A different view of the League.

[AtLaS]

How many national TV games did TNT, ABC and ESPN show of the Knicks this year? How many did the Bulls play this year, when it was viewed that they weren't going to be all that good? Boston, before they got KG and PP last year?

The thing about the NBA is this. If you're a team with a popular player, and that team is good, it pretty much doesn't matter what media market you're in. That team will get a lot of national TV airtime. The Hawks, if they keep everyone together, and/or if they add another star caliber player, will get more national TV time next year.

northcyde, do you think the ratings for those national TV games will be higher if the team with national TV games is in NY or Cleveland? You have 20 million metro NY people with the option to tune in as opposed to 3 million in metro Cleveland. Since NY is at least 6 times bigger, they also have 6 times as many transients across the country. The TV ratings are MUCH higher with the successful team being in NY. That's what the NBA wants because ratings make them the most money.

Another interesting thing about that Forbes chart, is to see the effect that the JJ trade, along with the development of our young players, had on the Hawks value as a franchise.

2005: we had a value of $38 million

2006: that amount doubles, to $76 million

2007: $83 million

2008: $111 million . . which directly coincides with us making the playoffs.

2009: I don't know, but I would suspect that we may be around the $120 - 130 million mark when it's all calculated.

Revenue wise, we've gone from 87 million in '05 . . . to 102 million in '08.

So we've increased revenue by 15 million, and will probably increase another 20 this year or so. If NY improved by such a measure, you better believe their revenue would increase at a MUCH higher number.

[dlpin]

Before you try to put words in my mouth, you need to read what I said... to your first post, which you brought up the two different points, this was my response...

"Wouldn't be upset about" is completely different from "making the road easier for Lebron so that he would stay in Cleveland."

And I quoted your exact words. You are the one who said that the NBA was making the road easier for Cleveland so that Lebron would stay in Cleveland (and then said the NBA doesnt care about cities).

But so let me get this straight:

- you, and the people agreeing with you, are saying that the key reason why Lebron and the cavs have gotten preferential treatment for the league this year is because they want to help cleveland over new york? That the cause for the preferential treatment is not simply superstar treatment or anything like that, but that they want to dissuade their top star from leaving to go to their most valuable franchise?

That would require not only lebron to be as profitable in cleveland as he would be in NY, but for him to be so much more profitable in cleveland than in new york that it would trump all superstar issues, and so on.

Edited May 11, 2009 by dlpin

[TheNorthCydeRises]

What the NBA shouldn't want, is a situation like what you see in Major League Baseball, in which you have a ton of "star" players playing on about 10 teams, while the rest of the 20 teams in the league, have unknown good or star players that no one sees.

MLB used to be the ish back in the 80s. You had your major market teams that would win from time to time, but the star talent was scattered all across the league. You could pretty much name a big name star from about 75% of the teams in the league back then.

At team like the Minnesota Twins were watchable, because they had star players. And they were promoted too.

The same with Kansas City with George Brett.

The same with Cincinnati with Eric Davis

The same with San Diego with Tony Gwynn

The big market teams in LA, NY, Chi all got their airtime, but they were still showcasing the lesser teams and their stars, mainly by showing games in which those teams played the major market teams.

But in baseball, you don't see that now.

Toronto is 22 - 12, yet, I bet people can't name 3 players off the Blue Jays

Kansas City is 18 - 14, and they probably won't have one single national TV game this year

The fuggin Rangers are 17 - 14, leading the AL West, and I can't name a single player on the Rangers.

My Reds are 17 - 14 . . but since Griffey left, I bet people can't name 2 Reds players.

The NBA does NOT want to end up like this. The great thing about the NBA playoffs, is that you do get to see some of the teams who are up and coming, but don't get a lot of national TV time. The playoffs are great, and it lessens the need for a star player like Lebron to HAVE to play in a major media market.

Cleveland could easily be what the small market Steelers are in the NFL. Yeah, it definitely helps if the major market teams are winning, but you need those other franchises making noise every now and then.

I think the NBA would be better off with Lebron in Cleveland, with major market teams like Boston, NY, LA, Detroit, and Houston chasing them.

That's why the NFL is damn near perfect. A team like Arizona can still draw interest, if you have them playing a popular team on the other end. The true NFL fans aren't turning off the TV, just because the Cardinals are in the Super Bowl. It's those fickle fringe fans in those major markets, that may be turned off by it.

The NBA is a star league. And it really doesn't matter where that star is playing . . as long as they have the stars playing against each other.

People would much rather see an LA / Cleveland final . . than say . . a Hawks / Nuggets final. And it really doesn't have anything to do with market. It has to do with the lack of superstar players.

[Diesel]

Bottom line. Under the current situation, the Kincks made $209 million revenue in 08 and Cleveland made 159.

With LeBron in NY the Knicks would drastically increase and probably double. Cleveland would probably drop to around 100 million or so which is relative to other similar market sizes and team success.

Under which policy would the NBA make the most money?

Ok...

You're assuming the Knicks revenue double. How? Or better yet, how does the NBA prosper in this. We are talking about best for the league.

The Knicks owners own the TV contract. So the question is how much more in league sharing will they commit?

Unless there is some unspoken percentage commitment that the Knicks owners have to pay the league for TV contract, I don't see them doing much more than they have done.

I mean, put yourself in their place.

Branding... such as Lebron Jersey... they may surpass what you could get from Lebron being in Cleveland. The problem with that is that Stern has set it up so that weather Lebron is in Cleveland or NY for some kid who is a fan of Lebron, it doesn't matter.

Finally the Knicks have no Arena debt because MSG is owned by cablevision also. 1 Billion dollars (Dayuum). Now, that means that with Lebron in there, they could go up in prices...

but at $800,000 for VIP season tickets.. how much more do you expect for them to pay and how much cost sharing does the league see from that?

[Diesel]

"Wouldn't be upset about" is completely different from "making the road easier for Lebron so that he would stay in Cleveland."

And I quoted your exact words. You are the one who said that the NBA was making the road easier for Cleveland so that Lebron would stay in Cleveland (and then said the NBA doesnt care about cities).

But so let me get this straight:

- you, and the people agreeing with you, are saying that the key reason why Lebron and the cavs have gotten preferential treatment for the league this year is because they want to help cleveland over new york? That the cause for the preferential treatment is not simply superstar treatment or anything like that, but that they want to dissuade their top star from leaving to go to their most valuable franchise?

That would require not only lebron to be as profitable in cleveland as he would be in NY, but for him to be so much more profitable in cleveland than in new york that it would trump all superstar issues, and so on.

Let's be clear here dlpin.

There are two points on the table.

#1 Lebron receives star treatment.

No doubt... Every star player has received star treatment from Stern because as he has said once, he likes to protect his stars.

#2. Lebron winning in Cleveland may keep him in Cleveland and would be of interest to Stern

I believe that there's more in it for the league if Lebron stays in Cleveland.

Just to remove point #1 from the conversation...

We have seen protected players before. However, not to the extent that we've seen with Lebron. Game 2 was about as blatant as it comes and we had no shot of winning that game. Jordan never had the Liberties that Lebron has been given this offseason. It leads me to believe it's more than just Star treatment. You can note how Kobe is treated in his series in Houston vs. how Lebron is treated and if you claim this is just star treatment, then Kobe must not be a star any longer.

[dlpin]

Ok...

You're assuming the Knicks revenue double. How? Or better yet, how does the NBA prosper in this. We are talking about best for the league.

The Knicks owners own the TV contract. So the question is how much more in league sharing will they commit?

Unless there is some unspoken percentage commitment that the Knicks owners have to pay the league for TV contract, I don't see them doing much more than they have done.

I mean, put yourself in their place.

Branding... such as Lebron Jersey... they may surpass what you could get from Lebron being in Cleveland. The problem with that is that Stern has set it up so that weather Lebron is in Cleveland or NY for some kid who is a fan of Lebron, it doesn't matter.

Finally the Knicks have no Arena debt because MSG is owned by cablevision also. 1 Billion dollars (Dayuum). Now, that means that with Lebron in there, they could go up in prices...

but at $800,000 for VIP season tickets.. how much more do you expect for them to pay and how much cost sharing does the league see from that?

Here is the thing: for your original argument to work, the onus of evidence is on you to show that cleveland with Lebron is so much more profitable than ny would be that they would go out of their way to favor cleveland to prevent james in NY. Saying that it would be about the same, or just a little more, doesnt work.

[AtLaS]

The NBA is a star league. And it really doesn't matter where that star is playing . . as long as they have the stars playing against each other.

This is right. And, this is why the NBA will never become like the MLB because there is a salary cap and getting a star player is usually the key to success in the NBA. That's why the Spurs have probably been the best team in the NBA the past 10 years and they are in the 30th largest market. Even Detroit and Miami have had success and they are about #10 in terms of market size.

The MLB has no salary cap and thus the most profitable teams can spend an unlimited amount of money to field a great team. There is also the fact that teams only keep about 65% of team attendance and sharing the rest with the league, thus decreasing the incentive for small market teams to try and improve since they can't keep all the additional profit. Plus, if they increase attendance, that will decrease the amount they receive from other teams in terms of revenue sharing.

That's why the NFL is damn near perfect. A team like Arizona can still draw interest, if you have them playing a popular team on the other end. The true NFL fans aren't turning off the TV, just because the Cardinals are in the Super Bowl. It's those fickle fringe fans in those major markets, that may be turned off by it.

The NFL is an entire different story. Attendance isn't even half of the overall revenue generated. It's the national TV contract, and there are no local TV contracts. It doesn't matter if a team doesn't get one national TV game all year, they still recieve the same amount as every other team from the TV contract. Thus NY or LA can't gain an advantage by having a big local TV contract. There isn't even a team in Los Angeles. In no other major sport would that happen.

The national TV contract supplies 2/3 of ALL teams revenue. And, players contracts are about 2/3 of each individual teams revenue. Thus, the TV contract essentially pays the player salaries. This is why every team is very profitable, and there is also a hard salary cap that doesn't allow one team to spend more than others.

Edited May 11, 2009 by AtLaS

[dlpin]

The NBA is a star league. And it really doesn't matter where that star is playing . . as long as they have the stars playing against each other.

People would much rather see an LA / Cleveland final . . than say . . a Hawks / Nuggets final. And it really doesn't have anything to do with market. It has to do with the lack of superstar players.

So why would the league manipulate things to keep Lebron in Cleveland as opposed to New York? That is the argument diesel is making. We all agree that lebron gets preferential treatment, we all agree that the nba tries to promote its superstars as much as possible regardless of where they are, we all agree that they want a cleveland/la final.

But what diesel is saying is that that is caused by a desire to keep lebron away from the knicks. Does anyone really think that Lebron is so much more profitable in cleveland as opposed to new york that they'd fix the league to ensure that? really?

[dlpin]

Let's be clear here dlpin.

There are two points on the table.

#1 Lebron receives star treatment.

No doubt... Every star player has received star treatment from Stern because as he has said once, he likes to protect his stars.

#2. Lebron winning in Cleveland may keep him in Cleveland and would be of interest to Stern

I believe that there's more in it for the league if Lebron stays in Cleveland.

Just to remove point #1 from the conversation...

We have seen protected players before. However, not to the extent that we've seen with Lebron. Game 2 was about as blatant as it comes and we had no shot of winning that game. Jordan never had the Liberties that Lebron has been given this offseason. It leads me to believe it's more than just Star treatment. You can note how Kobe is treated in his series in Houston vs. how Lebron is treated and if you claim this is just star treatment, then Kobe must not be a star any longer.

And I agree completely that Lebron gets better treatment than even Jordan did. And i even posted stats on another thread to prove that. The point where we disagree is that you say this is so because they want to prevent him from going to their most valuable and richest franchise!

I think Lebron gets that treatment because Kobe is about as unlikeable a superstar you will ever have, and so they are putting all their eggs in the lebron basket. And I think that he would get the same treatment in Cleveland, NY or Oklahoma city. But the argument that they are doing this because they DON'T want Lebron in New York is absurd.

Can anyone really believe that Lebron would be so much less profitable in NY that they'd find a way for him to win in cleveland to prevent him from going to new york?

[AHF]

Toronto is 22 - 12, yet, I bet people can't name 3 players off the Blue Jays

Kansas City is 18 - 14, and they probably won't have one single national TV game this year

The fuggin Rangers are 17 - 14, leading the AL West, and I can't name a single player on the Rangers.

My Reds are 17 - 14 . . but since Griffey left, I bet people can't name 2 Reds players.

It may just be me and fantasy baseball, but I have two teams. I kept Roy Halladay and targeted Travis Snyder and got him (wasn't able to also get Lind like I wanted) from the Jays; tried to acquire Grienke and Alex Gordon before this year and just rushed to the waiver wire and got Jose Cruz; drafted Young and Chris Davis from the Rangers (and was targeting Andrus as a late game gamble for the other team), and have Phillips, Votto and Bruce on one team for both this year and next year already. I now regret not getting Cueto but passed at his price and got Garza instead so I am not too sad on that.

Edited May 11, 2009 by AHF

[AtLaS]

Diesel is essentially saying that Stern has gotten his own crew of Donaghy's to keep LeBron in Cleveland and away from NY. That's the theory of today.

What he also seems to forget is that LeBron has said he'd be more comfortable with leaving Cleveland if he had already won a championship there, since he at least would have given Cleveland a title.

It's also funny that there will be 20 teams with the cap space to sign LeBron yet the only place they talk about him going to is NY.

[AHF]

Diesel is essentially saying that Stern has gotten his own crew of Donaghy's to keep LeBron in Cleveland and away from NY. That's the theory of today.

What he also seems to forget is that LeBron has said he'd be more comfortable with leaving Cleveland if he had already won a championship there, since he at least would have given Cleveland a title.

Personally, I think Lebron would get the calls anywhere in the league because he is a *star* but do think he is much more likely to stay in Cleveland if they win a championship despite what he said to the press.

[Diesel]

So why would the league manipulate things to keep Lebron in Cleveland as opposed to New York? That is the argument diesel is making. We all agree that lebron gets preferential treatment, we all agree that the nba tries to promote its superstars as much as possible regardless of where they are, we all agree that they want a cleveland/la final.

But what diesel is saying is that that is caused by a desire to keep lebron away from the knicks. Does anyone really think that Lebron is so much more profitable in cleveland as opposed to new york that they'd fix the league to ensure that? really?

Bottom line, you move Lebron from Cleveland, you lose a market.

You keep Lebron in Cleveland, you lose nothing.

[dlpin]

Bottom line, you move Lebron from Cleveland, you lose a market.

You keep Lebron in Cleveland, you lose nothing.

"lose" a market? Lose nothing? Again, you keep talking in every way possible except dollars. How would lebron be less profitable in New York?

[Diesel]

"lose" a market? Lose nothing? Again, you keep talking in every way possible except dollars. How would lebron be less profitable in New York?

What happens to the Cleveland Market if lebron goes to NY??

I have shown you that since Lebron got to Cleveland, their revenue has jumped from 40 mil to 159 mil. From 28th overall to 5th overall. Lebron going to Cleveland has made them the 5th valued market....

What happens to Cleveland if Lebron goes to NY??

What you fail to see dlpin... in all of your repetition is that regardless of if they get Lebron or not, NY is still going to be #1 in revenue.

But what happens to Cleveland's market if Lebron leaves?

[dlpin]

What happens to the Cleveland Market if lebron goes to NY??

I have shown you that since Lebron got to Cleveland, their revenue has jumped from 40 mil to 159 mil. From 28th overall to 5th overall. Lebron going to Cleveland has made them the 5th valued market....

What happens to Cleveland if Lebron goes to NY??

What you fail to see dlpin... in all of your repetition is that regardless of if they get Lebron or not, NY is still going to be #1 in revenue.

But what happens to Cleveland's market if Lebron leaves?

What you fail to understand is that in business what matters is dollars. It doesnt matter if cleveland goes from #5 to #10 in revenues. It doesn't matter if NY is still #1 or not. What matters to the other owners is how much money, in dollars, is involved, and how much of it gets shared. So you think it doesnt matter if the Knicks revenue is 200 million or 300 million because they are still number 1 regardless? Im sorry, but this is BS.

Edited May 11, 2009 by dlpin

[CavalierObserver]

Why is there the assumption that LeBron will leave Cleveland? What could NY possibly give LeBron that Cleveland can't?

Endorsements? LeBron already has Nike, State Farm, Gatorade, many ESPN commercials

Loving fans? We have watched LeBron throughout his entire life (played in Akron OH) and admire him more than any city could. He is worshiped in Cleveland.

More money? Nope, Cleveland offers the highest contract.

Winning? lol no point in going there

More press? LeBron is already on magazine covers and headlines ESPN. What more could there be?

The only thing that could entice LeBron to leave is perhaps a D-Wade and LeBron team in NY- but I don't see that happening.

[dlpin]

Why is there the assumption that LeBron will leave Cleveland? What could NY possibly give LeBron that Cleveland can't?

Endorsements? LeBron already has Nike, State Farm, Gatorade, many ESPN commercials

Loving fans? We have watched LeBron throughout his entire life (played in Akron OH) and admire him more than any city could. He is worshiped in Cleveland.

More money? Nope, Cleveland offers the highest contract.

Winning? lol no point in going there

More press? LeBron is already on magazine covers and headlines ESPN. What more could there be?

The only thing that could entice LeBron to leave is perhaps a D-Wade and LeBron team in NY- but I don't see that happening.

Read the thread again. This is not about whether Lebron will leave Cleveland, or even whether he should leave Cleveland. The OP claimed that cleveland's path to the final, and the preferential treatment Lebron has gotten, are caused because the NBA wants Lebron to stay in cleveland.

Now, as to why Lebron would leave for NY, well, NY IS the media capital of the world. In any case, cavs fans should really ask him, since he is the one who refuses to deny rumors of leaving, and even makes jokes every 3 months or so about going to NY. Remember when not too long ago when he made a joke about how fans of every other franchise hate him except cleveland.. and then he added "and new york" and cracked up laughing?

[Diesel]

What you fail to understand is that in business what matters is dollars. It doesnt matter if cleveland goes from #5 to #10 in revenues. It doesn't matter if NY is still #1 or not. What matters to the other owners is how much money, in dollars, is involved, and how much of it gets shared. So you think it doesnt matter if the Knicks revenue is 200 million or 300 million because they are still number 1 regardless? Im sorry, but this is BS.

You need to outline how cost sharing works specifically for the Knicks. The Knicks are owned by cablevision. I doubt they even have a written TV contract just so they don't have to share revenue with the league. I think that's a big part of the reason why they didn't care about paying Luxury tax all those years.

Once you find that... (the agreement that the NBA has with the Knicks ) then you might have something. otherwise, you're talking about a market being lost.

Seeing that I have to make things simple.. let me simplify this for you.

1. Most teams major revenue source is local TV contract.

For example, the Hawks play well and the sportssouth affiliate is willing to pick up Hawks games and pay more than last year.

2. The Knicks are owned by their media outlet.

Hmm? How does this work. The Knicks can be put on cablevision as much as cablevision wants to show them because Cablevision are the owners. So if Cablevision don't have a TV contract, then the NBA can't have revenue sharing of television profits (unless theres some agreement between the Knicks and the NBA).

[dlpin]

You need to outline how cost sharing works specifically for the Knicks. The Knicks are owned by cablevision. I doubt they even have a written TV contract just so they don't have to share revenue with the league. I think that's a big part of the reason why they didn't care about paying Luxury tax all those years.

Once you find that... (the agreement that the NBA has with the Knicks ) then you might have something. otherwise, you're talking about a market being lost.

Seeing that I have to make things simple.. let me simplify this for you.

1. Most teams major revenue source is local TV contract.

For example, the Hawks play well and the sportssouth affiliate is willing to pick up Hawks games and pay more than last year.

2. The Knicks are owned by their media outlet.

Hmm? How does this work. The Knicks can be put on cablevision as much as cablevision wants to show them because Cablevision are the owners. So if Cablevision don't have a TV contract, then the NBA can't have revenue sharing of television profits (unless theres some agreement between the Knicks and the NBA).

So what you are saying is that cablevision, a publicly traded company, can essentially undervalue it's Knicks broadcasting rights in order to get out of the nba revenue sharing agreement? You do know that is fraud, right?

Besides, even if they could do what they are saying they do, they are still the top revenue team for the NBA, so that matters little.

And no, local TV is not the major revenue source for most teams.

Edited May 11, 2009 by dlpin