Jump to content

Random Basketball Observations


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

can't you go five minutes without putting black people down?

Jeff Stotts ‏@RotowireATC Hear me out. Mavs sign Seth Curry, Jason Thompson, & Gerald Green. Then roll out a lineup of Curry, Thompson, Green, Barnes, & Bogut.

have to love JR Smith   J.R. Smith apparently drives a $450,000 armored truck around New York City now    

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1577542...meone-who-caresGreat article on the labor negotiations
"They have a name for this. It's called asshattery. Asshattery with a circus tent over it."And are you kidding me with this Paul Allen crap? Paul "I"m worth over $13 billion" Allen? Paul "Look at my yacht" Allen?ckcns.jpgThis is the guy who is taking the hardline 50/50 stance? If the players really did come in with a 50-53 proposal dependent on total revenue and the owners just spit on it...I have less hope that there will be a season.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yes and no.A hard cap limits the amount of money one team can pay the players.But it's the BRI split that limits the total amount of money paid by all teams to all players. Theoretically, the hard cap times the number of teams would equal total BRI times the players' share.$60m x 30 = $3.4b x 53%. Something like that.Of course, in reality you can't predict exactly what your total revenue will be for the year. That's why every year 8% of BRI is put into escrow. At the end of the year they do the accounting and square up to make sure the players and owners all received their collectively bargained amount. So if you set the cap too low, it just means the players get a bigger "bonus" at the end of the year.Edit: I wonder how that bonus is determined. Is it an equal share to all players? Or is weighted based on salary?
The escrow amount, I believe, is taken from contracts on the front end, weighted by salary. If Kobe signs a 100MM dollar/4 year contract, 2MM is put in escrow yearly, then paid out to him (or not) depending on BRI. Correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm not sure how team underspending -- say the Clippers run a weighted-average payroll of 2/3 the salary cap -- works. I was passively under the impression that, in the current system, the salary cap was BRI x 57%, which is why the owners want a hard, no-frills/exceptions cap, so they don't ridiculous themselves into blowing past the cap and getting less than their bargained-for 43%.)Also, owners make so much money in franchise value appreciation that it's absurd. The owners "losses" are inflated because they're amortizing the goodwill from when they bought the franchise from the previous owner.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The salary cap is set at 51% of BRI. This explains the escrow system pretty well. And there are a bunch of other issues covered too.Over the past five seasons, only once have the players not received some of their escrow money back (meaning they went over 57% (it was 57.7%)). This tells me that they're doing a pretty good job of hitting their mark. If you lower the BRI split, then you would lower the soft cap as well. The system in place would still work. The hard cap is more about "competitive balance," not allowing teams like the Lakers and Mavericks to just blow past the cap with all the exceptions in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tweet from Darren Rovell, which shows how little leverage the players really have:"If NBA cancels next 2 weeks, players would have lost $400M. The difference in BRI is worth $800 million over 10 years!"From Adrian Wojnarowski:"Hunter says players won't accept the 50-50 split until players know what the system -- lux tax, exceptions -- looks like.""Hunter says owners told them they wouldn't negotiate on the system issues, until players agree on 50-50 split.""Hunter says Cavs owner Dan Gilbert kept telling him to 'trust him' that they would come up with system agreement if union agreed to 50-50."

Link to post
Share on other sites
That might be the reasoning for Paul Allen's stance.He doesn't care about the Blazers anymore and he just wants to make the team look as valuable as he can before he sells.
This is an... interesting sentence from that article.Garnett came out of nowhere in these talks, and owners believed his strident railing derailed momentum toward a deal in early October.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not sure what it means, but there was some positive talk about this thing ending within a weeks time. bill simmons had a positive tweet. and it was reported that LeBron and Melo and CP3 pulled out of that exhibition tour becuase the season might be imminent. ONE TIME.
@briancmahoneyNot sure it's a sign, but NBA PR guy smiling a lot today. Not the tall goofy one who smiles often. The short, not usually as smiley one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be on board with this schedule.

Let's play 44
An NBA team would play twice a week:
One mid-week game:
National doubleheaders on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with the remaining 22 teams playing on Wednesday night -- which would also feature a the current nationally televised double-header, with the remaining 18 teams playing on local television outlets. Mondays and Fridays are essentially travel days.
One weekend game:
Teams playing on Saturday and Sunday. Following the NFL season, the NBA's Sunday schedule would feature a quintuple-header, with the remaining teams playing on Saturday.Teams would play conference rivals twice -- home and away -- and inter-conference opponents just once. Since that equals an awkwardly-numbered 43 games, the extra contest would be an additional matchup with an inter-conference opponent. The team that finished No. 1 the previous season in the Western Conference would play its counterpart in the East a second time; No. 2 would play No. 2, etc. This doesn't offer the balancing act the NFL performs to give lesser teams an easier schedule while planting land mines for the juggernauts, but it's something.Take into account the All-Star break and you have a 23-week season that would extend from approximately Nov. 1 through the first week in April, virtually identical to what we have now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've said before i thought a 50 game season would be better for the nba, like a 100 game season would be better for mlb. the article makes a solid point. take college basketball for example, because of the tv deals, i know that kansas, during conference play, will usually play monday nights and saturday afternoons. i hadnt considered it, but it is nice to know exactly what days each week your team is playing on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...