myth to it and i dont want that to change.

if you're implying its because of the model they use you're are insanely wrong...the reason the nfl is the best football league in the world is because nobody else plays it, simple. in countries where it is remotely popular like germany, it wouldn't even qualify as a niche sport. its whatever could possibly be below that.

baseball, we have the best league in the world for one reason only. money. japans league doesn't attract players from puerto rico or the dominican republic and its because they don't have the money to attract these players, the mlb does. not the system. money.

basketball is the best league in the world for one reason and one reason only. the US is the only country in the world where basketball is a huge sport. everywhere else its a third tier sport or a second tier sport well below soccer.

montazingmvp
08-12-2010, 06:18 PM
Also...

who else plays American football(NFL)?
who else plays Baseball? Japan?

Ice Hockey is popular in northern Europe, but it's not worth investing. Not much to come from it. Players could easily move to the States and earn their living.
Basketball is popular in southern Europe mostly,and former Soviet nations, where money is a huge problem. Only a few teams can handle big salaries.
Volleyball, handball and football(soccer) have virtually no fanbase in the States while they thrive in Europe and South America. It's also a matter of interest.

You think European players would want to leave Europe if all of them were back in Europe with huge contracts? I agree that the best players in the world are American and in the NBA, but money is what lures them. Why do you think players like Henry who could still play top flight football for at least 2 years went to the States? Because it's better? No, it's because they offer more money. Same reason why some American basketball players end their careers in Europe.

Did you know that the NBA does "not allow" EA Sports to launch a game for European basketball? Marketing is a huge concern in professional sports for the Americans. Europeans should learn a few marketing tricks from the Americans, but Americans should learn more about the European way in sports in general.

Neither system is denying players from moving around, but Europe=free, American=enslaved under a contract with the NBA, not the team, which in the end might hurt either team or player, could be both as well.

As for rivalries which I said earlier. In Europe rivalries are heated. That's because we have sports clubs mainly. Each club has 4-5 teams in different sports. Imagine the Lakers and Celtics competing against each other in NFL and MLB as well. That would heat things up, wouldn't it?

Seems like Americans do not care about their teams. They only care about what's served to them. Like Charlotte fans for example. They had the Hornets, now they have the Bobcats. Bobcats Vs Hornets? What the heck will happen? Who do you support? It just does not make any sense as a fan. But in the States, it does make sense because people do not get attached to their teams as much as every other country in the world!
If Americans really cared about their teams, they would get rid of trading/drafting etc and would start following the Europeans. It's more profitable as well, if people get to care about their teams.

lets be real, the majority of people only care about the soccer teams. they may check in on the scores and standing and such of the other teams. but soccer is the only team they truly follow and invest they're time in...there are of course exceptions, but we're talking about the general population here...

montazingmvp
08-12-2010, 06:21 PM
I think Stephon Marbury had said like a year ago that he sees the NBA going overseas. I don't think so I don't see any NBA star who has lived his whole live in the USA going overseas.Soccer is the number 1 sport overhere in Europe and I don't Think it gonna change even a NBA star comes over here. And lot of you guys think the euroleauge is full with white guys who don't speak English well that is not true over here are a lot of US basketball players the most come straight out of college!!

yeah stephon hasn't a clue what he's talking about. he probably doesn't get that if he played in europe for say fc barcelona's bball team. people would be running past him to get messi's autograph...

Hellcrooner
08-12-2010, 06:32 PM
lets be real, the majority of people only care about the soccer teams. they may check in on the scores and standing and such of the other teams. but soccer is the only team they truly follow and invest they're time in...there are of course exceptions, but we're talking about the general population here...

I follow weveryting Barcelona does, Soccer, Basket, inddor Soccer, Hand Ball, Skate Hockey, and eveyr barsa fan is that way.

Real Madrid fans put same effort into Soccer than Basket.
And so on an on.


You also develop a srong commitment to your city and support all the teams in your city on different sports regardless wich division they play in.
Thats easier of course because they NEVER get moved so you can get attached to them.

NYKalltheway
08-12-2010, 08:02 PM
lets be real, the majority of people only care about the soccer teams. they may check in on the scores and standing and such of the other teams. but soccer is the only team they truly follow and invest they're time in...there are of course exceptions, but we're talking about the general population here...

This is true for a lot of people, who do not follow anything else than football as it's the simplest sport to follow. It also requires more money than anything else so it is marketed more, and more people follow.

Poland has turned into a volleyball nation
Lithuania is a basketball nation
Russia is starting to turn into a football nation (basketball has always been #1)

And then you can dig further.

Iraklis, a club in Greece, probably 5th or 6th in terms of fanbase, has teams in every sport, have had the best ever Greek player in football(80s) and filled their stadiums, they had quite a good team, filled their stadium, and in the recent years have grown to become more volleyball fans. Their team hasn't been in a Greek volleyball final since 2008, but they're still there(3rd best team), and you'd see them travel by thousands to foreign countries despite not being more than 200.000 of them in total.
Panathinaikos fans are football & basketball & volleyaball fans as well and having more fans and more success than Iraklis, it makes them look better in terms of attendance.

You'd see women's volleyball arenas filled on matchday from Panathinaikos fans, something that most of Greek fans wouldn't do. They would follow whatever team/sport carries their name & badge.

American sports are different. No attachment to the team usually. And having fixtures so close to each other does not help it, despite what you think. Playing 82 games a season(+ playoffs) is not as good as it sounds. Of course, the more games the better, that's for "popcorn" fans. For those who get excited by good games.
European teams issue COMPLAINTS when they have games 2-3 days away from another, imagine if they had back-to-back games :facepalm: (games get postponed)
Euroleague games are on Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday, and league games are on Saturday-Sunday. Plain and simple. People would go to as many games as possible, but as some point they'd lose interest, as there would be no point in more games.
Regular season in Europe is IMPORTANT. It's not similar to exhibition games. Playoffs are of course more important, but you don't see fans complaining that there's too much of regular season and too little of playoffs. This is also due to the fact that there are less teams in the domestic championships.

Also a reason why people prefer football to basketball over here is because there's national teams as well. Basketball international level is very low, mostly because of the NBA(check football's schedule and how international competitions work and you'll understand).

The Eurobasket is quite popular, but the World Championship does not get credit as players are either not allowed to come(NBA again) or they don't want to go if player x does not go(eg Germany is so screwed this year)
Olympics becomes more popular because the USA send their best players and there's hype. But basketball is isolated by the difference the NBA makes compared to football.

Basketball is a very popular sport, but it takes the USA's help as the superpower to help its growth. And the NBA does not want to help apparently.

avrpatsfan
08-12-2010, 08:09 PM
More flopping? No thanks.

The Final Boss
08-12-2010, 08:12 PM
I'll follow a European model any day of the week. Europe produces the most beautiful women in the world.

montazingmvp
08-13-2010, 12:43 AM
how is soccer easier to follow than basketball?

thats a load of nonsense if i've ever seen it...

and you're looking for in-depth reasons as to why these people like soccer more...perhaps because they enjoy watching it more...

the basketball accessibility is there as you explain...it seems these people just prefer watching the product on the pitch as opposed to the product on the court...

NYKalltheway
08-13-2010, 06:48 AM
how is soccer easier to follow than basketball?

It simply is.

Less rules (makes it easier to understand the game and refs decisions)
More games on television
Greater emotions during a game (arguable, but 90% of the world thinks so, I don't agree totally with this one)
Tactics are not complex (everyone can comment on them and not look like an idiot, and everyone can criticize the coach)
No stop of play (no timeouts, clock is ongoing until the final whistle)
People can relate to players easier than basketball (due to height etc)
11 players start, only 3 new other guys are substituted in, nothing else happens. People can keep up with who's playing and who's not (generally speaking)


If we were to compare the sports, it's like apple & oranges.
But comparing how the fans relate with the two sports is not that hard. As I said earlier, I prefer basketball but I really enjoy football as well. You enjoy more a goal scored anytime in the game(as it might be the only one) than a basketball shot go in. Basketball is usually all about 4th quarter emotion-wise.


Also, soccer will never be considered a huge sport in the States as it's not a sport that goes under the "USA rules". There are 11 players in, 14 used in total, I would say that this would require 3 superstars and people would hype them. Not the case. You can't compare players in football as you do with basketball. The guy who scores the goals might be one of the worse players of the team (search Filippo Inzaghi if you need an example). In the States, the guy who score, would instantly be considered great. Not the case ;)

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 04:54 AM
With a lockout on the doorstep (and the Knicks out of the playoffs :( ) perhaps we could bump this up and listen to some more opinions.

Here's a thread based on Kobe's remarks on one aspect of this model:
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=516887

New CBA => new better ideas that will mean no more lockouts right?

northsid3r
04-27-2011, 06:49 AM
The Illinois team would be pretty freaking good. i can't think of a center but here's what the starting 1-4 would look like.

1. rose
2. wade
3. iggy
4. garnett

Supa
04-27-2011, 06:53 AM
The decision (CBA) is between the league, owners and the players, no one else has a say on it. It's a group of four, five hundred people who decide how to split the money.

---

Crackadalic
04-27-2011, 07:36 AM
The decision (CBA) is between the league, owners and the players, no one else has a say on it. It's a group of four, five hundred people who decide how to split the money.

---

The nba is a little different. The nfl is making money and trying to figure out how to spit the pie where the nba is losing money. They lost over a billion dollars in a 4 year span. They have to fix this broken system before they decide who gets more in terms of the money

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 08:00 AM
The Illinois team would be pretty freaking good. i can't think of a center but here's what the starting 1-4 would look like.

1. rose
2. wade
3. iggy
4. garnett

well it doesn't really go like that but you could think of it that way.

Basically think of Kevin Garnett.

Fully trained by Bulls youth team coaches from the age 15(that's when he went to Chicago) to 18. Hence he has a more complete post game while he also has his youthful explosiveness which allows him to play SF and PF with ease. That's 1995. Think of Garnett being groomed by Jordan/Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman/Kerr/Harper, that legendary team. And this Kevin Garnett would probably stay for life with the Bulls unless the Bulls feel it's better to sell him. While Garnett is the new franchise player, D Wade pops out. Both these players cost NOTHING to the Bulls and they are top class. They can buy Shaquille O'Neal for a large amount in 2004 perhaps and have a core of Shaq, Garnett and Wade. Now tell me if that's winning recipe or not. Thing is, there's like 18 teams with probably as good rosters ;)

The nature of the NBA will mean that free market will create parity. Instead of 2-3 super teams and 4-5 stacked teams with one superstar and the rest are pretenders, you'll have 15 legit contenders.

Kyle Irving is the next best player let's say. He's from the state of New Jersey. So he'll probably be playing for the Nets youth team. But he's also 19 years old. Nets have Deron at PG. Nets own his rights and he has a contract with Nets as he grew from their youth ranks. How can the Nets gain? Well, New York needs a PG. But New York are rivals. Division rivals as well. His normal price tag would be $15m. So Nets ask $25m from New York + Landry Fields, if not accepted, they can sell him to Toronto for $15-20m. Then Nets can address a PF weakness and try lure Paul Millsap with that additional $20m.

People who say that big markets will eventually do whatever they want are wrong. Basically, if small market teams train their players well they can either keep them and have a fantastic homegrown core who'd love to play for their hometown or home state, or they sell 1-2 of them for profit and address their weaknesses on the market.
It's just as things are today but instead of the risky and limitting draft, teams control their own fortunes. Free market. Capitalism. The whole country runs like that, why not sports? :shrug:

Supa
04-27-2011, 08:16 AM
The nba is a little different. The nfl is making money and trying to figure out how to spit the pie where the nba is losing money. They lost over a billion dollars in a 4 year span. They have to fix this broken system before they decide who gets more in terms of the money

Again, the decision is within the group. And how they split the money will determine whether some teams are making or losing money. Right now, the players are getting 57% of the share. The owners are trying to get some of that % back in the new CBA.

---

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 08:59 AM
With all the talk about the new CBA, the NBA losing money, perhaps a major overhaul.

The major concern for this model implemented in the NBA is college basketball/draft. I know that until some time players had to complete college before moving to the NBA, but 22 year old rookies is not something of our age, is it?

In Europe(and South America as well) every sports team has youth teams.

I see a lot of you talking about Ricky Rubio, who is 19-20 years old and is Spain's biggest prospect. Greece has Chrysikopoulos who is 17 years old.

Teams develop their own talents. Wouldn't every kid in New York want to play for the Knicks, even at age 12? Same goes for Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Denver etc. Thus, new legacies will be created, players who are absolutely loyal to their teams, and not selected on a draft randomly. Freedom for players before their pro career to follow their dream of "being a Laker", "being a 76er" etc.
Players going to be eligible after they turn 18 years old or something like that.


Screw the salary cap. Reform the contract rules. eg maximum contract length 4-5 years, absolute maximum salary $18m or something. No 5th year with $24m etc. (contract length exists in Europe, salaries are unlimited)

This might cause smaller markets to be less competitive, but if there's huge taxation for a total salary of over $70-80m, only a few would spend much much more.

All players should have a buy out clause included in their contract which will be agreed with his team OR, maybe minimum and maximum values for the clause could be agreed by the NBA.
eg Lebron James with 7 years experience can have a clause of up to $70m...

Players MUST agree on new contracts after a team enables the buy out clause. All teams can enable the buy out, and the player decides where he goes. That team gets to pay his team.

This will also make it much easier for NBA teams to reach European and South American based players. So NBA teams want Rubio( just using him as example), come and get him. He has a buy out of let's say $3m, pay up and watch him coming. No more "I will stay in Europe for 2 more seasons after being drafted by team X"

Contracts are non-transferable. You transfer players, not contracts. No more chances of poor decision making in strategy by trading players for expiring contracts etc. You wanna build a team, buy the players you need outright.
This will also end the trading of players/contracts.


I know some people will keep saying that it's the big clubs that will benefit from this. Cause they can set up more youth camps throughout the USA and buy more expensive players. But if teams produce their own players, I can't see how most of the players will move around the league as much.
Youth teams would compete in youth leagues as well.

This will also make room for new franchises in new cities. Aren't there kids in St.Louis, Seattle and other large cities that want to play basketball and try their luck? Why wait for scouts that will appear once in their lifetime at most when they could sign up at age 9 or 11?

High school kids in Europe are members of both high school & youth team. It's not a problem over here. Actually, it's much better this way.

Giving it a second thought, college basketball does not have to 'die' if ever the NBA decides to follow a European model, but it will definitely suffer some setbacks.
College teams could easily approach youth team players and offer them scholarships. Most parents would force their kids to join those college teams as it will give them something more than just a basketball career.

There are many more stuff that I would like to say as well, but for starters I'll stick with this.
These ideas dont fix OUR problems. Just because it might work in Europe doesnt mean it will work here. First off, you want to install a basketball league for youth teams, essentially an NBA minor league system. Problem is to create such a system would cost $, even if you use the already established d-league as a foundation, i think the last thing owners want to spend is more $. Secondly, what would this do for talent dispersion? Absolutely nothing, kids are going to want to play with their idols or the already well established teams. You think the Cavaliers and Wizards camp would be stacked with the Nations top talent, No, those kids would flock to NY, Miami, L.A, Chicago, Boston. Also, the most glaring problem i see with this, do we actually want to promote kids NOT going to college?



mistake.

Euroepan way.


Cleveland ) is a bad market for example and they got lebron and lebron wants to go to other makert.

Nba he wai and walks for free.

Europe cleveland revceives TONS of MONEY offers for him fduring the years,.

Lebron i wants to plya for the knics? ok the knicks hve to offer them MONEY, since half the legue will be offering money there wilbe a bidding war.

in teh end cleveland sells lebron for say 100 million dollars.

they couldnt have generated that money with ticks but now they HAZVE tha tmoney so they CA N BUY and PAY a bnew star from other team.

Again this does nothing for the small market. In your example the Cavs would receive money, yes. But when its vice versa the small market teams would have no money to compete with the larger markets and still would have to overpay to acquire lesser talent. Same broad different dress.

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 09:00 AM
Again, the decision is within the group. And how they split the money will determine whether some teams are making or losing money. Right now, the players are getting 57% of the share. The owners are trying to get some of that % back in the new CBA.

---

I don't get the main stakeholders, ie fans, are accepting the fact that they are carefree... don't you respect yourselves as fans of the game? You're just gonna sit around and wait just like that? :confused: Just because it's "a group decision"? Well that group would never exist if it wasn't for the fans. And the fans have more say than anyone here.

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 09:11 AM
The college part is the tough one. But only because the NCAA wants to be so powerful, not because it's an actual issue.
NCAA basketball is a dying breed. Since players just go there for 1 season and only, it means it's dying.
There's nothing wrong with an amateur college league existing and players would be part of the college and part of the team at the same time(just not allowed to play for team till college is done or not allowed to play for NCAA but play for team)


As for the $$$ cost. Well, those stuff are not running themselves. People will subscribe their children to these basketball academies. Doesn't have to be much, perhaps $10-20 a month x 7-8 months(school season) that's $70-80 or around $150 per kid per season. There would be 100s of kids perhaps even 1000s that'd join. It will only bring more profit and it will increase the level of basketball in the NBA in the long run.
As for the minor leagues. Just for the pre-NBA step. The rest would just compete against the state high schools really... Where of course some of the kids will belong to some of those high schools, but priority would lie with the NBA youth team. And at the age of 15-18 it's gonna be a select few (perhaps 20 chosen ones etc) that are part of the roster.

And even if all kids go to NY or LA or CHI or MIA (which is not really possible at the age of 14 or even 16 etc). There's no room for all of them to become part of the team plus if they are cut another team might sign them anyway. There should be a restriction to state only players in these youth teams or if a state does not have a team, they can join the adjacent state's team. I don't think it really matters for the kid where he starts his career, especially if he's local. You don't see college players actually preferring to go closer to LA or CHI or BOS. And that's at a later age, more independent.

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 09:32 AM
The college part is the tough one. But only because the NCAA wants to be so powerful, not because it's an actual issue.
NCAA basketball is a dying breed. Since players just go there for 1 season and only, it means it's dying.
There's nothing wrong with an amateur college league existing and players would be part of the college and part of the team at the same time(just not allowed to play for team till college is done or not allowed to play for NCAA but play for team)


As for the $$$ cost. Well, those stuff are not running themselves. People will subscribe their children to these basketball academies. Doesn't have to be much, perhaps $10-20 a month x 7-8 months(school season) that's $70-80 or around $150 per kid per season. There would be 100s of kids perhaps even 1000s that'd join. It will only bring more profit and it will increase the level of basketball in the NBA in the long run.
As for the minor leagues. Just for the pre-NBA step. The rest would just compete against the state high schools really... Where of course some of the kids will belong to some of those high schools, but priority would lie with the NBA youth team. And at the age of 15-18 it's gonna be a select few (perhaps 20 chosen ones etc) that are part of the roster.

And even if all kids go to NY or LA or CHI or MIA (which is not really possible at the age of 14 or even 16 etc). There's no room for all of them to become part of the team plus if they are cut another team might sign them anyway. There should be a restriction to state only players in these youth teams or if a state does not have a team, they can join the adjacent state's team. I don't think it really matters for the kid where he starts his career, especially if he's local. You don't see college players actually preferring to go closer to LA or CHI or BOS. And that's at a later age, more independent.

I understand the idea and I do like some concepts but i dont think your actually thinking about the logistics behind it. You want to establish an open youth camp for the masses, do you have any idea of how much money it would take for teams to be able to maintain such an infrastructure? not $20 per month/player. Secondly, in your case children would have to be obligated to play for your team/ you own their rights once there of age to play, in essence your signing minors to contracts. Or else there would be no point to the system. Lastly, your whole point of kids staying local, most top talents go to prep schools away from home, they would go to top market camps. Think about your in state/adjacent state requirements, New York has 8 million people in New York city alone!!! You think Milwaukee stands a chance??? Just to give you an idea, the state of wisconsin has a TOTAL population of 5,654,774.

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 09:42 AM
First of all, it's not really OPEN. It's first come first serve. There's places to be allocated. Financial control. If a team invests on its youth, then they will have more places for them.
Let's say ignore that state only rule.
If Milwaukee wants to use a team that they train wholely by themselves, they will spend more on their youth systems. That will mean that they will convince families that their kid is good enough to play pro basketball in 2-3 years of hard work etc Lure them to your camp.

And there's no contract really. Only contract is signed by parents who assign their children to the camps. Only contract is yearly subscription with a clause that the kid cannot leave the team in the middle of the season to join another team. Or when aged 16 or 17, they sign a paper that gives the pro rights to the team that nurtured him. Then if rich NY or rich LA wants to sign that kid, he'll have to knock on Milwaukee's door with a large $uitca$e ;)

If Milwaukee and any other small market team shows signs that they promote their youth players, that they are loyal to them, pay good salaries, then more families will accept the challenge of moving there just because their son has a chance at becoming a pro. And of course there's a problem with families moving as they need jobs but that's something for society, not for the NBA to solve.

The system undoubtebly WORKS. Just wait till Crooner comes here with his flashy lawyery talk and he'll explain these situations. I need to sleep :cool:

Supa
04-27-2011, 10:12 AM
I don't get the main stakeholders, ie fans, are accepting the fact that they are carefree... don't you respect yourselves as fans of the game? You're just gonna sit around and wait just like that? :confused: Just because it's "a group decision"? Well that group would never exist if it wasn't for the fans. And the fans have more say than anyone here.

If you want change, go join the league, become a part owner, or become a player. Posting here is not going to change a darn thing.

Maybe you should write to the league office and propose your ideas. Do that, and when you get a reply, then we'll talk.

---

gilly
04-27-2011, 10:35 AM
I like it in football and other European sports.

But I love NCAA Basketball. In fact, I'd rather it be the same as in the US (with a college system instead of a youth system) because the best players would be more mature, educated, and would go to weaker teams and in theory would create a more even league.

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 11:05 AM
hate the idea. way to complicated and expensive for a sytem that can back fire. also like someone said. do we really want to get youth pretty much forgetting about school that early? i dont. plus that eliminates NCAA which brings in a lot of money into this economy.

the NBA system needs some fine tuning, not a overhaul

TopsyTurvy
04-27-2011, 12:38 PM
I don't think its a good idea considering the amount of fiscal problems that occur within a growing majority of European organizations. The success/failure of a team depends on their ability to manage and leverage risk - some teams do well, some do not, and then there are the 'rich clubs.'

First of all I don't like a system exaggerating the difference between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.'

There's no denying that it's a bad business model when you (as an owner or GM) can write enough bad paper to fiscally destroy your franchise's future -- the current problem with the NBA CBA and the primary reason for a lockout. A lightly restricted club system like in Europe only broadens that potential.

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 12:53 PM
On teh contrary the youth woudl not drop out of school.

Barcelona for example , their Youth players ( soccer, basket, handball, etc etc) all of them live in a Building that belongs to the team.
All of them are taken to the school by the team after training.
In their "contract" they have agreed to certain academic requirementes to go on belonging to the team.

and btw i ASSURE you if Lebron had ben playing for cavs in their youth schemes since being 10 years old ( wich is likely because he is from AKRON) he would much probably have not Bolted the team.
You take pride on representing your city team with that system.

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 02:44 PM
If you want change, go join the league, become a part owner, or become a player. Posting here is not going to change a darn thing.

Maybe you should write to the league office and propose your ideas. Do that, and when you get a reply, then we'll talk.

---

ok, so you'd rather be enslaved in a league where $$$ whores make the rules rather than have an open league system like the rest of the world, where you could send your kids to try their luck at?

The problem in the States is that they overrate college sports too much. It's a built-in system. And no matter how much you guys love it, it's a terrible system. I mean, you say that college sports are important for the ECONOMY. Are these college players PAID? Or are they used in a circus environment for free while those who are in command earn the big dough? ;)

There's also the weird feeling of having pity for the worse team and even give them 'presents' while the top teams that don't win the championship earn nothing more for their good season.

As for sending a letter to the league offices.
1) The NBA knows perfectly well what free market will cause. But it's a fixed league where Stern wants Finals between top teams. So giving the Bucks or the Wizards or any other team not recognisable beyond the US borders equals to less global TV rights. I doubt that's true since if it was a free market the Bucks or Wizards or any team could have European/South American/Asian players which would extent interest in the region, while NBA Finals tend to be sold beforehands anyway. It's just that if it's two well known teams, then more people will ask for those rights. And the NBA will lose that. Which is more important to them
2) The NBA will lose money from all these rookie festivals... Draft(tv), Summer league(tv)... They don't want that. It's NBA money, not money that goes to the teams, that's the major difference
3) The NBA is a rotten organization where $$$ beats reason. It's a league that is fast losing fans and I can't see why the more hardcore fans are okay with the situation and think that the league will be saved
4) The NBA is heading for lockout just because they are not following this model.

So the NBA has nothing to tell me that I don't know ;)

KnicksR4Real
04-27-2011, 02:49 PM
Let it be noted that basketball is an American sport. Founded here and created her. What would be the point? Does it all make sense to you?

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 02:52 PM
id love that for football. with the talent the comes out of florida? man the dolphins would go 16-0 every year lol

arkanian215
04-27-2011, 02:54 PM
I thought the point of all of this was to ensure the profitability of the NBA as a whole. What is the point of running a business? To earn money. That's what the CBA dilemma is all about.

We know that owners will spend more if there are nice free agents available. Heck we know that owners will spend more if there are mediocre free agents available (see Jaric, Outlaw, Joe Johnson, Childress, etc). Their spending habits undermine their ability to make a better margin. If they're spending 6-7 million/year on scrubs while there are spending constraints in place, then they would spend even more with fewer constraints. That spending cuts into their ability to turn a profit.

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 02:54 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?m od=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

Is this going to happen to the NFL btw???

Edit:

Here's the key points of the article(which says it's some examples)

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.


edit x2
found this as well
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/03/21/110321ta_talk_surowiecki

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 03:02 PM
^god i hope not

AIMelo=KillaDUO
04-27-2011, 03:06 PM
$$$$$$$$$$$$

We've seen Josh Childress and Linas Kleiza going to Europe just for money :p

Yeah, two bums. You won't see any superstar in there prime go to Europe to play.

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 03:18 PM
On teh contrary the youth woudl not drop out of school.

Barcelona for example , their Youth players ( soccer, basket, handball, etc etc) all of them live in a Building that belongs to the team.
All of them are taken to the school by the team after training.
In their "contract" they have agreed to certain academic requirementes to go on belonging to the team.

and btw i ASSURE you if Lebron had ben playing for cavs in their youth schemes since being 10 years old ( wich is likely because he is from AKRON) he would much probably have not Bolted the team.
You take pride on representing your city team with that system.

It still doesnt negate the fact that most top talents would flock to larger market youth camps. So essentially you would make the strong teams stronger and the weak teams weaker.

How does this solve any issues with the current CBA? What advantages would there be to this model as opposed to the one already in place?

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 03:19 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?m od=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

Is this going to happen to the NFL btw???

Edit:

Here's the key points of the article(which says it's some examples)

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.


edit x2
found this as well
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/03/21/110321ta_talk_surowiecki

finally seeing the light.

and understanding that no matter how well paid SLAVES( as in cant choose where to work for and how much to work for and how long) should not be allowed to exixt in any democrazy.

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 03:25 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?m od=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

Is this going to happen to the NFL btw???

Edit:

Here's the key points of the article(which says it's some examples)

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.


edit x2
found this as well
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/03/21/110321ta_talk_surowiecki

Thats absolute chaos. Thats why the NBA is better served to negotiate its differences and not come to that.

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 03:26 PM
finally seeing the light.

and understanding that no matter how well paid SLAVES( as in cant choose where to work for and how much to work for and how long) should not be allowed to exixt in any democrazy.

The term slave isnt needed, but regardless further explain your view point. How doesnt democracy exist under the current system?

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 03:43 PM
The term slave isnt needed, but regardless further explain your view point. How doesnt democracy exist under the current system?


"slave" is not to be taken 100% for what it means but like a simil.
im nto talking bout league too.

Im talking bout country.

Im fairly certain that USA is a democratic countrys with laws.
Im also certain that this laws allow people to do what they want with their lifes, Work where they want to work, leave when they want to leave and to where they want to leave, earn as much money as they want sign contracts for as long as they want.
Why should be Sports workers be any different?

Im fairly certain if some Ncaa player had the balls to go to supreme court and Lawsuit nba for the Draft they court would have to rule agaisnt the draft, the max salarys, the restricted Free agency the cap etc etc.

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 03:49 PM
im nto talking bout league.

Im talking bout country.

Im fairly certain that USA is a democratic countrys with laws.
Im also certain that this laws allow people to do what they want with their lifes, Work where they want to work, leave when they want to leave and to where they want to leave, earn as much money as they want sign contracts for as long as they want.
Why should be Sports workers be any different?

Im fairly certain if some Ncaa player had the balls to go to supreme court and Lawsuit nba for the Draft they court would have to rule agaisnt the draft, the max salarys, the restricted Free agency the cap etc etc.

they are allowed to work where ever they want. if they dont wanna be on the team that drafted them they dont have to be NBA players.

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 03:50 PM
they are allowed to work where ever they want. if they dont wanna be on the team that drafted them they dont have to be NBA players.

then they are not being allowed to work where they want.
and nba is acting like a Monoply wich is illegal too btw.

SteveNash
04-27-2011, 03:54 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?m od=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

Is this going to happen to the NFL btw???

Edit:

Here's the key points of the article(which says it's some examples)

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.


edit x2
found this as well
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/03/21/110321ta_talk_surowiecki

Someone's been drinking the Ayn Rand Kool Aid.

And no, it will never happen.

gwrighter
04-27-2011, 03:54 PM
Here's the key points of the article(which says it's some examples)


• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

dumb. takes out the excitement also limits the bad teams at getting talent. then we'd have no blake griffin's on clips or derrick rose's on chicago. Kevin Durant in seattle/OKC.


• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

dumb, a lot of teams would make no money. sure they would spend 500mil but they FOR SURE not going to pull in over 500+mil in revenue to cover the salary + other costs.


• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

i don't get why the players would want this?


No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

good


No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.


dumb, that would be cheap/unfair way of bribing potential free agents. guaranteeing them amazing benefits once they retire.


• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

this deserves the overused :facepalm:

this would never survive as a business model. you'd have 20 teams with no fan support/pulling in no money. those teams would go belly up, n players would lose jobs.

and we have farm teams, its called the D-League.


• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

i could see some potential backlash over newly acquired players not adhering to these rules set out by the franchise. how are you going to enforce them? fine em? sit em? you get disgruntled workers, then you lose out on your investment, stupid.


• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.

Stupid, every team would allow performance enhancing drugs because they wouldn't be able to compete otherwise.

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 03:57 PM
then they are not being allowed to work where they want.
and nba is acting like a Monoply wich is illegal too btw.

thats like saying "i work for mcdonalds and i waana work for whcih ever mcdonalds i want!! i demand a transfer!!" c'mon....

and a monoply? theres 30 different teams ran by 30 different ppl

gwrighter
04-27-2011, 04:01 PM
then they are not being allowed to work where they want.
and nba is acting like a Monoply wich is illegal too btw.

they are a monopoly but what your missing is that they set rules in place in order to strengthen competition, which is why they are not necessarily pinned to the wall by anti-trust legislation.

pebloemer
04-27-2011, 04:03 PM
The situation in the USA is much more different than Europe. There's more prosperity scattered in the USA. It would work better.

Which 3-4 teams actually dominate in Europe?(basketball right?)

Barcelona? With 2 Euroleague wins in 20 years?
Panathinaikos? With 1 Euroleague in mid-90s, 2 in 3 years(2000+2002, 2007+2009)
CSKA Moscow? With 2 Euroleague wins in this decade? (2006+2008)
Maccambi Tel Aviv twice in a row? Back in 2004... where are they now?
TAU? With several F4 appearances with no titles won?

The balance in Europe SHIFTS. There are the superpowers that always will be there because they have owners & fans that want their teams to be competitive.

What did Real ever achieved by throwing millions? Selling jerseys? Coz it definitely didn't get them any championships.

In the USA there would be at least 20 teams pouring the cash in, maybe even all.
Europe has different countries, different economies, different leagues/championships, someone tends to dominate. Look at the ACB. Who dominates? Barcelona? They collapsed after their frenzy Euroleague win and were swept by Caja Laboral in the final.

When did this "super" Barcelona come from? First F4 appearance after 3 years was in 2009. 2010 they won. Does that mean they're dominant? Panathinaikos won in 2007, didn't participate in F4 of 2008, won in 2009, didn't participate in F4 2010. One of the best teams? Yes. Dominates? Not exactly.

As for the draft. Personally, I like college basketball as it's closer to European, BUT it does not work for the NBA. Not anymore. Draft/trades etc I think should all get done with. Why being the worst team in a league gives you such an advantage for next season? It's just absurd.
To some extent, it guarantees that the league will be slightly more balanced, but the major point is, the league's quality is recycled instead of improved.
How about trades? Is it honestly logical to trade contracts of players against their will, sending them across the nation(which is a similar distance from Iceland to Cyprus) just to get expiring contracts or future all-stars? I can't imagine trading Diamantidis for Rubio for example in Europe :D That would be extremely irrational. (both are top 5 point guards)

Can you imagine an NBA league where every team REALLY had a chance to win?
I guess Stern and his friends do not want that. An NBA league where teams actually make money and run themselves instead of be run by Stern and the NBA organization?

I really appreciate all the work and dedication you and Hellcrooner have put into this thread, proposing the European system as an option for the NBA. There is no doubt that the NBA has serious problems in its current structure, but I'm not sure all the ideas you propose are transferable.

The talent level in the NBA is superior to that in the Euroleague. I'd also argue that the talent disparity is much larger in the NBA than it is in the Euroleague. The NBA is a "stars league." Single players can dominate portions of games for their respective teams. In my mind, that has a much bigger role in championships continually going to the same teams than the current CBA does.

If Michael Jordan played his entire career in the Euroleague, do you think that the Championships would be so spread out in his era?

I would also point to European Football. They deal with the many of the greatest soccer talents in the world. How many different Champions have their been over the past 25 years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barcelona and Real Madrid dominate virtually ever year.

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 04:04 PM
fear of the unknown.

Some of the biggest soccer stars ever have played for piss ****** teams.
Some of them for their entire careers.

Others ended signing for bigger clubs of course but they had to pay a TON of money to the previous team.

Oh go figure, how many nba stars have ended bolting anyway to the big teams regardelss and cap and al the ****?


and btw

there was a time where teams could FRANCHISE TAG ALL of their players, there wasnt a FA ( until some players like O robertson or J West decided to go on strike because it was illegal)

You knwo what was the parity in those No fa times?

Boston celtics 11 rings out of 13.

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 04:08 PM
I really appreciate all the work and dedication you and Hellcrooner have put into this thread, proposing the European system as an option for the NBA. There is no doubt that the NBA has serious problems in its current structure, but I'm not sure all the ideas you propose are transferable.

The talent level in the NBA is superior to that in the Euroleague. I'd also argue that the talent disparity is much larger in the NBA than it is in the Euroleague. The NBA is a "stars league." Single players can dominate portions of games for their respective teams. In my mind, that has a much bigger role in championships continually going to the same teams than the current CBA does.

If Michael Jordan played his entire career in the Euroleague, do you think that the Championships would be so spread out in his era?

I would also point to European Football. They deal with the many of the greatest soccer talents in the world. How many different Champions have their been over the past 25 years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barcelona and Real Madrid dominate virtually ever year.

last 25 years?

lets See
Milan 5
Real madrid/Barcelona/Manchester 3
Juventus 2
Oporto 2 ( small market)
Bayern
Borussia ( ridiculously small market)
Ajax ( small market)
Red star ( a bismal small market)
Marseille
inter
thats 12 teams

Nba

Lakers 7
bulls 6
spurs 4(samll market)
pistons 3
rockets 2
celtics 2
Heat

thats it 7 teams.

go figure

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 04:12 PM
last 25 years?

lets See
Milan 5
Real madrid/Barcelona/Manchester 3
Juventus 2
Oporto 2 ( small market)
Bayern
Borussia ( ridiculously small market)
Ajax ( small market)
Red star ( a bismal small market)
Marseille
inter
thats 12 teams

Nba

Lakers 7
bulls 6
spurs 4(samll market)
pistons 3
rockets 2
celtics 2
Heat

thats it 7 teams.

go figure

different strokefro different folks man,
just cuz it might work over there means nothing about how it would work here.

pebloemer
04-27-2011, 04:14 PM
last 25 years?

lets See
Milan 5
Real madrid/Barcelona/Manchester 3
Juventus 2
Oporto 2 ( small market)
Bayern
Borussia ( ridiculously small market)
Ajax ( small market)
Red star ( a bismal small market)
Marseille
inter
thats 12 teams

Nba

Lakers 7
bulls 6
spurs 4(samll market)
pistons 3
rockets 2
celtics 2
Heat

thats it 7 teams.

go figure

I meant the Spanish League, but perhaps that would be an unfair comparison. As this is. I don't think the NBA would have as many high market teams as the cumulation of multiple European leagues.

Then you also have to account for the difference in the game. Basketball is played Five on Five. A single player has an impact on a far bigger percentage of the game.

Again, answer this question, if Michael Jordan played in the Euroleague for his career, would the Championships be so spread out?

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 04:18 PM
then they are not being allowed to work where they want.
and nba is acting like a Monoply wich is illegal too btw.

Well actually they are. They work for the NBA. The problem is you want to look at individual teams as being their own entities, when in fact they are not. They are part of a structure called the NBA. Look at the teams as being departments within a regular company.

If you apply for my company (nba draft) and my department (team) sees you fit for a job after evaluation you have a job. If you choose you dont like working in that department, you can either a) not work there (go play in europe) or b) work their for a while, build experience, until you transfer to another department.So the players ARE being allowed to work for who they want (the NBA).

As far as the NBA being a monopoly, is a false statement. There is collegiate basketball and AND1 basketball campaigns which draw revenue and tv ratings as well. The competition is their, but the product of NBA basketball remains supreme.

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 04:18 PM
I meant the Spanish League, but perhaps that would be an unfair comparison. As this is. I don't think the NBA would have as many high market teams as the cumulation of multiple European leagues.

Then you also have to account for the difference in the game. Basketball is played Five on Five. A single player has an impact on a far bigger percentage of the game.

Again, answer this question, if Michael Jordan played in the Euroleague for his career, would the Championships be so spread out?

i didnt use local leagues because of the size of USA.
to make that comparison there shoudl be 52 leagues and then the nba.

2 euroleague?

Barcelona, madrid, Jouventut, Limoges, Bologne, Milan, Rome, Split, Beograd, Phanathinaiokos, Olympiakos, Cska, Macabbi
thats 14 champions on 25 years.

and for the third thing Maradona(as equivalent to Jordan) played in Naples and never won jack in champions league.

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 04:21 PM
Well actually they are. They work for the NBA. The problem is you want to look at individual teams as being their own entities, when in fact they are not. They are part of a structure called the NBA. Look at the teams as being departments within a regular company.

If you apply for my company (nba draft) and my department (team) sees you fit for a job after evaluation you have a job. If you choose you dont like working in that department, you can either a) not work there (go play in europe) or b) work their for a while, build experience, until you transfer to another department.So the players ARE being allowed to work for who they want (the NBA).

As far as the NBA being a monopoly, is a false statement. There is collegiate basketball and AND1 basketball campaigns which draw revenue and tv ratings as well. The competition is their, but the product of NBA basketball remains supreme.

this. great post :clap:

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 04:23 PM
last 25 years?

lets See
Milan 5
Real madrid/Barcelona/Manchester 3
Juventus 2
Oporto 2 ( small market)
Bayern
Borussia ( ridiculously small market)
Ajax ( small market)
Red star ( a bismal small market)
Marseille
inter
thats 12 teams

Nba

Lakers 7
bulls 6
spurs 4(samll market)
pistons 3
rockets 2
celtics 2
Heat

thats it 7 teams.

go figure

The question still remains. What current issues would be resolved with a change in structure to one in which you defend???

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 04:26 PM
the NBA is better off just cutting out small market teams. make more compitition.

pebloemer
04-27-2011, 04:26 PM
i didnt use local leagues because of the size of USA.
to make that comparison there shoudl be 52 leagues and then the nba.

2 euroleague?

Barcelona, madrid, Jouventut, Limoges, Bologne, Milan, Rome, Split, Beograd, Phanathinaiokos, Olympiakos, Cska, Macabbi
thats 14 champions on 25 years.

and for the third thing Maradona(as equivalent to Jordan) played in Naples and never won jack in champions league.

But again, Maradona is not a basketball player. Basketball has less players on the court, and more options for a single player to dominate a game.

I still think you have to account for two things when looking at disparity of team and lack of disparity of championships in the NBA:

a) talent disparity
b) specifics of sport

A star NBA player is on the court for so many possessions and is playmaking, defending, scoring, etc etc on so many possessions, that the impact they have on every play is not comparable to the impact a single soccer player has on a percentage of the game. A star in the NBA is afforded more opportunity to be a difference maker for his team.

I could argue that the hard cap in the NHL has worked excellently for the talent disparity in the league. There has been 5 different Championship winners in 5 years since the hard cap came into place. How would you explain that?

valade16
04-27-2011, 04:28 PM
i didnt use local leagues because of the size of USA.
to make that comparison there shoudl be 52 leagues and then the nba.

2 euroleague?

Barcelona, madrid, Jouventut, Limoges, Bologne, Milan, Rome, Split, Beograd, Phanathinaiokos, Olympiakos, Cska, Macabbi
thats 14 champions on 25 years.

and for the third thing Maradona(as equivalent to Jordan) played in Naples and never won jack in champions league.

I'll have to see some stats or articles on Maradona to believe he could be anywhere near Jordan.

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 04:31 PM
I'll have to see some stats or articles on Maradona to believe he could be anywhere near Jordan.

he is considered the goat every where in the world except for Brazil ( they say pele) :p

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 04:32 PM
But again, Maradona is not a basketball player. Basketball has less players on the court, and more options for a single player to dominate a game.

I still think you have to account for two things when looking at disparity of team and lack of disparity of championships in the NBA:

a) talent disparity
b) specifics of sport

A star NBA player is on the court for so many possessions and is playmaking, defending, scoring, etc etc on so many possessions, that the impact they have on every play is not comparable to the impact a single soccer player has on a percentage of the game. A star in the NBA is afforded more opportunity to be a difference maker for his team.

I could argue that the hard cap in the NHL has worked excellently for the talent disparity in the league. There has been 5 different Championship winners in 5 years since the hard cap came into place. How would you explain that?


I'll have to see some stats or articles on Maradona to believe he could be anywhere near Jordan.

Guys forget about Maradona or talent disparity, this discussion is great but going in circles like a revolving door.

The question is simple for him to answer so we can continue discussing. What current issues will be fixed by the proposed structure change?

gwrighter
04-27-2011, 04:37 PM
the NBA is better off just cutting out small market teams. make more compitition.

won't work, other teams will still be bad, just the overall talent lvl will rise. in order to win the championship in that scenario you would need more talent than before.

you have to institute harder cap rules or a larger luxury tax in order to enforce more competition.

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 04:40 PM
he is considered the goat every where in the world except for Brazil ( they say pele) :p

i just google maradona and the twitter responses to his name are
"i used to think maradona was a class above messi. not so sure now....."

"messi is defintely as good as maradona. no argument."

"unbelievable #messi. what a good player. as good as maradona for me."

must not be the GOAT and clearly no where near the status of jordan.


but this is oopic. answer heater4lifes question

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 04:45 PM
i just google maradona and the twitter responses to his name are
"i used to think maradona was a class above messi. not so sure now....."

"messi is defintely as good as maradona. no argument."

"unbelievable #messi. what a good player. as good as maradona for me."

must not be the GOAT and clearly no where near the status of jordan.


but this is oopic. answer heater4lifes question

Messi = Lebron/kobe.

Fashion of the day, work in progress with a CHANCE at goat.

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 04:47 PM
Guys forget about Maradona or talent disparity, this discussion is great but going in circles like a revolving door.

The question is simple for him to answer so we can continue discussing. What current issues will be fixed by the proposed structure change?

First of all no teams moving form citys.

If cavs instead of losing lebron for nothing ( a second roudner) losing market
and geting soon into losing money with risk of being moved

had been ABLE to be traded for 100 million dollars once or two eyars ago
they woudl have a positive economic balance and wouldnt be moved.
They could also spend part of that money to hire one of the top prospects in Ncaa,.

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 04:51 PM
won't work, other teams will still be bad, just the overall talent lvl will rise. in order to win the championship in that scenario you would need more talent than before.

you have to institute harder cap rules or a larger luxury tax in order to enforce more competition.

exactly. uwould need more talent than before. which would be there cuz with less teams, more talent eqauls more fans and higher ratings

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 04:53 PM
I wonder how many Euroleague titles SABONIS, the European GOAT, won... (basketball comparison since you wanna insist on Jordan)

And Sabonis was far more dominant in the "weak" European competitions compared to Jordan against the NBA's "golden era" and some people say that had Sabonis played in the NBA earlier, then with Drexler they could have stopped Jordan's reign. So all these stuff about Jordan winning everything is nonsense. GOAT, yes. But it was a team effort as well. Don't remember him winning against Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars' Pistons in their prime ;)

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 04:58 PM
exactly. uwould need more talent than before. which would be there cuz with less teams, more talent eqauls more fans and higher ratings

International talent AVOIDS the NBA for three reasons:

1) It pays less
2) Playing time is a complex story while in Europe most great players average 22-28 minutes per game(out of 40 minute games) and they're extremely happy
3) Rules are different and some players don't even wanna leave home(eg Diamantidis who's the best in Europe, why leave when play for the best coach and have amazing fans that support in winning or losing to get to play for the Cavs or Raptors or any bottom 10-15 NBA team who are INFERIOR teams to his current one?)

But #1 is that it pays less. And it's mostly because of the rookie contracts.
If an NBA wants to sign Rubio or Teodosic, they can't. Rubio costs $6m let's say. No NBA team is allowed to sign him.
If you wanna have the best league, you need to afford the best players. And the NBA as of this moment CANNOT do that. So people saying that European basketball is catching up with the NBA are telling the truth. Watch how the lockout will destroy the NBA just because Europe can pay anyone if there's willingness by investors

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 05:03 PM
First of all no teams moving form citys.

If cavs instead of losing lebron for nothing ( a second roudner) losing market
and geting soon into losing money with risk of being moved

had been ABLE to be traded for 100 million dollars once or two eyars ago
they woudl have a positive economic balance and wouldnt be moved.
They could also spend part of that money to hire one of the top prospects in Ncaa,.

I agree with you but your structure does not address the current issues. Firstly to start from the beginning, Cleveland would have to have acquired Lebron into their developmental league. Which is no certainty in on itself because most young players will have the tendency to idolize the larger market/more successful teams. Lets just say, for arguments sake say he did go to the Cavs.

They trade him for 100 million dollars? The issue is still money, because even the large market teams need to make a profit. Paying extra money for a players acquisition only drives down profitability. Small market teams cant spend that money. The Cavs in your example end up with a reserve to help compensate for declining revenue, but what do teams like the Bucks and Timberwolves do? How do they acquire top talent?

Its a different system, but it doesnt address the issues, no parity will still be in place, large markets will still dominate, revenue streams will not increase, and spending will increase for owners as opposed of cutting down.

gwrighter
04-27-2011, 05:04 PM
exactly. uwould need more talent than before. which would be there cuz with less teams, more talent eqauls more fans and higher ratings

lets do a simple math calculation, shall we?

talent = 90 teams = 30

avg. talent= 90/30 = 3

cut down the amount of teams to 23

avg. talent = 90/23 = 3.91

the average talent would increase. therefore the amount of talent that you would need to win is higher. which means the best players will go to the best teams in order to win.

other mediocre teams that miss out on the new wave of talent will then become the bottom feeders.

The disparity between the talent levels that exist now will continue to exist if you eliminate more teams. under the same structure we will get the same equilibrium. the only thing is that there will be less revenue from ticket sales, merchandising, etc.

what you suggesting is good for the teams that remain, not good for the entire league though.

its talent inflation. not changing any tangible(real) variables.

mikealike305
04-27-2011, 05:04 PM
International talent AVOIDS the NBA for three reasons:

1) It pays less
2) Playing time is a complex story while in Europe most great players average 22-28 minutes per game(out of 40 minute games) and they're extremely happy
3) Rules are different and some players don't even wanna leave home(eg Diamantidis who's the best in Europe, why leave when play for the best coach and have amazing fans that support in winning or losing to get to play for the Cavs or Raptors or any bottom 10-15 NBA team who are INFERIOR teams to his current one?)

But #1 is that it pays less. And it's mostly because of the rookie contracts.
If an NBA wants to sign Rubio or Teodosic, they can't. Rubio costs $6m let's say. No NBA team is allowed to sign him.
If you wanna have the best league, you need to afford the best players. And the NBA as of this moment CANNOT do that. So people saying that European basketball is catching up with the NBA are telling the truth. Watch how the lockout will destroy the NBA just because Europe can pay anyone if there's willingness by investors

cut 6-10 teams out, raise or completly take out the cap, have more games in canada and europe, and lastly set a minute cap per game. also cut games from 82 a year to maybe 72 or 60

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 05:07 PM
International talent AVOIDS the NBA for three reasons:

1) It pays less
2) Playing time is a complex story while in Europe most great players average 22-28 minutes per game(out of 40 minute games) and they're extremely happy
3) Rules are different and some players don't even wanna leave home(eg Diamantidis who's the best in Europe, why leave when play for the best coach and have amazing fans that support in winning or losing to get to play for the Cavs or Raptors or any bottom 10-15 NBA team who are INFERIOR teams to his current one?)

But #1 is that it pays less. And it's mostly because of the rookie contracts.
If an NBA wants to sign Rubio or Teodosic, they can't. Rubio costs $6m let's say. No NBA team is allowed to sign him.
If you wanna have the best league, you need to afford the best players. And the NBA as of this moment CANNOT do that. So people saying that European basketball is catching up with the NBA are telling the truth. Watch how the lockout will destroy the NBA just because Europe can pay anyone if there's willingness by investors

Thats the issue!!! The NBA has a MONEY PROBLEM, and this structure drives down profit! If your rookies are getting 6M dollar contracts what do you think the vets will demand?

Its a great idea, but it just wont work here at this moment.

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 05:17 PM
I agree with you but your structure does not address the current issues. Firstly to start from the beginning, Cleveland would have to have acquired Lebron into their developmental league. Which is no certainty in on itself because most young players will have the tendency to idolize the larger market/more successful teams. Lets just say, for arguments sake say he did go to the Cavs.

They trade him for 100 million dollars? The issue is still money, because even the large market teams need to make a profit. Paying extra money for a players acquisition only drives down profitability. Small market teams cant spend that money. The Cavs in your example end up with a reserve to help compensate for declining revenue, but what do teams like the Bucks and Timberwolves do? How do they acquire top talent?

Its a different system, but it doesnt address the issues, no parity will still be in place, large markets will still dominate, revenue streams will not increase, and spending will increase for owners as opposed of cutting down.

Well, I don't think that Lebron's family would move to New York or Chicago or Los Angeles just because he might have an NBA future. Hence, he'll stay where he is. At least the vast majority. And even if they realize that he has NBA potential(at age 15-16) it'll be too late to move as he will be part of the Cavs system. And he won't get paid at age 16-18 till he's allowed to sign a pro contract, and perhaps not allowed to be if he's not a pro, so it defeats the purpose. Why would Lebron(or any talented kid) risk their future by going to a more competitive environment while he can be god and have a definite NBA future in Ohio? After that, he can move anywhere he pleases as long as the finances are met.
You make it sound as if people would relocate their homes, find new jobs, just because there's a possibility that in 5-6 years their kid might end up playing in the NBA!!! If I lived in Oklahoma and my kid played good basketball for his level and people say he can make the pro's in 4-5 years, I'd be happy that he could do it there. If they told me he was a top 5 player of his age there's no way in hell I'd abandon my job, force my wife to abandon hers, to move to a more expensive area where perhaps the employment is harder to find, just because my kid will have a better first year contract!! Why would anyone do that? And small market teams would pay quite a lot for their prospects so that they can invest in them. So if I wanna buy Brandon Knight from his team and he has a 5 year contract, worth $15m in total, I'd have to give them a lot of money to get him on the table to discuss terms with me. And if he's happy where he is, he'll as for more than $3m per season.
Sensible GMs know how to build their teams. And players would not create superteams but would look for most $$ possible. Wouldn't you? You think Durant cares that he's at Oklahoma or Seattle? All he cares for is his career. If he could earn $30m a year at Oklahoma, then he'd stay there rather than go to a stacked New York team and earn around the same amount.

What you fail to see, is that the market is recyclable.
I buy Varejao off the Cavs for $8m, then the Cavs buy Kevin Love off Minnesota for $18m, then Minnesota decides to check overseas and buys Rubio for $5m, Bjelica for $2m and Vougioukas for $2-3m. Proper investment.

I don't believe I have to explain how free market works to Americans of all people! Your lives revolve around free market much more than us over here. In Europe, the labor has too much power. You cannot fire employees just as you can in the States. If I own a business and I sign an employee to a contract, I have to honor it, even if he's a bad employee. In the USA you search for the best possible scenario. Why not in sports??

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 05:18 PM
lets do a simple math calculation, shall we?

talent = 90 teams = 30

avg. talent= 90/30 = 3

cut down the amount of teams to 23

avg. talent = 90/23 = 3.91

the average talent would increase. therefore the amount of talent that you would need to win is higher. which means the best players will go to the best teams in order to win.

other mediocre teams that miss out on the new wave of talent will then become the bottom feeders.

The disparity between the talent levels that exist now will continue to exist if you eliminate more teams. under the same structure we will get the same equilibrium. the only thing is that there will be less revenue from ticket sales, merchandising, etc.

what you suggesting is good for the teams that remain, not good for the entire league though.

its talent inflation. not changing any tangible(real) variables.

What variable is 90? I dont understand what your dividing?

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 05:23 PM
Thats the issue!!! The NBA has a MONEY PROBLEM, and this structure drives down profit! If your rookies are getting 6M dollar contracts what do you think the vets will demand?

Its a great idea, but it just wont work here at this moment.

The NBA's money problem exists because of misuse of economics and bad calculations.

I am all for issuing minimum and maximum salaries. But at least allow the market to flow. If a team wants to have 7 max players and 5 other expensive players, then be it. Give them 2 seasons till they declare bankruptcy though ;)


Why this is better than the current NBA system, just taking the athletic part of the side, no finances, is that there's no such thing as "rebuilding mode".
And the key situation is RELEGATION. Teams that suck, well, bad for them. So all teams will be on "WIN NOW" mode. Either win the championship, or "win" by becoming a playoff team or "win" by staying in the NBA hence getting better attendance numbers since games are far more competitive and attractive.

As for the D-League being a farm system. That's ridiculous. Can a D-League sign any player they want? Can a D-League team ever get a Kobe/Lebron/Wade/Durant? The D-League is the worst idea possible for a "farming system" and it's one of the main financial catastrophes the NBA has.

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 05:35 PM
Well, I don't think that Lebron's family would move to New York or Chicago or Los Angeles just because he might have an NBA future. Hence, he'll stay where he is. At least the vast majority. And even if they realize that he has NBA potential(at age 15-16) it'll be too late to move as he will be part of the Cavs system. And he won't get paid at age 16-18 till he's allowed to sign a pro contract, and perhaps not allowed to be if he's not a pro, so it defeats the purpose. Why would Lebron(or any talented kid) risk their future by going to a more competitive environment while he can be god and have a definite NBA future in Ohio? After that, he can move anywhere he pleases as long as the finances are met.
You make it sound as if people would relocate their homes, find new jobs, just because there's a possibility that in 5-6 years their kid might end up playing in the NBA!!! If I lived in Oklahoma and my kid played good basketball for his level and people say he can make the pro's in 4-5 years, I'd be happy that he could do it there. If they told me he was a top 5 player of his age there's no way in hell I'd abandon my job, force my wife to abandon hers, to move to a more expensive area where perhaps the employment is harder to find, just because my kid will have a better first year contract!! Why would anyone do that?

And small market teams would pay quite a lot for their prospects so that they can invest in them. So if I wanna buy Brandon Knight from his team and he has a 5 year contract, worth $15m in total, I'd have to give them a lot of money to get him on the table to discuss terms with me. And if he's happy where he is, he'll as for more than $3m per season.
Sensible GMs know how to build their teams. And players would not create superteams but would look for most $$ possible. Wouldn't you? You think Durant cares that he's at Oklahoma or Seattle? All he cares for is his career. If he could earn $30m a year at Oklahoma, then he'd stay there rather than go to a stacked New York team and earn around the same amount.

What you fail to see, is that the market is recyclable.
I buy Varejao off the Cavs for $8m, then the Cavs buy Kevin Love off Minnesota for $18m, then Minnesota decides to check overseas and buys Rubio for $5m, Bjelica for $2m and Vougioukas for $2-3m. Proper investment.

I don't believe I have to explain how free market works to Americans of all people! Your lives revolve around free market much more than us over here. In Europe, the labor has too much power. You cannot fire employees just as you can in the States. If I own a business and I sign an employee to a contract, I have to honor it, even if he's a bad employee. In the USA you search for the best possible scenario. Why not in sports??

As for the first issue, talented kids are sent off to prep schools in the states all the time. You dont have to relocate to send your kid to school. Lets say everyone stayed. New York would have a distinct advantage over Wisconsin, 19,000,000 v.s 5,000,000 in population, so in essence the talent pool would still be around the large market teams. Wheres the parity?

Secondly, the small market teams DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to pay for the prospects. Which is the main issue with them currently, little to no revenue. This system doesnt solve THIER PROBLEM.

I do not fail to see anything within the European structure, it has its advantages. What you fail to see is that although it is a good system it does not fit due to the issue currently present in the NBA. Your asking for owners to invest more money when they are looking to cut costs. Although your structure might provide better revenue in the long term it CANNOT be adopted because THEIR IS NO MONEY to adopt it.

limebalz05
04-27-2011, 05:38 PM
We're American! These colors don't run!

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 05:40 PM
The NBA's money problem exists because of misuse of economics and bad calculations.




There you go. I agree with this 100%. And due to that fact we cant even think about adopting the European system until that problem is fixed.

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 06:14 PM
There you go. I agree with this 100%. And due to that fact we cant even think about adopting the European system until that problem is fixed.

You don't need money to use that. It actually saves money for the teams that want to save money and teams that are willing to spend can inject teams that have financial problems.
I don't see why the NBA as an organization wants to be over the teams. Teams should be more important than the NBA. Not 1 or 2 teams. ALL TEAMS

Heater4life
04-27-2011, 06:38 PM
You don't need money to use that. It actually saves money for the teams that want to save money and teams that are willing to spend can inject teams that have financial problems.
I don't see why the NBA as an organization wants to be over the teams. Teams should be more important than the NBA. Not 1 or 2 teams. ALL TEAMS

Agree to disagree. :D Great discussion though. The European structure is very interesting.

NYKalltheway
04-27-2011, 08:58 PM
Agree to disagree. :D Great discussion though. The European structure is very interesting.

I was not gonna continue on this but I'm intrigued to.

Do you really feel that the Heat should not be run in the manner they wanted to be run? Do you like the fact that your team is subject to the NBA and if the NBA sees it's fit, they can move the team from Miami to Pittsburg or Kansas City or Las Vegas for example just because ticket sales are not as good as they are supposed to be? (hypothetical talk of course)

I really wanna see how Seattle fans feel about this. They got their team taken from them and could do nothing about it. In Europe there are over 25,000 multisports clubs(soccer, basketball, volleyball, some have individual sports departments too) there are over 100,000 purely soccer clubs, there are over 10,000 purely basketball clubs, there are over 1,000 purely volleyball clubs etc from top flight level to amateur level. They all have the chance, with the right investment and interest, to participate on the same league(within borders of course)

The USA is as big as Europe and overall has more interest in sports at any level population-wise. Best Olympic athletes are American, best basketball players are American, NCAA has quality level of volleyball and water polo from what I've heard and beach volleyball is really big in California(and perhaps other states)

Why limit yourselves to just 30 basketball teams that are at the mercy of David Stern or whoever will come after him? I just wanna see an honest opinion on this and why Americans are fine with having closed leagues that a handful can change the fortunes of.

valade16
04-27-2011, 10:09 PM
I was not gonna continue on this but I'm intrigued to.

Do you really feel that the Heat should not be run in the manner they wanted to be run? Do you like the fact that your team is subject to the NBA and if the NBA sees it's fit, they can move the team from Miami to Pittsburg or Kansas City or Las Vegas for example just because ticket sales are not as good as they are supposed to be? (hypothetical talk of course)

I really wanna see how Seattle fans feel about this. They got their team taken from them and could do nothing about it. In Europe there are over 25,000 multisports clubs(soccer, basketball, volleyball, some have individual sports departments too) there are over 100,000 purely soccer clubs, there are over 10,000 purely basketball clubs, there are over 1,000 purely volleyball clubs etc from top flight level to amateur level. They all have the chance, with the right investment and interest, to participate on the same league(within borders of course)

The USA is as big as Europe and overall has more interest in sports at any level population-wise. Best Olympic athletes are American, best basketball players are American, NCAA has quality level of volleyball and water polo from what I've heard and beach volleyball is really big in California(and perhaps other states)

Why limit yourselves to just 30 basketball teams that are at the mercy of David Stern or whoever will come after him? I just wanna see an honest opinion on this and why Americans are fine with having closed leagues that a handful can change the fortunes of.

I believe this plan would fail because in America there is such a big disadvantage for certain cities that have far greater clout than others.

There are probably far more picturesque cities in souther Spain or Italy than in the whole of America, but cities like Miami, Los Angeles, and weather aside New York would be so far ahead of the competition. Everyone wants to be in those cities becasue that's where the lifestyle is, the power, the culture...

So in the European system players can opt out of their contracts and go to any team they want so long as the recieving team pays a hefty fee. Sounds like it helps alleviate the problem but it doesn't.

Look at Dwight, who said he prefers Los Angeles. Just about every player would prefer NY or Miami for the fame or LA and Boston for the history.

So Orlando gets $70 million so Howard can go to the Lakers. So what? How can the Magic turn that $70 million into another Howard? The last Center with his abilities was Shaq. So that's like every 10 years or so they have a shot at a guy that good and he gets to leave.

And LA can suddenly spend as much money as they want. So as long as the players want to play there they could afford everyone.

Kobe, Howard, Bynum, Gasol, and Odom, PLUS whoever else wants to go there that LA is willing to pay to get?

How many superstar players WANT to play in Portland, Milwaukie, Denver, etc.? Look for a mass exodus of those players to the best 4 cities and the others to get stuck with crap.

Furthermore American Basketball is more individual player specific than Europe or Soccer. So a player like Howard affects the court way more than some good but not superstar players worth $70 mil ever could.

And I know your going to bring up the '04 pistons as having no superstar. Cool for them. They are still arguably the only team in NBA history to do it without a Superstar, now your expecting most teams in the NBA to pin their hopes of a championship on such a longshot?! No way.

Honestly, I like the idea of all teams being able to move up or down leagues based on standings however the rest of the european system would assure it would never work in the NBA...

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 10:12 PM
I believe this plan would fail because in America there is such a big disadvantage for certain cities that have far greater clout than others.

There are probably far more picturesque cities in souther Spain or Italy than in the whole of America, but cities like Miami, Los Angeles, and weather aside New York would be so far ahead of the competition. Everyone wants to be in those cities becasue that's where the lifestyle is, the power, the culture...

So in the European system players can opt out of their contracts and go to any team they want so long as the recieving team pays a hefty fee. Sounds like it helps alleviate the problem but it doesn't.

Look at Dwight, who said he prefers Los Angeles. Just about every player would prefer NY or Miami for the fame or LA and Boston for the history.

So Orlando gets $70 million so Howard can go to the Lakers. So what? How can the Magic turn that $70 million into another Howard? The last Center with his abilities was Shaq. So that's like every 10 years or so they have a shot at a guy that good and he gets to leave.

And LA can suddenly spend as much money as they want. So as long as the players want to play there they could afford everyone.

Kobe, Howard, Bynum, Gasol, and Odom, PLUS whoever else wants to go there that LA is willing to pay to get?

How many superstar players WANT to play in Portland, Milwaukie, Denver, etc.? Look for a mass exodus of those players to the best 4 cities and the others to get stuck with crap.

Furthermore American Basketball is more individual player specific than Europe or Soccer. So a player like Howard affects the court way more than some good but not superstar players worth $70 mil ever could.

And I know your going to bring up the '04 pistons as having no superstar. Cool for them. They are still arguably the only team in NBA history to do it without a Superstar, now your expecting most teams in the NBA to pin their hopes of a championship on such a longshot?! No way.

Honestly, I like the idea of all teams being able to move up or down leagues based on standings however the rest of the european system would assure it would never work in the NBA...

problem is.

do you think lakers would pay 15 30 million a year contracts?

one thing is joining a big three and giving up some stats and shine and the three of them make 18-20 points per game

do you seriously think 5 or 6 superstars would join? to get 12 ppg each of them? that does NOT sell snickers so it WOULDNT happen.

valade16
04-27-2011, 10:14 PM
First of all no teams moving form citys.

If cavs instead of losing lebron for nothing ( a second roudner) losing market
and geting soon into losing money with risk of being moved

had been ABLE to be traded for 100 million dollars once or two eyars ago
they woudl have a positive economic balance and wouldnt be moved.
They could also spend part of that money to hire one of the top prospects in Ncaa,.

The problem with this is the Cavs could spend the money to buy the top 5 prospects in this years draft and it still wouldn't balance out losing LeBron...

valade16
04-27-2011, 10:17 PM
problem is.

do you think lakers would pay 15 30 million a year contracts?

one thing is joining a big three and giving up some stats and shine and the three of them make 18-20 points per game

do you seriously think 5 or 6 superstars would join? to get 12 ppg each of them? that does NOT sell snickers so it WOULDNT happen.

Perhaps not 5 or 6 Superstars but look at the NBA now. "Joining Forces" is all the rage and your telling me if players suddenly got the ability to play wherever they want they WOULDN'T do it more?

How many friends and players of Bron's, Wade's, or Bosh's would want to play for the heat if given the chance? I bet many would. And even if the Heat only get 1 more guy, that's still 1 more guy to a core of 3 of the best players.

Now imagine the same in LA, Boston, and NY.

Try imagining the same thing in Milwaukie, Memphis, or Oklahoma city.

little tougher...

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 10:28 PM
Perhaps not 5 or 6 Superstars but look at the NBA now. "Joining Forces" is all the rage and your telling me if players suddenly got the ability to play wherever they want they WOULDN'T do it more?

How many friends and players of Bron's, Wade's, or Bosh's would want to play for the heat if given the chance? I bet many would. And even if the Heat only get 1 more guy, that's still 1 more guy to a core of 3 of the best players.

Now imagine the same in LA, Boston, and NY.

Try imagining the same thing in Milwaukie, Memphis, or Oklahoma city.

little tougher...

you know something fantastic?

there are tons of great players in the league who have their talent kind of shawoed by certain teamates.

king is dead long life to the new king.

this system will make some dudes breakout as stars every year while some of the ones that go to join stacke dteam will become role players and lose their shine.

and its a two way many times great players that somehow fail in the big team end up going back to a smaller team and shining again.

its a complete different concept and it works.

valade16
04-27-2011, 10:43 PM
you know something fantastic?

there are tons of great players in the league who have their talent kind of shawoed by certain teamates.

king is dead long life to the new king.

this system will make some dudes breakout as stars every year while some of the ones that go to join stacke dteam will become role players and lose their shine.

and its a two way many times great players that somehow fail in the big team end up going back to a smaller team and shining again.

its a complete different concept and it works.

I'm sure it will create more stars but let's get real, there aren't superstars the caliber of Bron, Howard, or Durant currently on any bench in the NBA...

And unless those quality of players are found that will be at the Milwaukies and Charolettes of the world by choice I don't see the system working nor being fair...

Hellcrooner
04-27-2011, 10:53 PM
I'm sure it will create more stars but let's get real, there aren't superstars the caliber of Bron, Howard, or Durant currently on any bench in the NBA...

And unless those quality of players are found that will be at the Milwaukies and Charolettes of the world by choice I don't see the system working nor being fair...

well a ton of players fancy to play for thte hometowm team.
and of course is easier to create a loyalti to some team tht groom syou since you are 10 years old than to one the lelague FORCES you to go.

im rally surprised thaat not many players simpley stay teh 3 damm years take the QO and become unrestricted FA at their 4th. th<ts what i would do.

of course to funcion to perfection the fre market requires a bigger league with VERTICAL divisions and Relegation/promotion.

gwrighter
04-28-2011, 12:54 AM
What variable is 90? I dont understand what your dividing?

i made up an arbitrary # to represent the total amount of talent in the league.

90 = total talent level in the league

# of teams = 30

talent per team = 90/30 =3

when you have less teams (23)

talent per team = 90/23= approx. 4

when you raise the talent level on each team, the disparity will still exist. you will just inflate the talent level on every remaining team. there will still be terrible teams record wise.

It would be like if OKC got booted n kevin durant, n westbrook both went to the lakers.

there would be stupid good teams and also just good teams. so the boringness that is losing will still persist.

you would be also be eliminating another source of revenue for the league by way of merchandising, ticket sales, franchise fees, TV deals, product placement, etc.

so the overall impact of eliminating teams will have a negative effect in the long run.

NYKalltheway
04-28-2011, 09:01 AM
You guys have to realize that in basketball the better team wins. It's how it goes.

If you want parity, then scrap the 7 game series and use a knockout system instead with 2 games where point difference advances. And last 4 in an NCAA/Euroleague way. Hence Final Four. One game, win or die.
The more games you play, the more likely the better team will win.

But if you wanna have the best talent possible, well you can't with the draft and all these restrictions can you?

Why limit a team to 2 new players, one supposedly good and one below average? Why not let the teams approach 6-7 players that and sign 4-5 of them if they wanna go cheap or if they wanna build around young talent? Why limit the teams so much?

You say that the draft is there because it helps the bad teams.
Did it help the Wizards now? Did it help the Nets? Or the Timberwolves? Turner did not have an impact with the Sixers, it's purely Collins and a great teamwork performance.

As for teams not affording players, that's not true. Of course there's need to be a slight reduction in salaries, but salary cap limits the team's potential. And what destroys the NBA is the reliance on profit.

In Europe the owners spending money know that it's not coming back. They just want to win domestic championship and cup as well as the Euroleague or Eurocup or wherever they are playing. My team spends over $30m in salaries and has less than $15m income... Nobody talks about a crisis. In fact, everyone talks about the greatest team in the last 15-30 years!

NYKalltheway
04-28-2011, 09:11 AM
And how do you think the Bulls, Lakers, Celtics will change with free market?
In fact, Dallas will get better. Heat will get a better point guard or better C, Orlando will get better players surrounding Dwight or sell him to a team that needs a C, San Antonio will have an easier job remaining contenders, Memphis can keep their team inact and improve further, Knicks will sign a SG and C they need etc

Instead of having 3-4 contenders, you'll have 10 at least. I don't think the average fan cares that much about how many teams are bad. If you have 10 teams with legit chances of contending, it will bring up more fans. And it will increase interest of International players. Why would an international player who's 25-28 years old and has a potential stardom career in Europe want to enter the draft(hence, the unknown) and play for a bad team when he can be signed by any team he wants that likes him? Maybe Rubio is more suited for Orlando for example and he knows it. Why not give him the chance to go there and why does Minnesota control his rights? Same applies to all international players that have been drafted but still did not cross the ocean.

What makes you think that Lakers will have 8 superstars? Who would join the Lakers in their prime just to play 20 minutes? Perhaps it'd be easier for better teams to get better veterans, but that means weaker teams will get younger talent as well... And by farming their own players for no extra cost(other than facilities cost and coaches), teams will have more liberty and greater access to talent nation-wide. A development of someone who plays HS ball is much different from someone who's trained by professionals at young age. Proof? Pau Gasol vs any PF of this generation..

Heater4life
04-28-2011, 09:36 AM
I was not gonna continue on this but I'm intrigued to.

Do you really feel that the Heat should not be run in the manner they wanted to be run? Do you like the fact that your team is subject to the NBA and if the NBA sees it's fit, they can move the team from Miami to Pittsburg or Kansas City or Las Vegas for example just because ticket sales are not as good as they are supposed to be? (hypothetical talk of course)

I really wanna see how Seattle fans feel about this. They got their team taken from them and could do nothing about it. In Europe there are over 25,000 multisports clubs(soccer, basketball, volleyball, some have individual sports departments too) there are over 100,000 purely soccer clubs, there are over 10,000 purely basketball clubs, there are over 1,000 purely volleyball clubs etc from top flight level to amateur level. They all have the chance, with the right investment and interest, to participate on the same league(within borders of course)

The USA is as big as Europe and overall has more interest in sports at any level population-wise. Best Olympic athletes are American, best basketball players are American, NCAA has quality level of volleyball and water polo from what I've heard and beach volleyball is really big in California(and perhaps other states)

Why limit yourselves to just 30 basketball teams that are at the mercy of David Stern or whoever will come after him? I just wanna see an honest opinion on this and why Americans are fine with having closed leagues that a handful can change the fortunes of.

Firstly, the NBA DOESNT control where a team is moved, the owner of the said team determines that, and if all requirements for the move are met (such as stadium, revenue predictions, infrastructure, etc.) the NBA approves. But they dont move you, thats the owners decision.

Secondly, the Heat are run by the Heat, not the NBA. Thats why our team has what they have, by being smart, making solid financial plans and business decisions. I dont think sports without structure works, if that were the case there would be no New Orleans Hornets because the NBA bought the team from its owner. And look what beautiful things their doing in the playoffs and what great fans they have.

No need for them to go bankrupt.

NYKalltheway
04-28-2011, 09:39 AM
that's not what I've asked :)
But as for the owners you're right. Same way Stern convinced Seattle that they won't be moved when Starbucks guy sold them... Behind the scenes or not, the NBA kinda decides where teams will relocate to.

As for the structue, I'm not saying remove it, I'm saying why not change it ;)

And they are subject to the NBA as in "profits must be high" and all that monetary rules unrleated to the basketball team. Why not have the best possible basketball team and be restricted?

Heater4life
04-28-2011, 09:45 AM
i made up an arbitrary # to represent the total amount of talent in the league.

90 = total talent level in the league

# of teams = 30

talent per team = 90/30 =3

when you have less teams (23)

talent per team = 90/23= approx. 4

when you raise the talent level on each team, the disparity will still exist. you will just inflate the talent level on every remaining team. there will still be terrible teams record wise.

It would be like if OKC got booted n kevin durant, n westbrook both went to the lakers.

there would be stupid good teams and also just good teams. so the boringness that is losing will still persist.

you would be also be eliminating another source of revenue for the league by way of merchandising, ticket sales, franchise fees, TV deals, product placement, etc.

so the overall impact of eliminating teams will have a negative effect in the long run.

you essentially made up a number. I dont think we should retract anyone but here a breakdown.

8 teams retracted, calculate 5 starters and the top 2 rotation players of those teams.

8x7=56

56/22 (the amount of teams left after retraction)= 2.54 quality rotation players added to a team.

then factor in the draft where talent is less diluted by the subtraction of 8 teams, 16 total picks. Eventually, the competition would rise immensely.

Not supporting it, just stating a point.

Heater4life
04-28-2011, 09:49 AM
that's not what I've asked :)
But as for the owners you're right. Same way Stern convinced Seattle that they won't be moved when Starbucks guy sold them... Behind the scenes or not, the NBA kinda decides where teams will relocate to.

As for the structue, I'm not saying remove it, I'm saying why not change it ;)

And they are subject to the NBA as in "profits must be high" and all that monetary rules unrleated to the basketball team. Why not have the best possible basketball team and be restricted?

Because if we dont have the same restrictions and the same obstacles it just isnt fair IMO. Would it be awesome for the Heat to pay everyone and have an alsstar team. Sure. but where would the fun be in competing?

NYKalltheway
04-28-2011, 10:33 AM
It's not just the Heat that will be doing that though, that's the point. You think Cuban will leave the Mavericks without the best possible team out there? Or Paul Allen leaving Portland without a title shot? Or the Knicks and Nets not contending? Or the Bulls not sticking with their current roster plus adding a few upgrades? Or the Celtics not renewing their team right away? There's too many examples of rich owners that would invest just to win the championship and they could win it. It'll be much more exciting with 10-12 contenders than simply wait till the conference semi-finals to watch the best games.

And remember, one team's trash is another team's treasure ;) So it's a cycle, not a one way road. "Bad" teams will not become worse. And stacked teams don't always win (well not in NCAA or Euroleague at least). Need I remind you of Duke last season with Wall, Cousins, Orton, Bledsoe, Patterson (i forgot 1) from the 2010 draft. They did not even reach F4.

The NBA is not a proper basketball league. A league where all teams play 82 games in a space of 5 months is unnatural. See the NFL which is the most popular sport. Just 16 regular season games. Should be 30 imo(not a fan of the sport, just think 30-40 is optimal for a league season), but still, it's the most popular sport and people see it as a celebration. Why not basketball having a shorter season with less teams and vertical divisions?
You think a league of 20 teams, playing twice against each other(38 matches each that is) would be bad for the league? Make them play twice a week for example. Once between Tuesday-Thurdsay and once between Friday-Sunday but no Thursday+Friday for example. Make the regular season more competitive and count more.
Make it as such teams that get promoted to the NBA 1st division get a $$$ bonus so they can sign better players who wouldn't wanna play in the 2nd division. Open the league up, allow people to form their own teams if they want and start from amateur level.
In the "real" world we've seen Google pop out of nothing. Why not a group of people from Pittsburg start a new team, play in the lower leagues, interest piles up, they end up finding a sponsor to create a new arena for them and they become a basketball force. Why not give that chance to people? We've seen many things start from nothing, just because it's a free world and people had the chance. I have the chance to start a new company and become a billionaire. All I need is an idea. Well, if I'm not even allowed to start a new company, then I won't be able to do so right?