NFL vs NBA - a quick poll

[AHF]

If we are going to throw out implausible ideas as a discincentive to tank and alternative to the lottery- how about relegation? Comprise the NBDL of wanna-be NBA franchises (Seattle, Las Vegas, Kansas City (new arena already), Pittsburgh (new arena already), Anaheim, San Jose, St. Louis) and have those teams actually play for a shot at the big leagues. The NBA could collect massive fees from each city to 'enroll' their franchises into this structure (i.e., hundreds of millions into the pockets of existing ownership) and pay their players under the same rules as the big boys (i.e., more jobs for members of the NBAPA).

I'm not sure how to marry the draft and relegation (perhaps hawksfanatic gets to see his dream of an open market bidding come to fruition but likely still with some kind of spending cap) but you can be sure that the days of tanking would be officially over if a team had to go sit at the kid's table for finishing last.

Edited May 29, 2013 by AHF

[Admin]

If we are going to throw out implausible ideas as a discincentive to tank and alternative to the lottery- how about relegation? Comprise the NBDL of wanna-be NBA franchises (Seattle, Las Vegas, Kansas City (new arena already), Pittsburgh (new arena already), Anaheim, San Jose, St. Louis) and have those teams actually play for a shot at the big leagues. The NBA could collect massive fees from each city to 'enroll' their franchises into this structure (i.e., hundreds of millions into the pockets of existing ownership) and pay their players under the same rules as the big boys (i.e., more jobs for members of the NBAPA).

I'm not sure how to marry the draft and relegation (perhaps hawksfanatic gets to see his dream of an open market bidding come to fruition but likely still with some kind of spending cap) but you can be sure that the days of tanking would be officially over if a team had to go sit at the kid's table for finishing last.

Oh man that's a great idea! Someone needs to send that idea into the commissioners office right away. Charlotte needs to be replaced immediately as they suck every year despite the high draft picks. Cleveland is borderline right there sucking as bad as they did this past year even with all of the high picks they've had.

Well yes.And how do you cut a *team's* basketball related income? With more thought I think Diesel would say cut revenue sharing shares for the teams.But even then, that is so arbitrary to me. I like the idea of not having an incentive for finishing bad because incentives are all out of whack. You give someone a prize for sucking? How exactly does that induce teams to improve their team? Oh that is right, by making the team worse in hopes that your prize magically makes you better.

Yeah I knew you'd enjoy that one. But it's your fault for bringing the BRI buzzword to the Squawk for people to butcher.

[Diesel]

Well yes.And how do you cut a *team's* basketball related income? With more thought I think Diesel would say cut revenue sharing shares for the teams.But even then, that is so arbitrary to me. I like the idea of not having an incentive for finishing bad because incentives are all out of whack. You give someone a prize for sucking? How exactly does that induce teams to improve their team? Oh that is right, by making the team worse in hopes that your prize magically makes you better.

Yep. Each team gets a share of the BRI. I would cut that teams portion and put it back in the pot for other teams to share.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at in your paragraph.. but here's my thinking.

Yes... the player that a team might tank for may be a guy that starts a dynasty. However, I believe that the owners and players on a team that finishes in the bottom ten ought to be punished. Those teams have fans and TV contract. Why subject the fans of the NBA to your sorriness and get a prize for it at the end? 20% might be minimal but I think it's fair.

A more draconian idea would be to cut the teams Salary cap (in the next year) by 20%. So that if everybody else has a cap at 60 Million, Your team that wins the lottery would have 48 Million to spend. Although this punishes the team, I think it punishes the sport and rewards the owners twice. My first idea is a little fairer.

[Diesel]

That type of description is like what you'd get from asking a child to describe the solar system. The NFL system is FAR more complex than you are giving it credit for. There are penalties for making big money mistakes, such as cutting players who got big bonuses, and your team gets penalized. There is a salary cap and I believe in the NFL it's a hard cap as well, unlike the NBA where you have exceptions that allow you to go over that cap. What you are describing is the MLB system where there aren't any penalties (that I'm aware of) for dropping players. Sure the player still has to get paid but it doesn't count towards the teams salary.

Everytime I see a team cut a player that they signed a year or two ago and not have to pay him any salary (in the NFL) I think.. that sucks. Not only for the player but for the sport. You have all these scouts and coaches and you tell me that you put the power all in the Owners hand? In the real world, you have to live with the bad decisions you made. That's why I think Basketball is better.

When the Hawks spent 120 Million on Joe Johnson or 50 Million on Marvin Williams, those are decisions we had to live when. When Brooklyn acquired Joe, Crash, Brooks, and Deron.. they have to live with those decisions. It is not fair if they can say.. well, we're cutting Joe.

Where is the fairness to all the other teams in the league who actually thought about who they would pick and made wise money choices? In football, you can have a do over.

[Admin]

Everytime I see a team cut a player that they signed a year or two ago and not have to pay him any salary (in the NFL) I think.. that sucks. Not only for the player but for the sport. You have all these scouts and coaches and you tell me that you put the power all in the Owners hand? In the real world, you have to live with the bad decisions you made. That's why I think Basketball is better.

When the Hawks spent 120 Million on Joe Johnson or 50 Million on Marvin Williams, those are decisions we had to live when. When Brooklyn acquired Joe, Crash, Brooks, and Deron.. they have to live with those decisions. It is not fair if they can say.. well, we're cutting Joe.

Where is the fairness to all the other teams in the league who actually thought about who they would pick and made wise money choices? In football, you can have a do over.

NFL players get bonus money up front and some of them get a significant amount of guaranteed money in their contract so they will get that whether they get cut or not. Now they have a new thing that is in the latest NFL CBA called offset language where if a player is cut and is still owed guaranteed money then he cannot play for another team OR if he signs with another team then his original team is no longer on the hook to pay him that guaranteed money. To me that's a fantastic thing as it keeps players from being able to double-dip in case they suck with the original team and get cut and latch on someplace else. Not all players have that in their contract but most veterans signing contracts under the new CBA have that and probably about half of the rookies have that.

Using your example, let's say that an NFL team hypothetically gives a 5 year $100 million contract to a player with $20 million in signing bonus and $50 million guaranteed. The team then goes and cuts the player after the 1st year. Well the way it works is that the signing bonus is pro-rated over the remaining number of years of the contract and that amount is removed from the teams available salary cap. So since he played 1 year they'd take $4 million from the $20 million total leaving $16 million in cap hit. The team can them spread that hit out over a certain time period (that I'm not sure of but it's usually 2-3 years) to help reduce the burden on the cap. The player still got that $20 million bonus and gets the $50 million guaranteed and unless there is offset language in the contract the owner still has to pay that dollar amount to the player, plus he has to pay a new player to replace that player. So yeah it's a lot easier to get out of a bad contract in the NFL but you don't run as much of a risk of a team sucking for years upon years due to being stuck with a bad contract(s) like we were with Joe and Marvin to a lesser degree. I prefer the NFL way but because of the small markets and star driven nature of the NBA I think the NBA has to go this way to protect those small market teams because if they had the NFL system then teams like the Lakers and Knicks would just abuse it and sign star players year after year.

[AHF]

Yep. Each team gets a share of the BRI. I would cut that teams portion and put it back in the pot for other teams to share.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at in your paragraph.. but here's my thinking.

Yes... the player that a team might tank for may be a guy that starts a dynasty. However, I believe that the owners and players on a team that finishes in the bottom ten ought to be punished. Those teams have fans and TV contract. Why subject the fans of the NBA to your sorriness and get a prize for it at the end? 20% might be minimal but I think it's fair.

A more draconian idea would be to cut the teams Salary cap (in the next year) by 20%. So that if everybody else has a cap at 60 Million, Your team that wins the lottery would have 48 Million to spend. Although this punishes the team, I think it punishes the sport and rewards the owners twice. My first idea is a little fairer.

I think BRI is a more technical term that you aren't using correctly here. BRI represents a subset of all income generated by the NBA. The NBA doesn't simply divide the BRI between each team - there are provisions in the CBA dealing with how certain revenue sources are shared and how certain revenue sharing takes place.

[Guest]

I think BRI is a more technical term that you aren't using correctly here. BRI represents a subset of all income generated by the NBA. The NBA doesn't simply divide the BRI between each team - there are provisions in the CBA dealing with how certain revenue sources are shared and how certain revenue sharing takes place.

Yeah, it is like the GDP of the NBA.And AHF with your relegation post that blew me away. Either your stance is changing, my memory is bad and had your stance wrong, or some combination of the two. Relegation is certainly a way to improve the product, of course that hurts the majority of the owners so it will not happen.

[Admin]

I think BRI is a more technical term that you aren't using correctly here. BRI represents a subset of all income generated by the NBA. The NBA doesn't simply divide the BRI between each team - there are provisions in the CBA dealing with how certain revenue sources are shared and how certain revenue sharing takes place.

[AHF]

Yeah, it is like the GDP of the NBA.And AHF with your relegation post that blew me away. Either your stance is changing, my memory is bad and had your stance wrong, or some combination of the two. Relegation is certainly a way to improve the product, of course that hurts the majority of the owners so it will not happen.

I think relegation is fundamentally inconsistent with the draft so I've never been a vocal proponent during our discussions but if you are going to go away from a draft concept and just let teams bid on players at some type of market value system (with or without caps on team salaries) then I would love to see relegation. It is a fascinating process that would incent much better behavior from the Donald Sterlings and Michael Jordans of the world. It won't happen in any major US sport, but the notion has some real appeal.

[Guest]

I think relegation is fundamentally inconsistent with the draft so I've never been a vocal proponent during our discussions but if you are going to go away from a draft concept and just let teams bid on players at some type of market value system (with or without caps on team salaries) then I would love to see relegation. It is a fascinating process that would incent much better behavior from the Donald Sterlings and Michael Jordans of the world. It won't happen in any major US sport, but the notion has some real appeal.

I have never been a fan of the draft, one because it weakens the product but more importantly it restricts a player. This would be some of my emotions coming in to play, but I cannot find it at all right to not allow a player to choose who to play for (based upon contract offers). I am not saying all players go to the same team, the teams will adjust contract offers accordingly, I am saying a player sould have the option. The draft takes it away and restricts their earnings just so they can get into the league and then finally have freedom to negotiate. I cannot think of an industry other than sports and millitary where this happens with regular occurance.So clearly I like relegation since it kills two birds with one stone for me. Better product and an individual has more freedom.

[Admin]

I have never been a fan of the draft, one because it weakens the product but more importantly it restricts a player. This would be some of my emotions coming in to play, but I cannot find it at all right to not allow a player to choose who to play for (based upon contract offers). I am not saying all players go to the same team, the teams will adjust contract offers accordingly, I am saying a player sould have the option. The draft takes it away and restricts their earnings just so they can get into the league and then finally have freedom to negotiate. I cannot think of an industry other than sports and millitary where this happens with regular occurance.So clearly I like relegation since it kills two birds with one stone for me. Better product and an individual has more freedom.

So you think a situation like what college has where a team like Kentucky year after year gets the best players coming out of high school because it's the players choice is the best system? Honestly if the NBA switched to that I would likely stop watching as hardly anyone would ever choose to play for a small market team.

[Guest]

So you think a situation like what college has where a team like Kentucky year after year gets the best players coming out of high school because it's the players choice is the best system? Honestly if the NBA switched to that I would likely stop watching as hardly anyone would ever choose to play for a small market team.

Well that situation has wages constrained to be the same across individuals, so it would not be what I am implying. A player would still need an offer from a team that includes a salary. I would imagine not all offers for a player would have the same salary unless something else forced that (min/max salary).

[Admin]

Well that situation has wages constrained to be the same across individuals, so it would not be what I am implying. A player would still need an offer from a team that includes a salary. I would imagine not all offers for a player would have the same salary unless something else forced that (min/max salary).

Still though if you're a kid with star potential who can choose between an offer from the Lakers for x million or the Hawks for xx million which are you most likely to choose? I don't like our odds at that at all.

[AHF]

Still though if you're a kid with star potential who can choose between an offer from the Lakers for x million or the Hawks for xx million which are you most likely to choose? I don't like our odds at that at all.

Here is how that works out in real life. Check the bottom of the page which lists team salaries and the standings of those teams.

http://evaspelunker.com/Sports/premier-league-salaries.shtml

Here is the key summary of the top and bottom of the 20 EPL teams by payroll:

Chelsea 172M - #2 finish

Manchester United 121M - #1 finish

Arsenal 101M - #3 finish

Liverpool 90M - #4 finish

.

.

.

.

.

Middlesbrough 35M - #13 finish

Reading 33M - #18 finish

Birmingham 27M - #19 finish

Derby County 26M - #20 finish

Edited May 29, 2013 by AHF

[Admin]

Pretty clear that the teams willing to fork out the major dollars get the better players. But that seems to be like a MLB system where a team can have an unlimited payroll right? That wouldn't be the case here in the NBA and I'm thankful for that since our group can't compete with the Billionaires of the league.

[AHF]

Pretty clear that the teams willing to fork out the major dollars get the better players. But that seems to be like a MLB system where a team can have an unlimited payroll right? That wouldn't be the case here in the NBA and I'm thankful for that since our group can't compete with the Billionaires of the league.

I'm not aware of relegation in any system with capped payrolls but I think it is probably reasonable to assume some type of tax or cap system would be in place given the history of the league's pay structure.

[Admin]

I'm not aware of relegation in any system with capped payrolls but I think it is probably reasonable to assume some type of tax or cap system would be in place given the history of the league's pay structure.

I'm getting mixed up here, are we talking about the system you brought up where the bottom team gets dropped out or the system that HF brought up where players could choose their teams based on those teams making them offers rather than a draft? Either way I would expect that in the NBA there would be a cap, but I greatly prefer your system vs the one proposed by HF.

[Diesel]

NFL players get bonus money up front and some of them get a significant amount of guaranteed money in their contract so they will get that whether they get cut or not. Now they have a new thing that is in the latest NFL CBA called offset language where if a player is cut and is still owed guaranteed money then he cannot play for another team OR if he signs with another team then his original team is no longer on the hook to pay him that guaranteed money. To me that's a fantastic thing as it keeps players from being able to double-dip in case they suck with the original team and get cut and latch on someplace else. Not all players have that in their contract but most veterans signing contracts under the new CBA have that and probably about half of the rookies have that.

Using your example, let's say that an NFL team hypothetically gives a 5 year $100 million contract to a player with $20 million in signing bonus and $50 million guaranteed. The team then goes and cuts the player after the 1st year. Well the way it works is that the signing bonus is pro-rated over the remaining number of years of the contract and that amount is removed from the teams available salary cap. So since he played 1 year they'd take $4 million from the $20 million total leaving $16 million in cap hit. The team can them spread that hit out over a certain time period (that I'm not sure of but it's usually 2-3 years) to help reduce the burden on the cap. The player still got that $20 million bonus and gets the $50 million guaranteed and unless there is offset language in the contract the owner still has to pay that dollar amount to the player, plus he has to pay a new player to replace that player. So yeah it's a lot easier to get out of a bad contract in the NFL but you don't run as much of a risk of a team sucking for years upon years due to being stuck with a bad contract(s) like we were with Joe and Marvin to a lesser degree. I prefer the NFL way but because of the small markets and star driven nature of the NBA I think the NBA has to go this way to protect those small market teams because if they had the NFL system then teams like the Lakers and Knicks would just abuse it and sign star players year after year.

This is my point. The risk of signing players is minimized and a team can recover very easily. IN fact, teams go into contract negotiations with a golden parachute because they know exactly how much a hit they would take if they have to cut said player. It's too much of a win win for the team. If the player does good, we win because he does good. If the player does bad, we can still with with a little triage because we can just get out of his contract and take the penalty.

Basketball however, it's permanent. All money is guaranteed. You either win or lose. It comes down to how well do you judge the players. This is the part I like. A team has to know what it is doing. If you sign a Dwight Howard for 5 years, then you need to be ready to put a team around him that works.

Let's just imagine for a minute. IF contracts were not guaranteed in basketball.

How easy would it have been for Miami to drop Chris Bosh and get two new players who have low post ability? Instead, Miami built their big three and no matter how much Bosh gets beat inside and makes no contribution in big games, they have to carry that. I don't want to see Miami being able to retool when they felt like it. The sport would be no fun. Imagine New York if they could cut Amare? Indiana and Granger. It's so easy to build a super team in the NBA that if contracts were unguaranteed, that's all that you would have... about 5 superteams and everybody else would be feeders.

[Diesel]

Still though if you're a kid with star potential who can choose between an offer from the Lakers for x million or the Hawks for xx million which are you most likely to choose? I don't like our odds at that at all.

The other problem is that small market teams would have to pay through the nose to get players who only have potential. Imagine us and Marvin Williams? At the time we sucked... Marvin had great potential, we would have paid through the nose to get him probably at the cost of our team.

Moreover, small market teams would miss more often than they hit.

The tell tell story to all of this is Karl Malone. He had never heard of Utah. If he was given his choice, Utah would have never been in the running. That would create a system where the rich gets richer.

[Admin]

This is my point. The risk of signing players is minimized and a team can recover very easily. IN fact, teams go into contract negotiations with a golden parachute because they know exactly how much a hit they would take if they have to cut said player. It's too much of a win win for the team. If the player does good, we win because he does good. If the player does bad, we can still with with a little triage because we can just get out of his contract and take the penalty.

Basketball however, it's permanent. All money is guaranteed. You either win or lose. It comes down to how well do you judge the players. This is the part I like. A team has to know what it is doing. If you sign a Dwight Howard for 5 years, then you need to be ready to put a team around him that works.

Let's just imagine for a minute. IF contracts were not guaranteed in basketball.

How easy would it have been for Miami to drop Chris Bosh and get two new players who have low post ability? Instead, Miami built their big three and no matter how much Bosh gets beat inside and makes no contribution in big games, they have to carry that. I don't want to see Miami being able to retool when they felt like it. The sport would be no fun. Imagine New York if they could cut Amare? Indiana and Granger. It's so easy to build a super team in the NBA that if contracts were unguaranteed, that's all that you would have... about 5 superteams and everybody else would be feeders.

It's not quite that simple though. Bosh is owed $60 million over the next 3 years and under that type of system sure you could cut him and sign a replacement but you've still got a salary cap to deal with and now you're going to have let's say $5 million per year for the next 3 years added to your salary just in a cap penalty for cutting Bosh. So now you can only get a player who's worth $5 million less than what Bosh was worth, but even then you still couldn't do that as Miami would have $60+ million in salaries + the Bosh penalty counting against them, leaving only a MLE to work with to replace him. That's with just 1 player being cut, imagine if you cut 2 or 3 players how the penalties could add up.