OT: Lebron James Advocates NBA Contraction

[HabsByTheBay]

English Premier league, the most watched professional sports league on the planet, whose international TV contract is larger than the NHL's North American contract.

That would be the league where virtually every team except Arsenal run at a substantial loss, right? For a league on somewhat unstable financial footing, relegation would bankrupt teams, and probably lead to an inflation of the salary structure.

I think there's a substantial difference between the idea of using big-revenue teams as the tide that lifts all boats, and the Premier League, which is a financial mess because there's 20 hands that don't know/care what the others are doing.

 

[Fugu]

Why does anybody care what this guy says? I agree with what that dood from the Nets (or whoever said) ....maybe the NBA would be better if 3 all-stars didn't conspire to sign with the same team.

This guy is an absolute loser for how he handled his free agency......

Why? Free agency is the right to decide where you want to play and under the conditions you can negotiate.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The thing that sticks in my mind from this whole sordid affair:

Lebron James, a 26-year-old English-speaking American man, claims that he had never heard the word "contraction" before. And that when he said the NBA should drop teams, he wasn't talking about contraction. And we are supposed to chalk this up to his simple-minded ignorance and move on.

This is why I don't watch the NBA.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Why? Free agency is the right to decide where you want to play and under the conditions you can negotiate.

And announce your decision on some 'The Decision' special on TV? No. No, no, no, no, no.

 

[Dado]

And announce your decision on some 'The Decision' special on TV? No. No, no, no, no, no.

You're still talking about him, his decision, and his TV spot.

Looks like Mission: Accomplished to me.

 

[Fugu]

And announce your decision on some 'The Decision' special on TV? No. No, no, no, no, no.

While some of us find the commercialism distasteful, and probably appreciate hockey players for not being as brash (for the most part), this is sport "entertainment" after all. Guys like Lebron make money two ways--- from their contracts and then there are endorsements which aren't capped or shared with anyone.

 

[Jeffrey93]

You're still talking about him, his decision, and his TV spot.

Looks like Mission: Accomplished to me.

Only talking about it since this guy was brought up. I don't make a habit of having conversations about Lebron James everyday.

Him pulling that stunt just reminded me why I can't stand that sport/league. A good part of it is just not liking the game.....and the other part is a very large distaste for the arrogant punks that play it.

 

[Dado]

Him pulling that stunt just reminded me why I can't stand that sport/league.

I gave up on the NBA nearly 25 years ago, so I totally get where you're coming from. In the context of what the NBA is, and how it markets itself, Lebron's little thing seems like a pretty natural outcome.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

While some of us find the commercialism distasteful, and probably appreciate hockey players for not being as brash (for the most part), this is sport "entertainment" after all. Guys like Lebron make money two ways--- from their contracts and then there are endorsements which aren't capped or shared with anyone.

Maybe the "Decision" did good things for Lebron. Maybe. But 100% it was a major black eye for ESPN and did crucial damage to its credibility as a sports channel. It may be more difficult to cash in on that sort of thing in the future.

 

[Melrose Munch]

We could easily take on 2 football teams here. I don't think an AFC team would find it hard to find fans in Chicago.

Heck, if the Cardinals were still around, I would surely be a fan of them if the Cubs/Bears on the northside and Sox/Cards on the south stuck around.

There was talk of Jacksonville moving to Evanston in 2007

 

[Melrose Munch]

LOL Lebron is the subject of the thread!!

It was not bad though. People forget Cleveland does not own him in anyway. So what if he went on ESPN. Thats life. Who said it was fair.

 

[Jeffrey93]

LOL Lebron is the subject of the thread!!

It was not bad though. People forget Cleveland does not own him in anyway. So what if he went on ESPN. Thats life. Who said it was fair.

Nobody is talking about anything being fair or unfair. I simply said that he was a loser for how he handled that situation. Sure he had the freedom to take that approach if he wanted to...and I have the freedom to despise him for it and continue to think his sport is an absolute joke because of antics like this.

How that means I think it is unfair....I don't know. I can't stand this guy down the street from me because he always says 'Howdy there partner.' when I see him. It annoys me...I don't like it...or him. That doesn't mean it's unfair or that he shouldn't have the freedom to say that. Just thinking of that guy really angers me....ugh. I need to go punch something. Back later.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You're still talking about him, his decision, and his TV spot.

Looks like Mission: Accomplished to me.

If the mission is to get me to talk negatively about him and never throw a single penny toward him, I agree.

 

[MoreOrr]

Honestly, I just don't see contraction happening in this day and age in any major sports league.

And to add to that, someone please tell me what the advantages would be for any major sports league to contract? I can list various pseudo-reasons that could be mentioned, but other than a league truly losing tons of money with respect to certain teams, and this being a scenario that's been going on for quite some time and with no end in sight, I don't see there being any other good reason for contraction. And even then, the first thing the League would logically do is look for a relocation site. Contraction virtually serves no good purpose!

 

[Dado]

And to add to that, someone please tell me what the advantages would be for any major sports league to contract?

The Premier League has contracted four times in the past couple of 23 years, and is making more money than ever. The wider the audience for a league, the more important the big teams become, and the more discardable the bottom-tier teams become.

 

[MoreOrr]

The Premier League has contracted four times in the past couple of 23 years, and is making more money than ever. The wider the audience for a league, the more important the big teams become, and the more discardable the bottom-tier teams become.

I don't know about how the dynamics of the "Premier League" works in order for what you say to be the case, but does the part that I bolded really apply to the NHL?

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Premier League has contracted four times in the past couple of 23 years, and is making more money than ever. The wider the audience for a league, the more important the big teams become, and the more discardable the bottom-tier teams become.

That model makes sense for a country the size of Louisiana. You have, for all intents and purposes, a three-team league where 2 of the teams play in London and the third in by far and away the next-largest city. No matter where you live, you are never more than 300 miles from a championship contending team.

This would be like the province of Quebec having its own elite major hockey league, where the championships are always won by one of the teams in Montreal or QC. Everybody else is there to play the role of Washington Generals. Naturally, those two highly elite teams are going to be marketable and make a ton of money. Whether Val-d'Or has a team is trivial. Relegating scrub teams is an afterthought, because the fans in those towns will still follow the league passiontely.

But in the United States, you're not going to make tons of money in a league where only New York and LA win championships. People aren't going to follow a team that plays 1500 miles away. In order to make the league viable on a national level, each major population center needs to be represented by a team -- and that team needs to be good enough on its own to survive financially. Whether they're relegated to the "minors" or simply scrape rock-bottom for a decade straight like the Islanders doesn't matter. If the team isn't relevant, it won't sell, and it will lose money (unless it has the good fortune to be the Leafs or Knicks). That means the league fades from view as well, as entire cities get turned off of the product.

Yeah, you'll still sell tons of jerseys for the NYC and LA teams. Yeah, they'll probably get good ratings in one-off events like the championship game or a New Year's matchup. But generally speaking you'll be running an extremely unhealthy league where the majority of teams are constantly on the brink of failure. Never mind the legal and practical barriers.

 

[Dado]

I don't know about how the dynamics of the "Premier League" works in order for what you say to be the case, but does the part that I bolded really apply to the NHL?

Won't know for sure until the NHL actually manages to attract a wider audience ("wider" here meaning beyond it's geographic footprint).

 

[mouser]

The Premier League has contracted four times in the past couple of 23 years, and is making more money than ever. The wider the audience for a league, the more important the big teams become, and the more discardable the bottom-tier teams become.

I think you may be mixing up the Premier League and the Football League First Division. The Premier League proper has only contracted once in 1995 from 22 teams to 20 and that was due to insistence by FIFA to reduce the number of teams/games in the top leagues.

btw, FIFA wants all the main leagues [Premier, Ligue 1, La Liga and Serie A] to reduce further to 18 teams, but so far they have all resisted and stayed with 20.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Won't know for sure until the NHL actually manages to attract a wider audience ("wider" here meaning beyond it's geographic footprint).

In what way does the Premier League have an audience beyond its geographic footprint?

 

[Dado]

I think you may be mixing up the Premier League and the Football League First Division.

Not "mixing them up" -- intentionally combining the two as it's really the same league, the change primarily affected the relationship with the leagues underneath. At no point in time did the two co-exist - one is a renamed replacement of the other.

In total, just during the post-reorg period, there have been 44 different teams in the 20 team league - that's a tremendous amount of "relocation" happening. It's wonderful stuff, as unlikely as it is to appear in N.A. I would *love* to see a smaller top league with a more important minor league where teams & owners & management can earn their way into the big show regardless of location.

 

[Jeffrey93]

And to add to that, someone please tell me what the advantages would be for any major sports league to contract? I can list various quasi-reasons that could be mentioned, but other than a league truly losing tons of money with respect to certain teams, and this being a scenario that's been going on for quite some time and with no end in sight, I don't see there being any other good reason for contraction. And even then, the first thing the League would logically do is look for a relocation site. Contraction virtually serves no good purpose!

The advantage is 28 (or however many) Owners get to talking...realizing if they booted the 'other two' guys out of their club...each of their 28 teams would be a little better and could make more money.

They would have to initially spend to buy out the members they are getting rid of...but if they think it will improve the 28 remaining franchises ability to make money...those 28 guys will see it as an advantage...and a long term advantage at that. Plus...it would allow them to expand again in the future which would bring them more dough as well.

I think it would tank franchise values....but who knows...maybe they would go up since there are less available franchises. I think they would go down because now somebody looking to buy an NBA team needs to wonder if the league will contract further...and if the league will give him a decent value for his franchise if it is contracted.

Anyway....I could see how a large group of NBA owners would see this as a good idea. I'm not sure if they have many options for relocation? Don't follow basketball.
I also could see how NBA owners might use this talk as huge leverage in negotiations....I bet they didn't plan on some players actually supporting the idea though. The NBPA must be real happy with Lebron right about now....shooting off about how it would be great for the league to get rid of 30 fellow NBPA members so they can go pump gas or mop floors.

 

[MoreOrr]

The advantage is 28 (or however many) Owners get to talking...realizing if they booted the 'other two' guys out of their club...each of their 28 teams would be a little better and could make more money.

They would have to initially spend to buy out the members they are getting rid of...but if they think it will improve the 28 remaining franchises ability to make money...those 28 guys will see it as an advantage...and a long term advantage at that. Plus...it would allow them to expand again in the future which would bring them more dough as well.

I think it would tank franchise values....but who knows...maybe they would go up since there are less available franchises. I think they would go down because now somebody looking to buy an NBA team needs to wonder if the league will contract further...and if the league will give him a decent value for his franchise if it is contracted.

Anyway....I could see how a large group of NBA owners would see this as a good idea. I'm not sure if they have many options for relocation? Don't follow basketball.
I also could see how NBA owners might use this talk as huge leverage in negotiations....I bet they didn't plan on some players actually supporting the idea though. The NBPA must be real happy with Lebron right about now....shooting off about how it would be great for the league to get rid of 30 fellow NBPA members so they can go pump gas or mop floors.

And how might that work if you have 5 or 6 weak teams? I suppose then it needs to be a group of about 24 owners, because if only 28 get together to boot out 2, then there's going to be some among the group who will think... hmmm, will we be next? Perhaps we should vote against this idea.

 

[MaskedSonja]

And how might that work if you have 5 or 6 weak teams? I suppose then it needs to be a group of about 24 owners, because if only 28 get together to boot out 2, then there's going to be some among the group who will think... hmmm, will we be next? Perhaps we should vote against this idea.

That's a good point-I'm having visions of owners eyeing each other a board room, with dueling banjos playing in the background (who's going to be next?)

Be interesting to see what the numbers would be between owners that know they aren't being contracted, and those who may-nothing says unity like telling a few members of your group "sorry, you guys just have to go".

 

[Jeffrey93]

And how might that work if you have 5 or 6 weak teams? I suppose then it needs to be a group of about 24 owners, because if only 28 get together to boot out 2, then there's going to be some among the group who will think... hmmm, will we be next? Perhaps we should vote against this idea.

Ok...you have 5 weak teams. 28 owners have agree on two they want out. So they pool their money and buy those 2 teams out and fold them. That makes, in theory, the remaining 28 stronger....including those other 3 weak teams. So you haven't removed those other 3 weak teams but you have immediately improved them....in theory anyway.

I've said this many times about the NHL. Not using contraction but relocation because I think the NHL has more options than the NBA does in that regard. But if the NHL has 5 "weak teams" (Atlanta, Miami, Phoenix, Long Island and...we'll say Carolina...just for tarheel! ) if you move a couple of those teams...like Miami and Phoenix....that means your entire league of 30 goes from having 5 'weak teams' to only 3. It makes everything more stable and dealing with 3 'weak teams' is tolerable....that is when you can give them time like so many people on here think every team should get.

Franchise values, even those of the remaining 3 weak teams, will rise...the overall image of the league will improve and giving those remaining 3 teams more time to get things figured out is easier than needing to give 5 teams more time.

It isn't an immediate fix....but it helps. Having a couple fires burning isn't anything to get freaked out about....having 5 or 6 fires burning is a different story.