NFL vs NBA - a quick poll

[Admin]

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.

Yep this I fully agree with. Teams like Utah would never get star players to want to play there. Not that Atlanta would be that much better with our reputation, but at least it's a major market and a lot of players have offseason homes in the area.

[AHF]

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.

Every system that does relegation that I am aware of also does the system HF brought up. Think about how it would play out if you did the draft, you would have your NBA teams and then say 8-10 NBADL teams. Every year the worst team would drop to the NBADL and the NBADL champ would move up. Who gets to participate in the draft? Wouldn't all the teams in the NBA and NBADL have to participate in the same draft if a team that is relegated is going to have a chance to recover? How then do you decide who gets which pick when you have teams playing in two different leagues?

The answer has simply been to let teams sign players. They scout them, go out and sign them when they are young, and sign whatever free agents they want. No draft and everyone gets to make their own pitch for FAs.

I don't see anyway these things don't go hand in hand, although perhaps there is some other idea out there.

[AHF]

Yep this I fully agree with. Teams like Utah would never get star players to want to play there. Not that Atlanta would be that much better with our reputation, but at least it's a major market and a lot of players have offseason homes in the area.

The Competitive advantage that a team like Miami enjoys today that it wouldn't enjoy in a league with only a salary cap and no draft is that they wouldn't be able to sign Lebron for $19M per year. He would be getting $30M+ per year from someone like the old contracts for studs like Kevin Garnett. A team like Miami with Lebron enjoys a big competitive advantage due to the restraint on max players salaries. If you simply gave people X dollars to work with, then stacking multiple stars on the same team would become nearly impossible.

If you had a cap of $80M for teams, then spending $32M on Lebron, $25M on Wade (given his status when he signed his deal), and $22M on Bosh wouldn't be possible. It is only with the max contract limits that come with the current NBA CBA that we have that so this aspect of a free market system doesn't bother me quite as much as long as there is a total spending cap and we don't see teams like Chelsea/NY Knicks that simply spend 3x what others do. Hawksfanatic doesn't mind that dynamic so we agree to disagree on that point.

[Admin]

Every system that does relegation that I am aware of also does the system HF brought up. Think about how it would play out if you did the draft, you would have your NBA teams and then say 8-10 NBADL teams. Every year the worst team would drop to the NBADL and the NBADL champ would move up. Who gets to participate in the draft? Wouldn't all the teams in the NBA and NBADL have to participate in the same draft if a team that is relegated is going to have a chance to recover? How then do you decide who gets which pick when you have teams playing in two different leagues?

The answer has simply been to let teams sign players. They scout them, go out and sign them when they are young, and sign whatever free agents they want. No draft and everyone gets to make their own pitch for FAs.

I don't see anyway these things don't go hand in hand, although perhaps there is some other idea out there.

If that's the case that they would have to go hand in hand then there's no way I would ever want to see a system like that. However, I don't agree that would have to be the case though as I believe there are enough NBA level talented players who might choose to go and play for an NBADL team rather than be the 10th-11th-12th guy on an NBA teams bench. You get enough of those guys on a team and that team would be good enough to win the NBADL crown and they'd automatically be in the NBA next year as their own team and they'd have the 1st pick in the draft. I'd only allow the NBA teams to draft players but the NBADL could sign any players who aren't drafted but were draft eligible or anyone who's played in the NBA already.

[Admin]

The Competitive advantage that a team like Miami enjoys today that it wouldn't enjoy in a league with only a salary cap and no draft is that they wouldn't be able to sign Lebron for $19M per year. He would be getting $30M+ per year from someone like the old contracts for studs like Kevin Garnett. A team like Miami with Lebron enjoys a big competitive advantage due to the restraint on max players salaries. If you simply gave people X dollars to work with, then stacking multiple stars on the same team would become nearly impossible.

If you had a cap of $80M for teams, then spending $32M on Lebron, $25M on Wade (given his status when he signed his deal), and $22M on Bosh wouldn't be possible. It is only with the max contract limits that come with the current NBA CBA that we have that so this aspect of a free market system doesn't bother me quite as much as long as there is a total spending cap and we don't see teams like Chelsea/NY Knicks that simply spend 3x what others do. Hawksfanatic doesn't mind that dynamic so we agree to disagree on that point.

I don't agree with that and the proof is already there that guys like Lebron, Wade and Bosh would be willing to accept less than their market value to be able to form super teams. And what happens when that next group of stud rookies is ready to come into the NBA and they see that Lebron and company only have 1 year left on their contracts? Of course they're going to sign with that team to sit behind them and get minutes when they can and get an easy shot at a ring their rookie seasons. I want no part of a system that will end up creating situations like the NCAA has it right now where the best incoming players choose the best teams every single year as it would be the same in the NBA.

[AHF]

I don't agree with that and the proof is already there that guys like Lebron, Wade and Bosh would be willing to accept less than their market value to be able to form super teams. And what happens when that next group of stud rookies is ready to come into the NBA and they see that Lebron and company only have 1 year left on their contracts? Of course they're going to sign with that team to sit behind them and get minutes when they can and get an easy shot at a ring their rookie seasons. I want no part of a system that will end up creating situations like the NCAA has it right now where the best incoming players choose the best teams every single year as it would be the same in the NBA.

Remember that they are passing on a very small amount of money to form the super teams. They aren't passing on $15M/season like Lebron could have gotten on an open market.

Let's use your example.

Miami has roughly $60M tied up in Lebron, Wade and Bosh. (In my world, this isn't the case because they demand more money but we'll ignore that). They have $20M to sign the rest of the team. Say they use 12M on 5 veterans. That leaves 8M to sign another 5 players. If they are all minimum contract guys, that leaves a max bid for a rookie of about $6M.

A top rookie like Anthony Davis could get $12M+/year from the Atlanta Hawks but only half that from Miami. Do you really think Davis is going to take less money and fewer minutes to ring chase as a rookie? I don't.

The college situation is different because players cannot earn anymore money at one school than another. With the compensation being the same everywhere, they are free to sign onto the best programs with the best coaches and best players and you end up with teams like UK basketball, Alabama football, etc. that are loaded with talent. I don't think that is remotely realistic for the NBA where teams without stars could offer the next Lebron or next Shaq (i.e., no brainer stud) $15M for his rookie year if they wanted.

[Admin]

Remember that they are passing on a very small amount of money to form the super teams. They aren't passing on $15M/season like Lebron could have gotten on an open market.

Let's use your example.

Miami has roughly $60M tied up in Lebron, Wade and Bosh. (In my world, this isn't the case because they demand more money but we'll ignore that). They have $20M to sign the rest of the team. Say they use 12M on 5 veterans. That leaves 8M to sign another 5 players. If they are all minimum contract guys, that leaves a max bid for a rookie of about $6M.

A top rookie like Anthony Davis could get $12M+/year from the Atlanta Hawks but only half that from Miami. Do you really think Davis is going to take less money and fewer minutes to ring chase as a rookie? I don't.

The college situation is different because players cannot earn anymore money at one school than another. With the compensation being the same everywhere, they are free to sign onto the best programs with the best coaches and best players and you end up with teams like UK basketball, Alabama football, etc. that are loaded with talent. I don't think that is remotely realistic for the NBA where teams without stars could offer the next Lebron or next Shaq (i.e., no brainer stud) $15M for his rookie year if they wanted.

I don't think the salary money matters when you're talking about some of these guys who want to form super teams and win championships. Lebron and Wade have gotten and still get plenty of money off the court and winning championships sure helps a lot with that so I think they'd easily forego a mega contract for a modest one that allows them to team up and build a team that can win it all.

Obviously the college situation would be different in the amount of money that they make in college, where I'm sure they do pretty well at UK, vs what they'd make in the pros. But yeah I think you'd get some of those great recruits who'd say okay Bosh and Wade only have a year left on their contracts so we'll sign a $1 million dollar 1 year contract with Miami to redshirt on the Heat bench and get a ring and next year we can get more money from them when one or both of those guys either signs for cheaper or moves on. I'm 100% certain that some of the star talent would do that, but of course some would chase the money first.

[AHF]

I have more faith in the greed and ego of athletes than you do! If the next KG is offered $14M from NY with a starting role, $12.5M from Atlanta with a starting role, and $1M with a chance to back up Bosh while ring chasing in Miami, then I have faith that the next KG will be starting somewhere other than Miami and enjoying the big bucks.

[Admin]

I have more faith in the greed and ego of athletes than you do! If the next KG is offered $14M from NY with a starting role, $12.5M from Atlanta with a starting role, and $1M with a chance to back up Bosh while ring chasing in Miami, then I have faith that the next KG will be starting somewhere other than Miami and enjoying the big bucks.

I think that in some cases you will be right but I also think there will be kids who grew up as Lebron fanboys who will take a tiny salary to redshirt for 1 year and ring chase and then get paid after that.

I guess the way to fix that would be to make rookie contracts a mandatory length?

[AHF]

I think that in some cases you will be right but I also think there will be kids who grew up as Lebron fanboys who will take a tiny salary to redshirt for 1 year and ring chase and then get paid after that.

I guess the way to fix that would be to make rookie contracts a mandatory length?

I just don't think it would be much of an issue except where the other factors are similar. If Boston is offering $2M and Miami $1M, then a decent number of rich veterans would be willing to ring chase for that but only a very few rookies with no money would pass on that extra million. Once you start looking at the elite rookies who would get big contracts that wouldn't be an issue at all. Glenn Robinson got a $68M deal and that was 20 years ago. Take off the individual salary restraints and the next Big Dog would get a 9 figure contract from the highest bidder.

[Guest]

Teams will not bid on players if the player is not productive for them. Basketball is still played with 5 players so I do not see someone buying up all the talent and then not playing them.Just look at the distribution of team's revenue to get an estimate of how much talent they would bring in. It is not as skewed as this discussion would make it seem. Miami can only bid so much on players, they do need to have a cashflow in order to pay.

[AHF]

Teams will not bid on players if the player is not productive for them. Basketball is still played with 5 players so I do not see someone buying up all the talent and then not playing them.Just look at the distribution of team's revenue to get an estimate of how much talent they would bring in. It is not as skewed as this discussion would make it seem. Miami can only bid so much on players, they do need to have a cashflow in order to pay.

LA and NY are the biggest worries in that regard.

I think MLB and soccer leagues show clear haves and have nots in terms of spending. That then begs the question of whether those differences in spending translate into advantages on the field and whether they are good or bad. I suspect that we agree that certain markets can sustain much higher cash flows than others but probably don't see eye to eye on whether that translates into a competitive advantage or not.

[Guest]

LA and NY are the biggest worries in that regard.

Since we are still stuck on hypotheticals, then why not have more teams in those cities?

If you look at the EPL, the most storied franchise is either Manchester United (20) or Liverpool (18). If you look at metro area population of England, Manchester is the 3rd largest and Liverpool is the 7th largest. And the distribution is very skewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom) where London has 8.2m then the next largest is Birmingham at 2.3m (and Manchester has 2.2m). So why is it that London is not the powerhouse for football? One reason is that there are a ton of teams in London. They have Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Fulham, West Ham United, and Crystal Palace in the premier league alone this year (20 teams in all). There are 13 professional teams in London alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_London). When you count up all the EPL titles that London has won, they have 19 from Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham. The city of Manchester has 23 and Liverpool with 27. That is not a huge discrepancy when you look at it from a city perspective instead of a team perspective. Also take into account that Manchester and Liverpool have historically been the 2nd, 3rd or 4th largest cities from 1900 to the 1970s and it does not seem that strange.

But yes, we will eventually disagree on the magnitudes of how a revenue advantage helps on the field. I do not believe I have claimed revenue does not help with winning, I just do not see the effects as so large that we need some regulation in place.

[Guest]

I have to give you guys credit - this thread is still going strong on hypotheticals. It's definitely food for thought though some of it makes my head hurt...lol.

[Admin]

I have to give you guys credit - this thread is still going strong on hypotheticals. It's definitely food for thought though some of it makes my head hurt...lol.

That's okay JayBird that's why you are supposed to just be seen and not heard and only stay in the kitchen.

[Guest]

That's okay JayBird that's why you are supposed to just be seen and not heard and only stay in the kitchen.

What ?

You know you wrong for that - you forgot barefoot and pregnant though.

[Admin]

What ?

You know you wrong for that - you forgot barefoot and pregnant though.

Haha I didn't want to come off as sexist so I didn't include that last part.

[AHF]

Haha I didn't want to come off as sexist so...

[Guest]

Thank you..

[Diesel]

Every system that does relegation that I am aware of also does the system HF brought up. Think about how it would play out if you did the draft, you would have your NBA teams and then say 8-10 NBADL teams. Every year the worst team would drop to the NBADL and the NBADL champ would move up. Who gets to participate in the draft? Wouldn't all the teams in the NBA and NBADL have to participate in the same draft if a team that is relegated is going to have a chance to recover? How then do you decide who gets which pick when you have teams playing in two different leagues?

The answer has simply been to let teams sign players. They scout them, go out and sign them when they are young, and sign whatever free agents they want. No draft and everyone gets to make their own pitch for FAs.

I don't see anyway these things don't go hand in hand, although perhaps there is some other idea out there.

Here's how you do it.

Keep the same system and a draft. Draft positions go from worst to first for the first round. The second round belongs to the NBADL teams worst to first. The third round has 60 selections with worst to first for both leagues.

Worst three team goes to the NBADL. The best three NBADL teams move up.

Here's the trick...

Every NBADL team can participate in FAcy too. So in this case, FAcy after the draft. NBADL teams will not spend as much on draft picks as the NBA teams but may spend good money on FAs.

Here's why.

The teams that tank get their pick. However, with their pick, they spend at least a year in NBADL. This will improve the NBADL, this will improve the pro game also. NBA teams that have been demoted, go into FAcy trying to convince FAs to come play for them and help them to get out of the NBADL.

So your team tanks for Lebron, #2, or Melo. You get them. You're in the NBADL. You make your play to FAs to join us in FAcy and we can win the NBADL and have a dynasty going to the NBA.

That year, does Cleveland beat Detroit? Does Cleveland beat the Nuggets? Only one of those teams will get back into the NBA. The others will be in the NBADL until they can win out.

So teams that are perpetually bad, will be perpetually bad in the NBADL until they can win out.