PDA

View Full Version : NBA's biggest problem?



Ebbs
10-13-2012, 08:07 PM
Obviously the fact that a season was in question last year, was the big problem at that time.

During the season fans reached a new level of irritance with flopping, whether it's the right solution or not it's been addressed.

So where does the leagues biggest problem lie now? Is it still financial? Is it with the creation of super teams? Something to do with the style of play?

MrfadeawayJB
10-13-2012, 08:11 PM
still flopping for me, but at least they are adressing it.


next in line for me in superstar treatment

Ebbs
10-13-2012, 08:13 PM
still flopping for me, but at least they are adressing it.


next in line for me in superstar treatment

In regards to ownership, money, player movement, or refs gifting calls?

Raps18-19 Champ
10-13-2012, 08:14 PM
No hard cap.

mdm692
10-13-2012, 08:21 PM
Hard Cap and refs giving superstars special treatment. If you, as a franchise, want to spoil your star that's fine but they shouldn't get that at all in the court.

knicks=love
10-13-2012, 08:29 PM
i think it's the super teams. it'll be down to the same few teams for a couple years now. i like to see different teams win it since it's more interesting than seeing the same team win every single year which will likely happen with the heat. it gets boring.. look at the NFL and MLB, different winners every year. in the MLB, no team has won back to back since the yankees in the late 90s.

Ebbs
10-13-2012, 08:32 PM
i think it's the super teams. it'll be down to the same few teams for a couple years now. i like to see different teams win it since it's more interesting than seeing the same team win every single year which will likely happen with the heat. it gets boring.. look at the NFL and MLB, different winners every year. in the MLB, no team has won back to back since the yankees in the late 90s.

I worry about this as well. I love the NBA, because I love basketball more than any other sport. However if I essentially have to watch Lakers, Heat, Knicks, and Thunder for the next decade I may not be a sports fan in my 30's.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-13-2012, 08:33 PM
i think it's the super teams. it'll be down to the same few teams for a couple years now. i like to see different teams win it since it's more interesting than seeing the same team win every single year which will likely happen with the heat. it gets boring.. look at the NFL and MLB, different winners every year. in the MLB, no team has won back to back since the yankees in the late 90s.

Get a hard cap.

You'll fix this.

ChiSox219
10-13-2012, 08:38 PM
9 teams have won the title since 1980. Superteams have casual fans enthralled with the NBA while MLB is basically invisible to those under 25.

jon32
10-13-2012, 08:43 PM
the ball isnt as orange as it use to be

Dade County
10-13-2012, 08:46 PM
I think an outside organization needs to look into the league for the sake of the fans...

I feel that the league is tainted... And I feel that some elite super stars are in on it too. I feel that the league got smart and they couldn't always have their Refs make outrageous calls, time after time.

If I wasn't a HEAT fan ( born & raised in the county of Dade ), I wouldn't feel good about giving this corrupted league any ratings.

All I want is too enjoy the games again... It's no point of me showing any emotion to the game, if in the back of my mind, I'm like the Refs and some elite players are in on this one.

I just want to watch games and know that it's not tainted!!!

tapajafri
10-13-2012, 08:47 PM
The NBA's biggest problem isn't flopping.

It's Dick Bavetta.

knicks=love
10-13-2012, 08:47 PM
I worry about this as well. I love the NBA, because I love basketball more than any other sport. However if I essentially have to watch Lakers, Heat, Knicks, and Thunder for the next decade I may not be a sports fan in my 30's.

i'll always be a sports fan regardless, but it just won't be as interesting to watch.


Get a hard cap.

You'll fix this.

yeah yeah :rolleyes:

knicks=love
10-13-2012, 08:51 PM
I think an outside organization needs to look into the league for the sake of the fans...

I feel that the league is tainted... And I feel that some elite super stars are in on it too. I feel that the league got smart and they couldn't always have their Refs make outrageous calls, time after time.

If I wasn't a HEAT fan ( born & raised in the county of Dade ), I wouldn't feel good about giving this corrupted league any ratings.

All I want is too enjoy the games again... It's no point of me showing any emotion to the game, if in the back of my mind, I'm like the Refs and some elite players are in on this one.

I just want to watch games and know that it's not tainted!!!

so then how do you feel about super teams? are you "over" (for lack of a better word) the fact that the heat have too much star power and will be a force for years to come? i just think it's not as fun if your team doesn't go through the low stages and have to rebuild.

Dade County
10-13-2012, 09:26 PM
so then how do you feel about super teams? are you "over" (for lack of a better word) the fact that the heat have too much star power and will be a force for years to come?

I have no problem with Super Teams... I have a big problem with Refs and players cheating, and robing the fans out of their time and money.



i just think it's not as fun if your team doesn't go through the low stages and have to rebuild.

I see what you are saying, but the HEAT went through there low time,( to me, anyway ). Wade wasted 3 years off of his career after the 2006 finals.

But I am a fan of moving very good players on to teams that can fight for a title... I don't like what happens to very top tier players when they have to sit on teams for like 9 years, knowing that their front office is never going to put it together.

So yes contraction, or restart the league and make it that only 1 all star player can be on each team... Something crazy like that lol.... It all leads to Contraction :nod:

Actually.. I have been thinking about what if Dirk can get moved to the 76ers or any team that needs someone like him to compete deep into the playoffs.

KnickaBocka.44
10-13-2012, 09:30 PM
i think it's the super teams. it'll be down to the same few teams for a couple years now. i like to see different teams win it since it's more interesting than seeing the same team win every single year which will likely happen with the heat. it gets boring.. look at the NFL and MLB, different winners every year. in the MLB, no team has won back to back since the yankees in the late 90s.


And the MLB has no salary cap, proving that it isn't necessary in order to keep the league competitive.

knicks=love
10-13-2012, 09:59 PM
I have no problem with Super Teams... I have a big problem with Refs and players cheating, and robing the fans out of their time and money.

I see what you are saying, but the HEAT went through there low time,( to me, anyway ). Wade wasted 3 years off of his career after the 2006 finals.

But I am a fan of moving very good players on to teams that can fight for a title... I don't like what happens to very top tier players when they have to sit on teams for like 9 years, knowing that their front office is never going to put it together.

So yes contraction, or restart the league and make it that only 1 all star player can be on each team... Something crazy like that lol.... It all leads to Contraction :nod:

Actually.. I have been thinking about what if Dirk can get moved to the 76ers or any team that needs someone like him to compete deep into the playoffs.

my thing is that there really is no need for 3 top 25 players on one team. it just doesn't make the league competitive or as competitive as it used to be/should be.


And the MLB has no salary cap, proving that it isn't necessary in order to keep the league competitive.

ok.. you still see different winners every year.

KnickaBocka.44
10-13-2012, 10:36 PM
ok.. you still see different winners every year.

I'm not arguing anything you said. I'm using what you said as proof that a salary cap doesn't necessarily improve parity.

Bramaca
10-13-2012, 11:41 PM
A lack of entertainment in terms of competitiveness. The last 20-25 games of the season really don't matter at all. Because there are, in my opinion, too many games there is a real lack of battles between teams and a lot of games where one or both of the teams seem to coast through it.

Too many teams in the playoffs. Should be cut to 8 teams, the last time a team outside of the top 4 in a conference made even the conference finals it was the 90's.

Lack of anything to cheer for or players to play for in the bottom 20 teams. Split the league into two vertical conferences. Winner of the bottom division moves up and knocks the bottom team from their corresponding division down.

da ThRONe
10-14-2012, 08:00 AM
The problem with competitve balance isn't just a lack of a hard cap it's max contracts. This is what really allow franchises like superteams. If players could earn what they are worth teams wouldn't have enough cap space to stack their teams.

I would say season length is the number 1 problem with the league. It really hurts the overall value of the league. With today's media coverage the goal of every pro league should be to balance the amount of product versus how much of your sport can actually be consumed by the tv audience. The NBA has far too many games and stretches during the season that feel insignificant not just with the fans, but amongst the players as well.

:on a side I wouldn't say flopping is fixed yet.

da ThRONe
10-14-2012, 08:16 AM
A lack of entertainment in terms of competitiveness. The last 20-25 games of the season really don't matter at all. Because there are, in my opinion, too many games there is a real lack of battles between teams and a lot of games where one or both of the teams seem to coast through it.

Too many teams in the playoffs. Should be cut to 8 teams, the last time a team outside of the top 4 in a conference made even the conference finals it was the 90's.

Lack of anything to cheer for or players to play for in the bottom 20 teams. Split the league into two vertical conferences. Winner of the bottom division moves up and knocks the bottom team from their corresponding division down.

I think shorting the playoffs to a best of 5 would be better for competitive balance as well. That combine with cutting out 26 games would do wonders for the league. I would kill the lottery system as well or if anything narrow it down to the bottom 3-5 teams.

mike_noodles
10-14-2012, 08:31 AM
Lack of parity is my biggest problem. All of the other big 3 have more parity than the NBA imo.

KnickaBocka.44
10-14-2012, 12:08 PM
I think shorting the playoffs to a best of 5 would be better for competitive balance as well. That combine with cutting out 26 games would do wonders for the league. I would kill the lottery system as well or if anything narrow it down to the bottom 3-5 teams.

You have some good ideas here. I think 5 games in the first round would make upset possibilities more exciting. Also, the smaller lottery makes more since since after the teams that get the top 3 picks the rest of the order is dictated by record anyway.


Lack of parity is my biggest problem. All of the other big 3 have more parity than the NBA imo.

Sick avatar...I love the Oakman.

Bramaca
10-14-2012, 12:19 PM
I think shorting the playoffs to a best of 5 would be better for competitive balance as well. That combine with cutting out 26 games would do wonders for the league. I would kill the lottery system as well or if anything narrow it down to the bottom 3-5 teams.

Shortening the series to best of 5 would be nice but it would have to go with the playoffs being reduced to 8 teams. I am a huge fan of vertical divisions for the league. Everyone is playing for something instead of a handful of teams playing for somthing and everyone else really just waiting.

Ebbs
10-14-2012, 05:12 PM
Yea I would be ok with 20 less regular season game and best of 5 series but that won't happen huge loss of cash for the NFL.

ink
10-14-2012, 05:25 PM
Funny thing is because of all the lockouts we get I'm becoming used to shortened seasons and I don't mind them at all. If they're not careful fans everywhere will start to realize they don't need 16, 82, 84, or 162 games. About 40-50 games, max 20 teams, and get onto the playoffs which is all that really matters anyway. That would be fine by me.

da ThRONe
10-14-2012, 05:41 PM
Yea I would be ok with 20 less regular season game and best of 5 series but that won't happen huge loss of cash for the NFL.

Not if they market the reduced season right. The one thing about football is even the most causal fan knows when to turn the tv on and find their teams. If the league would do something like select two nights a week and make them basketball days. I'm sure the ratings would increase. Tv ratings are where the true money is. The NCAA makes more tv revenue off of March Madness than the NBA makes in tv revenue all regular season.

A reduced season would be easier to follow for fans and also allows the players adequate rest. With less games to get to the playoffs and sufficient rest we likely to not only have healthier players, but much more freshier players. Which should lead to significant better on court product.

Ebbs
10-14-2012, 05:42 PM
Not if they market the reduced season right. The one thing about football is even the most causal fan knows when to turn the tv on and find their teams. If the league would do something like select two nights a week and make them basketball days. I'm sure the ratings would increase. Tv ratings are where the true money is. The NCAA makes more tv revenue off of March Madness than the NBA makes in tv revenue all regular season.
A reduced season would be easier to follow for fans and also allows the players adequate rest. With less games to get to the playoffs and sufficient rest we likely to not only have healthier players, but much more freshier players. Which should lead to significant better on court product.

Wow did not know that.

da ThRONe
10-14-2012, 05:47 PM
Wow did not know that.

Yeah I just read it somewhere not to long ago in an article about reducing the season. It caught me by surprise as well. Not sure if it's just national tv deal the NBA has with the networks or all the individual tv deals all the teams sign. I have to imagine it's the former. Still I did a double take when I read it.

ldawg
10-14-2012, 05:49 PM
Flopping and tanking.

zB_#85
10-14-2012, 05:50 PM
Funny thing is because of all the lockouts we get I'm becoming used to shortened seasons and I don't mind them at all. If they're not careful fans everywhere will start to realize they don't need 16, 82, 84, or 162 games. About 40-50 games, max 20 teams, and get onto the playoffs which is all that really matters anyway. That would be fine by me.

Doesn't matter what fans realize, owners and the leagues will not reduce games b/c it's a revenue hit. Even if thy don't sell out people will go, networks will pay to broadcast, etc...

abe_froman
10-14-2012, 05:54 PM
And the MLB has no salary cap, proving that it isn't necessary in order to keep the league competitive.

different sports,since different things are required you cant thinking what governs one well will govern the other the same way.i dont really get this apply all thinking so many of you have.


but to the post your quoting.no,in fact viewership and revenue have been up since the superteams have formed.basketball fans are made up of more bandwagoners and are more susceptible to becoming one than any other.so,no superteams dont hurt..they actually help,look at the biggest peaks in popularity,they coincide with dynasties/superteam eras

da ThRONe
10-14-2012, 06:01 PM
Doesn't matter what fans realize, owners and the leagues will not reduce games b/c it's a revenue hit. Even if thy don't sell out people will go, networks will pay to broadcast, etc...

Old rich guys are so stubborn I doubt we get a better product. However the NFL proves you don't need more of games to produce more revenue. There are some racially based issues where basketball can't compete with football but other than that the NFL just has a better setup in every area from scheduling, to playoff format, to it's tv deal.

zB_#85
10-14-2012, 06:08 PM
Old rich guys are so stubborn I doubt we get a better product. However the NFL proves you don't need more of games to produce more revenue. There are some racially based issues were basketball can't compete with football but other than that the NFL just has a better setup in every area from scheduling, to playoff format, to it's tv deal.

Correct but even the NFL is pushing hard for more games and will most likely be up to 18 in a couple years.

JEDean89
10-14-2012, 06:10 PM
the problem with the nba superteams, and many of the problems related to imbalance, is that since there are only 5 players on the court, and one player can play almost an entire game, one player can dominate like no other sport. the difference right now between lebron and say, dwight howard and chris paul is huge. the difference between lebron and the 30th best player in the league is massive. if every team were given a top player then some teams would be building around guys that can't ever win. this, imo would be horrible for the league. "super teams" are the only way that players can guarantee contention. the only way lebron could take down the celts was with to get wade and bosh. the only way the celts could get past the lakers was to get allen and garnett and so on so forth. there is however hope. a few teams in the nba are redefining good management by playing the nba like the stock market, buy low, sell high. to get the most value out of a player, you have to sell them as nugget's gm masai ujiri has found out, in their prime. he took carmelo, billups and nene, about 40 mill worth of players and has since turned these players into: gallo, wilson chandler, andre miller, mozgov, koufus, mcgee, jordan hamilton and a number of future picks. right now the nuggets have almost too many assets. not one player on the team was on the 2009 conference finals team and ty lawson is the only player that was here when melo was. they rebuilt completely around a 16th overall draft pick and did so with out ever missing the playoffs and within a season and a half, being better than they were with their 15 million dollar players. a great coach, a great gm, a winning culture and good player development is the key to succeed in small markets. look at the small western conference markets that have had success over the years and always seem good without ever getting a top pick if you want to see a blueprint for sucess. kenneth faried was considered the 3rd best rookie last year and was drafted 22. why would focus more on tanking than building a winning culuture?

ChiSox219
10-14-2012, 06:11 PM
The league's biggest problem is D Rose is not playing but nothing they can do about that.

StarvingKnick22
10-14-2012, 06:21 PM
Super teams and cap spaces.

KnicksorBust
10-14-2012, 06:51 PM
I don't think the league has any big problems right now. They have a ton of marketable stars. Fresh storylines. Ratings were great. And they addressed a couple of big issues with rule changes (flopping + additional review options). It's a good time to be an NBA Fan.

JNA17
10-14-2012, 08:55 PM
1. Flopping (its still gonna happen, just not as much hopefully).
2. Refs still worse then replacement refs from the NFL in general when calling games.
3. No hand check rule
4. David Stern

Super teams wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the idiotic small market owners creating them in the first place. (see phi, Orlando, and Cleveland).

da ThRONe
10-14-2012, 09:35 PM
1. Flopping (its still gonna happen, just not as much hopefully).
2. Refs still worse then replacement refs from the NFL in general when calling games.
3. No hand check rule
4. David Stern

Super teams wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the idiotic small market owners creating them in the first place. (see phi, Orlando, and Cleveland).

Is this serious? The fact Orlando trading Dwight to the Lakers a side, in all those other situations the teams hands were tied. How does Cleveland get thrown in? LeBron left via free agency nothing the Cavs could do about that.

Bramaca
10-14-2012, 10:25 PM
Old rich guys are so stubborn I doubt we get a better product. However the NFL proves you don't need more of games to produce more revenue. There are some racially based issues where basketball can't compete with football but other than that the NFL just has a better setup in every area from scheduling, to playoff format, to it's tv deal.

I doubt it would just be the old rich owners opposing it. Pretty sure the players and the PA would be yelling at the top of their lung to prevent any potential loss in salaries. I think overall the revenues would recover and then some from tv deals but both sides would have a hard tie of letting go.

Pierzynski4Prez
10-14-2012, 10:38 PM
I worry about this as well. I love the NBA, because I love basketball more than any other sport. However if I essentially have to watch Lakers, Heat, Knicks, and Thunder for the next decade I may not be a sports fan in my 30's.

lol

ldawg
10-14-2012, 10:38 PM
Call me nuts but i like super teams. I rather the NBA drop teams than stop super teams. It is suck for a fan if their team is not one of them but that is why i think they should contract. The real problem in the nba is teams tanking, flopping and the refs calling the game in the favor of the bigger name player. Think about teams that team with one allstar, or If that player get injured. Last season Nets. See no one want to watch that watered down product. I think the key is to stop drafting to many young raw players. This is what tanking teams are doing. It lower the IQ level of the league. A bunch of players with potential that dont know the game dont care to win just want to get paid. Andrew Bynum is a perfect example of potential. If Lakers had 4 players like Bynum they would suck whilel those players groom. Lucky for Lakers they had Kobe and Pau. What would you rather 20 teams like heat, okc, Lakers, Nets or 30 teams like the Hornets or Bobcats, Wolves?

ink
10-14-2012, 11:16 PM
Doesn't matter what fans realize, owners and the leagues will not reduce games b/c it's a revenue hit. Even if thy don't sell out people will go, networks will pay to broadcast, etc...

The owners put up the capital to run a team but the fans pay the freight. There's a lot of biting the hand that feeds going on in pro sport. Is the fan's patience infinite? We'll see eventually.

The_Jamal
10-14-2012, 11:25 PM
There will always be a problem with basketball and parity between teams as individual players are far more important in the NBA than any of the other 3 sports. Mike Trout in baseball is a perfect example of this. He put up one of the most impressive seasons in the last 6-7 years and his team still missed the playoffs.

Unfortunately, it's just something we have to live with as basketball fans. The NBA will be dominated by the top 20 players and the teams who have those top 20 players will be the successful organizations

NYMetros
10-14-2012, 11:28 PM
There's been "super teams" throughout the history of the NBA, that's not like it's a new thing. If a team gets a superstar player then they will be contenders for as long as that player is great, just the way it is

BKLYNpigeon
10-14-2012, 11:44 PM
no hard salary cap

JNA17
10-14-2012, 11:50 PM
Is this serious? The fact Orlando trading Dwight to the Lakers a side, in all those other situations the teams hands were tied. How does Cleveland get thrown in? LeBron left via free agency nothing the Cavs could do about that.

You don't trade the best player and get the worst deal in a 4 team trade. Simple.

Cleveland doesn't trade Lebron...why? "Oh but they were the 1st seed!" and that means...what exactly? They weren't going to win anything still and everybody knew that, just like him leaving the Cavs.

Small market teams are just that, small market because their run by incompetent owners/GMs.

da ThRONe
10-15-2012, 12:47 AM
I doubt it would just be the old rich owners opposing it. Pretty sure the players and the PA would be yelling at the top of their lung to prevent any potential loss in salaries. I think overall the revenues would recover and then some from tv deals but both sides would have a hard tie of letting go.

Ultimately the owners make the rules. A number of players already agree that the season is too long. Players get a certain percentage of all basketball related income. So if the idea was to make changes to the season length etc for the purposes of gaining more viewers which means larger tv deals. Then the players would get that money back moving forward and gain more down time in the process.

ink
10-15-2012, 03:08 AM
There's been "super teams" throughout the history of the NBA, that's not like it's a new thing. If a team gets a superstar player then they will be contenders for as long as that player is great, just the way it is

Myth. There's a difference between super teams and stacked teams. We've had lots of stacked teams in NBA history but only recently have super teams started.

zB_#85
10-15-2012, 11:33 AM
The owners put up the capital to run a team but the fans pay the freight. There's a lot of biting the hand that feeds going on in pro sport. Is the fan's patience infinite? We'll see eventually.

I agree with what you're saying, but I guess my answer to the question of fan's patience being infinite is yes. People will ***** and complain but never truly do anything about it. I mean...some will, but the vast majority will still buy NBA League Pass, NFL Sunday Ticket, buy jerseys, buy hats, watch the games on TV, etc. As long as ratings don't dip, the prices keep going up on these TV contracts and all of the above examples I gave on how fans support pro sports will not be sworn off by everyone. A small group may boycott but it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a small group and I don't see that happening. We eat, sleep, and breathe sports...just look at us all on this sports forum all the damn time lol. Yet we're really going to boycott the sports we love?

ink
10-15-2012, 11:41 AM
I agree with what you're saying, but I guess my answer to the question of fan's patience being infinite is yes. People will ***** and complain but never truly do anything about it. I mean...some will, but the vast majority will still buy NBA League Pass, NFL Sunday Ticket, buy jerseys, buy hats, watch the games on TV, etc. As long as ratings don't dip, the prices keep going up on these TV contracts and all of the above examples I gave on how fans support pro sports will not be sworn off by everyone. A small group may boycott but it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a small group and I don't see that happening. We eat, sleep, and breathe sports...just look at us all on this sports forum all the damn time lol. Yet we're really going to boycott the sports we love?

It depends on how sustainable our lifestyle is. This economic downturn isn't necessarily just a recession. If we don't have the disposable income, and the broadcast/media world continues to turn inside out, the marketplace may shift radically for pro sport. The economy in 5-10-15-20 years may not be able to sustain luxuries like pro sports leagues. I know that's very speculative, but I think that's one of the reasons why leagues are going to lockouts and trying to fix their financial dysfunctions now. This austerity period may not just be temporary. Pro leagues better watch their product very carefully, and monitor fan interest/disinterest very carefully.

jericho
10-15-2012, 12:10 PM
Get a hard cap.

You'll fix this.

mlb doesnt have a hard cap and the have different winners almost every yr

jericho
10-15-2012, 12:31 PM
The problem with competitve balance isn't just a lack of a hard cap it's max contracts. This is what really allow franchises like superteams. If players could earn what they are worth teams wouldn't have enough cap space to stack their teams.

I would say season length is the number 1 problem with the league. It really hurts the overall value of the league. With today's media coverage the goal of every pro league should be to balance the amount of product versus how much of your sport can actually be consumed by the tv audience. The NBA has far too many games and stretches during the season that feel insignificant not just with the fans, but amongst the players as well.

:on a side I wouldn't say flopping is fixed yet.

mlb plays over 160 games. nba players from the 80s and 90s were playing 82 games a season as well so why are the players from this era complaining bout this. this would also hurt the media as well if they short out the season cuz it would be almost imposible for players to break records and you know the media woul love to cover a lets say lebron getting to 30000 points for his career. with less games he wouldnt be able to do that and believe it or not the media has a lot of say in this they help promote the nba

xcrisisx
10-15-2012, 03:25 PM
lebron james

KnicksorBust
10-15-2012, 03:32 PM
It depends on how sustainable our lifestyle is. This economic downturn isn't necessarily just a recession. If we don't have the disposable income, and the broadcast/media world continues to turn inside out, the marketplace may shift radically for pro sport. The economy in 5-10-15-20 years may not be able to sustain luxuries like pro sports leagues. I know that's very speculative, but I think that's one of the reasons why leagues are going to lockouts and trying to fix their financial dysfunctions now. This austerity period may not just be temporary. Pro leagues better watch their product very carefully, and monitor fan interest/disinterest very carefully.

Be serious. There will always be enough rich people in the world to buy a sports team and overpay guys like Rashard Lewis. If anything, the worst case scenario is more leagues will add hard caps and lower expenses which is still a far cry from the removal of professional sports in America.

ink
10-15-2012, 06:03 PM
Be serious. There will always be enough rich people in the world to buy a sports team and overpay guys like Rashard Lewis. If anything, the worst case scenario is more leagues will add hard caps and lower expenses which is still a far cry from the removal of professional sports in America.

That is if we don't have a worse crash in the next 5-20 years. Our present rate of consumption isn't sustainable long term and luxuries like sports leagues would be among the first things to go.

Your second point is in keeping with what I was getting at: hard caps and lowered expenses. The league has to become more efficient and cost effective. The problem will be that the players will want their cut and won't take any rollbacks lightly. They will fight whatever cost-cutting the league attempts.

da ThRONe
10-15-2012, 08:39 PM
mlb plays over 160 games. nba players from the 80s and 90s were playing 82 games a season as well so why are the players from this era complaining bout this. this would also hurt the media as well if they short out the season cuz it would be almost imposible for players to break records and you know the media woul love to cover a lets say lebron getting to 30000 points for his career. with less games he wouldnt be able to do that and believe it or not the media has a lot of say in this they help promote the nba

The record books are my last concern and really aren't that important in basketball. Not many hardcore fans can tell you how many points Kareem ended with.

Honestly with less games(2 a week) the media would have more time to promote and scrutinize each game a la how they do with football. That's another huge reason why football is such a highly viewed sport. There's the build up all week. Basketball offers no such build up. It's just one game after the other the whole season.

PleaseBeNice
10-15-2012, 08:41 PM
We need a hard cap

WhoAmI-
10-15-2012, 09:40 PM
Superstar calls, overpaid players, and David Stern.

ArmLaker
10-15-2012, 09:43 PM
No relegations.....like in football(soccer) where the bottom 2-3 teams in the league gets relegated, and the top 2-3 teams from the 2nd league gets promoted. That would surely spice things up a bit and make it entertaining. Because quite frankly, teams like the Bobcats or Raptors should be relegated.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-15-2012, 09:53 PM
lebron james

On the contrary, he and Kobe have been the 2 main household names that have kept the NBA alive more than ever in the states and in the international scene in the post-Jordan era.