I went to the Bulls' game against the Lakers on Monday. It was loads of fun. Way more fun than hauling out to Bridgeview to see the Fire play ugly college+ soccer in a half-empty stadium.
Yeah, I as well love sitting, cuz the ahole behind me gets butthurt if I stand, all this in my seat 38 yards from the action while Jock Jams is played so us fans know when to cheer our team. Jeez.
True, the revenue share isn't based on profitability directly, but if you pull the Forbes numbers again, while there are some exceptions, generally the big market teams have higher revenues and are profitable, while many small market teams with low revenues are not. And it's pretty clear what they were trying to achieve here. Sports Business Journal indicates that "the new plan is rooted in a philosophy of including locally generated dollars from the big-market, high-revenue teams to be spread among the low-revenue teams." http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx So, to me, it does look like a "prop up payment", as you call it. Mechanically, you're correct that payroll does impact this. Sports Business Journal again: "Sources said that the core of the plan calls for all teams to contribute an annually fixed percentage, roughly 50 percent, of their total annual revenue, minus certain expenses such as arena operating costs, into a revenue sharing pool. Each team then receives an allocation equal to the league’s average team payroll for that season from the revenue pool. If a team’s contribution to the pool is less than the league’s average team payroll, then that team is a revenue recipient. Teams that contribute an amount that exceeds the average team salary fund the revenue given to receiving teams." Yet that would seem to me to incentivize small market low revenue teams to keep payrolls low -- below league average if possible -- which would maximize their allocation. I'm not sure how that encourages them to spend money on better players to generate more revenue. I suspect we'll see some teams drawing money year after year. If so, it will be interesting to see how teams funding this react.
Jumping in late here... Early in the thread, there was a brief debate about whether the NBA should change the rules to make the game tougher for the gargantuan towers that play today's game. My immediate reaction is no, and for a reason that ties right back into soccer. One of the aspects I love most about soccer is the consistent rules. Everyone in the world plays the game the exact same way. Doesn't matter what continent, club or country, it's the same rules. This consistency is a big part of what makes soccer a unified global institution. Basketball doesn't have that. It's clear they want it. FIBA desperately wants to be FIFA, but doesn't have FIFA's leverage, in that the world just doesn't care about the basketball world championship the same way they do about the World Cup. So they enforce their rules where they can, while being unable to do so in the one country that truly counts the most: the US. In the past, the NBA and FIBA didn't get along much, which is why we saw the trapizoidal lane during the Olympics while the NBA stuck with the rectangle. In recent years, FIBA has come around to the NBA's way of thinking. If you watched the games in London last year, or the Euroleague games they're running on the NBA Network, you'll see that the FIBA game is now so close to the NBA that the differences are pretty much nitpicking. So, we have consistency, but only (AFAIK) because the two organizations are thinking along the same lines. I'd hate to see the NBA make radical changes to the game that would mess all that up. Furthermore, if the NBA did expand into another continent, that could be seen as threat to FIBA and would also be counterproductive. I love how soccer truly is a world game, and as much as we hate them from time to time, we have FIFA's authority to thank for that. I would like to see basketball develop along the same route -- a truly world game, with persistent national teams, and international competitions for clubs. Right now, it's a silly fantasy, but I'd at least like to continue towards unification of the rules worldwide. ------RM
I would call allowing players to touch the ball after a missed shot off the rim while the ball is directly above the rim a major difference.
There's still a very big philosophical difference in how you play, too. Most international teams are still big on passing, movement without the ball and having lots of players who can shoot the 3 (though NBA teams have really caught on to that last bit). Now, maybe that would all change if Euro teams had insanely gifted one-on-one wings like NBA teams do. But as it is, the coaching philosophies are very different. The way Barca's team moves without the ball, I wonder if the soccer team has rubbed off on the basketball team. Edit: but he's right on about the rules converging. In addition to the change of the size/shape of the free throw lane (I'm old, I still call it the "key"), FIBA moved their 3 pt line out (so it's closer to the NBA line) and they adopted the charge semi-circle.
Well Zone Defense was illegal until 2001-2002 in the NBA. See Dallas championship. Attendance blows in the NBA because because they went all in on "stars", so minus a couple teams (Laker/Celtic/Knicks/old school small markets like Port/SA) no one really cares about the front of the jersey. I find NBA level of play way more watchable then college as someone who grew up watching ACC B-ball. Star treatment isn't nearly as awful as team treatment in college b-ball. And its nice seeing 5 guys with a semblance of an offensive game over 1 or 2 if your lucky in college. Just my opinion.
He was a seven footer in an era when the opposing center was 6'8" n 200 lbs. Obviously the sport has changed drastically since 1963. Nowadays it has changed again, iso for the best player while the other 4 watch and absolute crap movement off the ball or even more shitastic simple guard play fundamentals.
Sorry, NBA scoring per game has been at its highest level since the late 80s/early 90s over the last 4-5 years. Shooting percentages are in good shape, 6 of the top 20 FT shooting percentage years are post 2000, and 3pt shooting is much better than the 80s. The biggest difference is that there are fewer possessions per game (measured as pace at basketball reference) as teams play much better transition defense than they used to which forces more possessions that take more time off the clock. The pace has improved the last several years after a truly dreadful time from the mid 90s to the early/mid 2000s. Right now the NBA isn't what it was during the Bird/Magic/Jordan (early) years, and may never be again, but it's much healthier and higher quality than it was 10-15 years ago. But, stick with the tired, bigoted nonsense, it's what you're good at.
You keep playing this card for posts that have nothing in them that are racist or bigoted. Do kindly refrain from that behavior going forward.
It was in regard to Westside Cosmo who has been repeatedly supportive of racist behavior throughout this thread. It's perfectly relevant.
We (and by we I mean everyone reading this thread) are aware of who you were targetting. The simple fact of that matter is that what you appear to be responding to is a post that questioned actual game mechanics and flow. You throw a cheap shot in at the end which was completely unneccesary. That is what I am asking you to refrain from. But you keep dragging it into the open. I will acknowledge that the opening post from Westside may have been borderline. It is an opinion, and it could have been stated a little more nicely and less sensationally. I am in the demographics he targets with his post, 35+ white male who has tuned out the NBA. Not because of the Tattooed thugs he mentions (the borderline part of his post), but because my perception has been that the league as a whole has become more oriented towards star players, and less focused on team play. I loved the NBA right up until about 1998-99. I have not watched a game since then, I do however continue to watch Olympic and College basketball. Which is to say there is most likely some truth in his post even if the reasons are wrong.
They are working to it http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/186641/fiba-overhauls-major-competitions but NBA-Euroleague disagree http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/186695/euroleague-chief-hits-out-at-fiba-s-reform-plans Part of what make national soccer team popular is they (mostly) play in homesoil 3 meaningfull games each year; in Bball qualification tournament to WC and SummerOlimpics in 1 host country is puting national basket away from fans. sorry for the awful long comment.
Was working out the other night at the gym and ESPNs top ten came on. Don't watch ESPN SCenter any more but the comments of the 4 high school kids there stuck with me. Think seven of the top ten plays were dunks. Not a comment on any of the dunks until the end. "That sucked. A bunch of dunks...BFD"', said one. They all agreed. Remember back in the day when dunks ruled?
http://nba.si.com/2013/01/24/new-orleans-pelicans-logo-hornets/ New Orleans' rebranding can't be helping with the leagues image.
I would have loved that branding if NOLA had a MLB franchise. Very much preferred Brass or Krewe, ah well.
Talk about superfluous balls in logos, the placement of that basketball just looks awkward. We know you play basketball, you're an NBA team. (cc: NYRB)
I thought it was ridiculous and a joke when I heard about it a few weeks ago. Since then, it has actually grown on me.