• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

NBA / NCAA Basketball

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oldman said:
Allen and friends had hedged their bet with NASL and it's been selling out, game after game. The participant and fan base was beyond expectations and, with the Mariner's discovering the depths of the AL West there are few distractions to compete. This weekend they used the stadium for WSU vs OSU football as Allen was a Cougar grad. It's been a well used facility.
CenturyLink Field (formerly QWest Field), home field of the Seahawks and NASL Seattle Sounders does have a pretty diversified usage. An NBA arena probably could not be exploited in as many ways as successfully as they have done with CenturyLink.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
Oldman said:
One was several miles from my home and the locals were somewhat willing to dedicate the land and infrastructure but no teams have proven weak enough to pick off, apparently. I watched the one championship team and several following years with season's tickets. It's now so ridiculously overpriced that people would rather go skiing at Whistler or Sun Valley for the same price of one game.
NBA basketball is a tax-subsidized business. Given the NBA's structure, an NBA team (not in a giant TV market) cannot compete without governmental assistance. If you have a NBA team, your tax money indirectly subsidizes those obscene player salaries. I'm glad that the Sonics are gone. Sooner or later, Clay Bennett or his successors are going to bully OKC the same way they did Seattle. It's inevitable. The NBA is a parasite that can't help but eat away at its host.

This new contract drama is a pleasure to watch. Me-first selfish players against me-first selfish owners. When they've finished eating out each others' insides, they'll get back to the business of trying to suck money out of local taxpayers. But for right now, I'm enjoying the show.
 
MarkvW said:
NBA basketball is a tax-subsidized business. Given the NBA's structure, an NBA team (not in a giant TV market) cannot compete without governmental assistance. If you have a NBA team, your tax money indirectly subsidizes those obscene player salaries. I'm glad that the Sonics are gone. Sooner or later, Clay Bennett or his successors are going to bully OKC the same way they did Seattle. It's inevitable. The NBA is a parasite that can't help but eat away at its host.
Are you kidding? Surely not, else you wouldn't have said it... That's just a way of me saying I'm shocked and didn't know that. Would that be true of all NBA teams, or just the small market teams? Team like the Lakers and Celtics must generate enough revenue to cover expenses and player salaries. If not, then the NBA should be left for dead.
 
NASL? You mean MLS?!

A basketball arena could make some sense if at the same time the city gained both an NBA and NHL team. Plus they knew they could use the arena for large concerts and other events. This could generate enough revenue I suppose. I still think the city would have to enter into some sort of agreement with a team owner that shared some of the cost of the arena the way Allen did with Qwest Field (though I don't know the full details of that agreement.)
 
hehe, yeah... MLS. NASL has been dead a long time.

A multipurpose facility might work, if they could attract the NHL. Right now Seattle has a WHL team, but don't know if it could support an NHL team.

It would actually make more sense for Portland to build a new facility (don't know what the Blazers are using) that could serve the Blazers and an NHL team, since Portland at least HAS and NBA team. I know they've got the WHL Winterhawks though.

Since this is the NBA thread, I'll at least throw support to the Blazers.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Are you kidding? Surely not, else you wouldn't have said it... That's just a way of me saying I'm shocked and didn't know that. Would that be true of all NBA teams, or just the small market teams? Team like the Lakers and Celtics must generate enough revenue to cover expenses and player salaries. If not, then the NBA should be left for dead.
The teams demand that municipalities pay for arenas and arena improvements for the sole purpose of helping the team generate increased revenue. If you don't pay for the improvements, then the team threatens to move away. The team could theoretically cut costs to play in the arena, but they can't because they would lose any hope of being competitive, given the way that the league is financially structured.

In a very real way, tax dollars are being used to subsidize player salaries.
 
on3m@n@rmy said:
It would actually make more sense for Portland to build a new facility (don't know what the Blazers are using) that could serve the Blazers and an NHL team, since Portland at least HAS and NBA team. I know they've got the WHL Winterhawks though.
Portland already has the fairly new Rose Garden arena, which is gorgeous inside and out (paid for by both Paul Allen and the city). No need to build anything new for probably 20 years, maybe more:

 
I've heard of the Rose Garden, driven past it hundreds of times, but never been there. I imagine that must be where the Winterhawks play.

Off topic: I was down in McMinnville this weekend, and was pretty impressed with all the bike paths on roads around Tigard, Tualatin, Newberg, and out to Dundee. I don't recall those paths being there say 10 years ago. Too bad I was in a car.
 
Winterhawks play there, yes. But on nights when the Blazers play the same time they do, the 'Hawks are pushed to the old, dilapidated Memorial Coliseum. But the Rose Garden is wonderful. We definitely don't need a new arena for many, many years.

Yes, there's a reason Portland has ranked at the top of Bicycling's best cities to ride a bike for many years. Though last year Minneapolis beat us, and I understand why. Some bumps in our road of late. City also has growing pains a plenty.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I honestly think if they don't come up with some sort of verbal agreement at least within the next two weeks, the entire season is going to be in serious jeopardy.
The first thought that popped into my head after reading this is I'm not sure the majority of the players really care if there is a one or two month, or more, cancellation of games because the season is so long. Many players might view this as a little holiday and may not really get serious about settling until December-ish. If that's the case and there's little motivation on the part of the players to settle soon, then this could drag on much longer. THEN the problem is, how do they reschedule the remaining games to make it fair considering strenth of schedule? Or does the league just start playing games as previously scheduled? Owners may just throw up their arms and say why try to settle. So, I think you might be right about the season potentially being in jeopardy.

But let's say they can settle and be playing starting early January. It might be refreshing to see how the games play out with a shortened season. But if it goes into January then the season more likely will be lost entirely.
 
Last time the season was cut by 20 games that same thing happened. There weren't many current players saying it out loud, but several retired players, including Kareem Abdul Jabbar, was saying that a 62 game season with a shorter playoffs would be better for the players. Of course the owners don't want to do that, because of money.

Meanwhile, it looks like they are talking again, and may be making progress. I think both sides are starting to realize how close they are to losing the entire season, and are starting to be reasonable. Maybe.
 
Interesting bit about players preferring a shorter season. Didn't know that about Jabbar.

I know I've stated this here before, but the main reason I don't watch regular season NBA anymore is the players often don't put out a strong effort. There are other factors too, like my own time management. Example, if I'm confronted with the choice of a bad NFL matchup (you know, like a blowout likely or in progress) and a potentially great NBA matchup, I'll pick the bad NFL game hands down without second thought. Only until after the NFL season is over will I even consider watching an NBA game. (But I always have time for the CN forum). The only way owners can change that is to put a good product out on the court every night. And I'm not talking about a great matchup. I'm just talking about great efforts. The NFL players are not all saints in that respect either, cos you'll find players taking "plays off" now and then. But they do that in the NFL often enough they are not around much longer.

To put a good NBA product on the court the season has to be shorter or games spaced farther apart so fatigue from games and travel is reduced. But you are right, the owners probably don't want to reduce the number of games for the obvious reason... $$$.

So how do we get owners to want to reduce the number of games in a season? The fans have to go away in large enough quantities so it hurts team revenues to the point that owners are willing to consider changes. I don't have much faith that will ever happen though. But I'm doing my part! :p
 
So what ever happened to the NBA's "Let's Make a Deal" last Friday? Did it just die out without a whimper? And I thought there was some deadline that was fast approaching? There seemed to be lots of talk last Friday about a deal that was immenent, but have heard zilch since.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
So what ever happened to the NBA's "Let's Make a Deal" last Friday? Did it just die out without a whimper? And I thought there was some deadline that was fast approaching? There seemed to be lots of talk last Friday about a deal that was immenent, but have heard zilch since.
The owners are hard on the 50-50 revenue split (whatever that means). It looks like the small market owners have the votes now. Can see why Stern loved Clay Bennett so much now (small market hard-liner). The NBA is busted and the owners are trying to fix it. They've conveyed a strong message to the union that they're ready to burn a whole season (like the NHL did). They will bend the players to their will--if the antitrust law is on their side (and that's an open question). The owners have to be nervous about antitrust--if they lock the players out and the players decertify their union, then the NBA will have to justify their basketball cartel in court. They're trying to get the antitrust question answered now, but the court will almost surely wait until (if and when) the players decertify.

There appears to be a rift between Hunter and Fisher. If that translates to a rift between player factions, then the owners could be on the verge of a victory. I read that the average length of an NBA player's career is 4.71 years. That would mean that for somewhere around 20% of the players, this is their last year. At any event, a lost season is brutal for those players nearing the end of their careers.

It'll be interesting to see if the players hold together. The owners are playing good poker. I'm convinced they really will burn a whole season to get the deal they want.
 
I tend to agree with you. And with no talks scheduled, and anti-trust lawsuits pending, it seems more possible every day that the whole season will be lost.

I think the owners may be making a mistake on the 50-50 split, when a bigger problem involves ways to go over the cap with various re-signing, sign and trade, pay and cut type deals that many teams willing to spend do. Of course the players are fighting that as well, but this should be a much bigger concern over the long term to the owners, where they should draw a hard line. I would think anyway.

But the players are definitely in more of a bind, because there is solidarity among the owners, and when small market owners are in agreement with the big market, and the wealthy owners, the players are not going to break this.

In the long, long run (over 5 years) it may be in the best health for the NBA to lose a season like the NHL did, and has now come back very strong. But a harder cap, regardless of revenue split, still won't remedy the issue of the product being watered down with such a long season and especially long post-season. And with the current lock-out, if not solved, that problem won't get any better. There are also perception issues some fans have with players, and with the league itself, and a lockout or new CBA won't fix that either.

The vibe I also am getting with NCAA basketball about to start, and TV networks promoting the heck out of it, a lot of fans are excited about college and simply don't miss, or even care much, for the NBA.

Long hole to climb out of here.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I tend to agree with you. And with no talks scheduled, and anti-trust lawsuits pending, it seems more possible every day that the whole season will be lost.

I think the owners may be making a mistake on the 50-50 split, when a bigger problem involves ways to go over the cap with various re-signing, sign and trade, pay and cut type deals that many teams willing to spend do. Of course the players are fighting that as well, but this should be a much bigger concern over the long term to the owners, where they should draw a hard line. I would think anyway.

But the players are definitely in more of a bind, because there is solidarity among the owners, and when small market owners are in agreement with the big market, and the wealthy owners, the players are not going to break this.

In the long, long run (over 5 years) it may be in the best health for the NBA to lose a season like the NHL did, and has now come back very strong. But a harder cap, regardless of revenue split, still won't remedy the issue of the product being watered down with such a long season and especially long post-season. And with the current lock-out, if not solved, that problem won't get any better. There are also perception issues some fans have with players, and with the league itself, and a lockout or new CBA won't fix that either.

The vibe I also am getting with NCAA basketball about to start, and TV networks promoting the heck out of it, a lot of fans are excited about college and simply don't miss, or even care much, for the NBA.

Long hole to climb out of here.
The league went crazy marketing "the best athletes in the world." Then it becomes a 'players' league' and you get to watch the onanistic nonsense of Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, or the great Kobe Bryant. I'd rather see a team game than a game focused on superstar isolations. I wish the NBA the worst. Perhaps I'm just slightly embitterered over the way the NBA treated Seattle. :eek:
 
Yes. The irony is that in the last year or two the team game has made somewhat of a comeback (Dallas over Miami is an example), and team scoring is up a little.

However, even with a new CBA the league still seems to be focused not on that, as much as what you said in promoting athletes. This all really got started with the entire Tim Donoghy issue, and most people accepting (along with the FBI) that he told the truth about games being rigged to benefit stars and big market teams. With so much emphasis on players and stars; that is what their brand is/was based on for the last decade or so, and now they're stuck with it alienating a lot of fans of the sport as a whole. Something the league and players are both guilty of.

Live by the coveted sword...
 
Wow, thanks for all the info. Not exactly a simple answer is it.

I agree that watching a few superstars is less fun that watching a really good team effort... unless it was Jordan, who made so many unbelieveable plays that he was fun to watch. One of the problems I had with the Heat last year is that while they had the so-called big 3, many offensive trips down the court only one or two of them was doing much of anything. The great part about a larger group of less talented/athletic players is that for them to win it takes a full team EFFORT, which I like and appreciate.... like the Mavs last season.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
Nn
on3m@n@rmy said:
Wow, thanks for all the info. Not exactly a simple answer is it.

I agree that watching a few superstars is less fun that watching a really good team effort... unless it was Jordan, who made so many unbelieveable plays that he was fun to watch. One of the problems I had with the Heat last year is that while they had the so-called big 3, many offensive trips down the court only one or two of them was doing much of anything. The great part about a larger group of less talented/athletic players is that for them to win it takes a full team EFFORT, which I like and appreciate.... like the Mavs last season.
I agree with you about Jordan! Too bad so many owners tried to copycat Chicago's style.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
Looks like the agents have loudly entered the room. 50 players have started to push for decertification. That indicates some disharmony in the player's ranks. I wouldn't expect to see the 50 go all hardass unless an appreciable number of other players were softening.

Seems to me that wealthy players and players at the beginning of long careers might favor decertification, but poorer players (including those who did not save for the lockout) and players nearing the end of a long career would be more eager to see a deal done.

Commentators are saying that if the players decertify, the season is gone.

The owners have certainly planned for this. They'll wait out the union while the litigation progresses, the lockout continues . . . and time passes. Can't see the owners radically changing the league structure unless they are forced to by a court.

Too bad that there's not a competing pro basketball league! Then the owners would have to think twice about their punishing negotiation style!
 
Report tonight says after hours of hard negotiating, they are making progress. Problem is, we've heard this before. And I don't see the owners budging from their current offer. And all this comes on the heels of Stephen Marbury calling Michael Jordan a "sellout" and "fake", and "forgetting what hole he crawled out of" among other strong words. I'm not so certain that if Hunter and Fisher took the owners offer to the players right now they would go for it. Actually, I think Marbury represents a lot of the bitterness in many of the players who won't say it, simply because they are still in the league, and he's likely retired (to Asia).

Meanwhile, I think the ramifications are already starting to take effect. NCAA basketball getting going, and Hockey getting into the season, are both benefiting. When this is over I won't be surprised if NHL Hockey starts to approach, maybe surpass, the NBA as the third biggest sport in the USA.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS