NBA Ratings Down

[MikeCubs]

We'll have to agree to disagree on how much of an impact players have on the popularity. How many players have the Patriots cycled through over the years of their success? Manning was chopped with plenty of game left.

I think you are missing the factor though for the NFL. It's not the salary cap, it's the revenue sharing. Which is easy to do when all TV is national. The NHL has had a salary cap, and went 8 years with 3 teams winning the cup. The NHL isn't any better at "parity." Add in the fact that it's a combination of guys getting hurt or not(the best team doesn't win, the one with the healthiest stars does), plus favorable officiating(Aaron Rodgers is very good, but when you have "game winning drives" with phantom personal fouls....some teams are playing two opponents out there, make no mistake), it's half a lottery as anything else. But that's what makes a market as they say. I can change the channel if I don't like it.

I agree the super team thing in the NBA is going to be a real problem if it isn't already. Which is a conflict for me, because when in doubt I lean towards players' freedom of movement. But when it seems they recruit each other in FA, or have their agents force trades.... As you say, if a guy is willing to play for a lot less to be in a particular spot, what do you do?

It's not that all players in sports have to be retained forever and finish their career with their teams like the olden days it's that you can't lose certain types of players at certain points in their careers at certain positions(NBA superstar/franshise QB) Some movement in sports is good, it creates talk/interest. But going overboard like the current NBA is bad. An almost 100% leave rate of superstars from small/foreign markets by age 30 is a pathetic joke.

The NBA has revenue sharing though not as much as NFL. Even if the did have the same level of revenue sharing it wouldn't fix the current problem. It's not the small markets can't afford the superstars(they are offering max contracts worth $70M) more than the teams they leave for. It's that guys WANT to take huge paycuts to leave. More revenue sharing isn't a fix for this.

The NHL only had 3 winners in 8 years but that wasn't because of superteams/stealing franchise players from other teams NBA style it was because Chicago and Pittsburgh were well run and had lottery luck so even if my NHL team was not winning I could hope to emulate them with the right management luck. Memphis/NO absolutely cannot emulate the Clippers/Lakers.

The Pats kept the main ingrediant Brady, have the greatest coach ever plus kept guys like Edleman, Gronk etc.. Correct me if I'm wrong their biggest loss as far as a player leaving and doing well with another team is Chandler Jones with Arizona. How many outright great league top 20 players have they lost? Most guys they got rid of were replaceable. The Colts got rid of Manning at age 36 after a major injury where he missed a season and they got the number 1 pick to take another franchise QB. He only went 4 more seasons(the last wasn't productive though the D carried him to a super bowl win) Not remotely compareable to OKC, NO, Cleveland, San Antonio/Toronto in the NBA getting shafted.

At least NBA knows the super team thing is a problem. The good thing is they realize it and the absolutely did try last CBA to fix it, the fix just didn't work. It's not like they buried their heads in the sand and didn't try. How to fix this is going to be one of the hardest things ever in sports. There's never been anything quite like this. Athletes historically have wanted the most money or close to it. People say a hard cap but if guys are willing to take $70M paycuts they will still pick the big cities and take less even with a hard cap. Getting a franchise tag would be ideal but there is no way the union goes for it.

You could minimize when guys leave by offering the union this trade. Make the second contract 2 to 3 years longer so the home team gets more time. In exchange just give up on helping the home team with the extra $70M and make it where anyone could offer the extra $70M. The extra $70M hasn't helped small markets at all so due away with it in exchange for an extra 2-3 years of player control pushing players to at least age 29-30/season 10-11 before they go. Ideally though you need something better than this but at least it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

It's not that all players in sports have to be retained forever and finish their career with their teams like the olden days it's that you can't lose certain types of players at certain points in their careers at certain positions(NBA superstar/franshise QB) Some movement in sports is good, it creates talk/interest. But going overboard like the current NBA is bad. An almost 100% leave rate of superstars from small/foreign markets by age 30 is a pathetic joke.

The NBA has revenue sharing though not as much as NFL. Even if the did have the same level of revenue sharing it wouldn't fix the current problem. It's not the small markets can't afford the superstars(they are offering max contracts worth $70M) more than the teams they leave for. It's that guys WANT to take huge paycuts to leave. More revenue sharing isn't a fix for this.

The NHL only had 3 winners in 8 years but that wasn't because of superteams/stealing franchise players from other teams NBA style it was because Chicago and Pittsburgh were well run and had lottery luck so even if my NHL team was not winning I could hope to emulate them with the right management luck. Memphis/NO absolutely cannot emulate the Clippers/Lakers.

The Pats kept the main ingrediant Brady, have the greatest coach ever plus kept guys like Edleman, Gronk etc.. Correct me if I'm wrong their biggest loss as far as a player leaving and doing well with another team is Chandler Jones with Arizona. How many outright great league top 20 players have they lost? Most guys they got rid of were replaceable. The Colts got rid of Manning at age 36 after a major injury where he missed a season and they got the number 1 pick to take another franchise QB. He only went 4 more seasons(the last wasn't productive though the D carried him to a super bowl win) Not remotely compareable to OKC, NO, Cleveland, San Antonio/Toronto in the NBA getting shafted.

At least NBA knows the super team thing is a problem. The good thing is they realize it and the absolutely did try last CBA to fix it, the fix just didn't work. It's not like they buried their heads in the sand and didn't try. How to fix this is going to be one of the hardest things ever in sports. There's never been anything quite like this. Athletes historically have wanted the most money or close to it. People say a hard cap but if guys are willing to take $70M paycuts they will still pick the big cities and take less even with a hard cap. Getting a franchise tag would be ideal but there is no way the union goes for it.

You could minimize when guys leave by offering the union this trade. Make the second contract 2 to 3 years longer so the home team gets more time. In exchange just give up on helping the home team with the extra $70M and make it where anyone could offer the extra $70M. The extra $70M hasn't helped small markets at all so due away with it in exchange for an extra 2-3 years of player control pushing players to at least age 29-30/season 10-11 before they go. Ideally though you need something better than this but at least it's a step in the right direction.

They could always propose adding two expansion teams which would mean 24+ more union jobs in exchange for adding a franchise tag which would give teams a option to keep a player for one or two extra years.