Semi-OT: Looming work stoppage in NBA
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/sports/basketball/14labor.html?pagewa…
I have to imagine that this will factor into Manny's decision making process at the end of the season, and not in a way that helps Michigan.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
factor into the decision of a lot of players who were planning to come out early...
February 15th, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^
If he's not projected to go in the first round, I don't know if it will matter. Second-rounders get the league minimum as it is.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
My thinking is that it will take away some of the incentive to come back and play his way from the 2nd round into the 1st, because obviously a guaranteed contract is worth a lot less if the first year is voided. That, and I'm sure he'd like to get one year's salary in before a possible stopage (and accrue one year's tenure, though I have to admit I don't really have any idea how the tenure system in the NBA works now or how it might work under some new agreement).
February 15th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
Basketball is in very serious trouble on almost every front. High school ball has been negatively impacted by the AAU front and the leeches. College ball has been destroyed by underclassmen going pro. Pro ball was never much of a product to begin with.
NBA Properties is probably the most valuable product that pro ball has to offer. If they don't already, they should strongly consider giving out an equal share of the revenue generated by NBAP to each team.
A hard cap would be a very good move. Non-guaranteed contracts would be another smart move. I'm still a fan of baseball's underclassmen rules. I don't think a player like Kobe Bryant should have to go to college, but I think if you commit to school, you should have to sit out a certain period of time. I also think doing away with the "declare for the draft" thing would be wise. Get rid of the rookie pay-scale too. Let draft picks negotiate for whatever they can get.
Probably putting in a minimum salary cap would be smart too. I think allowing a team like the Clippers to just draft off everyone else is a poor business model (even though Sterling makes a bundle) for the league as a whole.
The NFL succeeds even when a team from Louisiana and a team from Indiana are in the super bowl. The NBA only succeeds when Boston or NY and LA are good. When it's Sacramento and Atlanta, they have to rig the playoffs.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
Pro ball was never much of a product to begin with? OK that is a fucking joke, right?
Over the last thirty years we've gone from Bird vs. Magic, then MJ / Barkley / Malone / Pippen / etc., to a downturn (based on giving a ton of money to rookies, we'll call this either the Shawn Kemp or C-Webb era), then back up again with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron, Wade, Carmelo, Nash, and Durant.
The pro game >>>>> the college game in terms of a "product". Sure, there are stronger rooting ties to colleges and March Madness is amazing, but the quality of play in the NBA is unmatched. Think about it - 5 starters per team, 8-10 guys rotate, and only two rounds in a draft.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^
I think the rookie salary scale makes a lot of sense actually, they should earn their big pay day in the league. Jake Long - as much of a beast as he is - should NOT have made more before his first pro snap than a 5 year vet makes. (now that he's a 2 time pro bowler, it makes sense) That's how it works in all businesses, you start off at a lower pay scale until you prove your worth to the company, your new employees shouldn't make more than people with experience... think Reggie Bush should have been paid all that $$? He turned into a near bust, just turning his stock around this postseason (almost). I'd have to look up the numbers, but how much $$ did the lions waste on Mike Williams?
I dont disagree that there is a lot wrong with basketball, but the rookie salary scale is something that the NBA has right.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
The NBA is a joke.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
but I'm so indifferent that would imply having an opinion.
(yawns, looks at watch, contemplates what's for lunch)
February 15th, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^
Plus one to you.
I think you captured it quite adequately...the NBA, in the Jordan era, captured the public's imagination and was pretty compelling viewing. These days it's kind of like watching a lot of nothing then the last two minutes there is a bit of game...then the end.
David Stern has a lot of fixing to do.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
Nobody has worked in the NBA for years. They're well on their way to becoming a niche product.
Nobody I know watches the NBA anymore. When I was growing up in the mid-early 90s, it was destination television - The big Christmas Day matchups, the playoffs....
Now? Not so much.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
I still watch the Pistons, painful as it is lately. What can I say, I'm loyal to my teams to the bitter end. (How much soul-dong pain can a man take?)
I think Stern & the NBA made a mistake by marketing star player A vs. star player B, rather than team X vs. team Y. That might have worked in times past, when there seemed to be a plethora of stars, but now, there don't seem to be as many big names (and of those, some are past their prime).
February 15th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
I have to agree with other indifferent folks here...I have so little interest in watching the NBA or consuming its product that I don't care about a work stoppage. Work stoppage? These guys
I turn on NBA games once a month or so to have in the background. I admire the athleticism but I'm not compelled by the sport. It's like sparkling water...when it's there, it's nice to have, but if it went away tomorrow I'd find something else and be done with it.
What's ironic is that pro basketball is the closest to its pickup-game cousin moreso than any other pro sport.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
The rookie cap makes sense with the draft the way it is now. Kids go pro after one year when they aren't even a starter and get picked. It's *SUCH* a complete crap shoot that draft picks have little, if any, value. You don't want to be stuck having to try and figure out what Darko Millicic is actually worth.
But if you go with my rules, the players should be free to negotiate what they can get. Under my system, you wouldn't declare to go pro. A team would draft you in one of your windows (like baseball) when they thought you were ready to contribute.
If kids aren't declaring, you don't needlessly empty the college ranks out every year. There are 54 draft positions and you'll have 150 kids go pro (or so it seems) and end their college career. The kids who would get selected under my system would need some sort of bargaining leverage.
I don't like a rookie cap in football just because that first contract that a player gets is likely the ONLY contract he gets. Plus, the first few years a RB gives you are usually the best years. RBs in their second deal are usually overpriced and not very productive.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
I have to disagree about rookie cap in football - why should it matter if the first contract is the only one a player gets? That says to me they shouldn't have gotten the big bucks in the first place. Better rookies get less money and proven veterans more.
Also if there's a rookie cap, initial contracts could be shorter, so a second contract will cover some prime RB years.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^
You seriously overstate the randomness of the draft. Lottery picks are vastly more likely to make great pros than late first-rounders, who in turn are vastly more likely to be good than second-rounders (who often can't even make the roster of the team that drafted them).
Also, nowhere near that number actually leave the college ranks early annually. It's more like 30-40 a year.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
...I've moved beyond indifference with the NBA to outright hostility. I find it completely unwatchable in its present form.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^
I had your feeling post-1998, when Jordan retired the second time and the league was left with an army of role-players and a lot of miscreants.
I eased up on the hostility circa 2006, when there were the Spurs, Lebron, Nash, Bryant, Shaq on Miami, a good chance of getting a top player if you turned on the TV. Now it's becoming unwatchable again.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
Ever since the days of Bob Strampe and Billy Welu, the National Bowling Association just doesn't have much interest for me, and Bowling for Dollars isn't on TV anymore, either.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
I used to love the NBA, but now, it's a joke. I miss the days of Bird, Jordan and the Bad Boys.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
"Pro ball was never much of a product to begin with? OK that is a fucking joke, right?"
Um. No. Ever looked at the NBA television ratings? They've pretty much always sucked.
The NBA had a huge uptick when Johnson and Bird came into the league. And I'll admit, the Finals in the mid-80s were spectacular. I'll watch those games on ESPN Classic all day long. During Jordan's peak, people obviously tuned in to watch him. But the league, as a whole, wasn't that popular.
And hell, we're only talking about two small windows here. The NBA playoffs weren't even carried live before Magic/Bird.
If you're a dedicated NBA fan, I'd say you were a part of a very small population.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^
This is coming from the guy who argued that it would be a good idea to get rid of the rookie pay scale.
You could ask some guys who were rookies when there was no pay scale about how that worked out (Webber, Penny, LJ, Kenny Anderson, Derrick Coleman, Antoine Walker, etc.). They would probably tell you it didn't work out very well - citing instances whereby they are now broke by comparison.
And on to your larger point (which is so flawed I'm not going to waste much time with it):
- The general public is dumb and ratings aren't the end all (ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc. are more important).
- You're telling me that since the NBA product is effectively broke, that NCAA ratings are much better? March Madness, yes. But this isn't because of the product. It's because of something I like to call "office pools".
- Ask anyone who knows basketball and they will tell you that college and below is an inferior product to the NBA. It's simple math: More D-1 college programs than football plus 5 less rounds of a draft than football plus ~40 less roster spots per professional team = greater differential in the NBA's product from amateur to pro
February 15th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
The hostility towards the NBA really baffles me. I had never really thought of the skill gap between the NBA and the NCAA in terms of the process of narrowing numbers before, but it's obvious to anyone who watches both organizations with even the most casual interest that the differential is absolutely enormous. I have stronger fan allegiances in college basketball, but it honestly hurts my eyes to watch the game sometimes.
February 15th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^
You could probably write a college thesis about the lack of NBA success versus the NFL, given that the NBA's talent level versus college is much, much deeper.
If I could sum it up in quick bullet points it would be:
- Jordan left
- 1998 lockout
- Young, overpaid rookies in early 90's that failed
- Failure of general public to realize the new influx of talent / Lebron-mania
- "Boring" Spurs dominance in the 00's
- Criticism of referees, highlighted by Donaghy and the Mavs/Heat finals
- Recession crushing ticket sales this season
Still, people hating on the NBA that enjoy college basketball are missing out. David Stern is the best Commish in sports, and Lebron is the best talent.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
What I find odd is that people regularly complain about a lack of defense in the league while simultaneously arguing that the quality of play was much better in the 1980s - when defense was far, far less emphasized than now and the average team scored 15-20 more points per game than now.
February 15th, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
that much better now? Sure the scoring average is down, but now it seems you have teams where some of the guys aren't even that good offensively. They are mainly out there to rebound and play defense. You look at the better teams from the 80's and just about everyone was at least a pretty good shooter. Michael Cooper was the Lakers defensive stopper and he could hit the 3 pretty consistently. Joe Dumars was the Pistons defensive stopper and he was a real good scorer. Dennis Johnson held the same role for the Celtics and if you decided to play off of him, he'd burn you for 20-30 points. Kurt Rambis is one guy who comes to mind who probably wasn't much of a scorer.
Also, back in the 80's you had teams that really pushed the ball and emphasized the fast break. Today it seems, teams will take the fast break if it's wide open. If not, they'll slow it down so they can set up their half court offense and get their star isolated one on one.
February 15th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^
Perhaps we could blame Sportscenter and the 3-point line for a decline in fundamentals? It's all about big dunks or hitting a big three. How many players have solid fundamentals like Rip Hamilton (mid-range J, FT shooting)?
I think that's why there has been a recent influx of europlayers, who can shoot well.
February 15th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^
Watch a 1980s NBA game on ESPN Classic (or whatever). The average player hardly moves his feet on defense. As you noted, a team might have one or two guys that actually played tough D and the rest mostly just stood around and caught their breath. Also, players were generally shorter back then (there were lots of 6'5" small forwards, for instance). Added height/length doesn't necessarily make you a better offensive player, but it does help tremendously on defense.
I don't think today's players are worse shooters than their predecessors. It's just much harder to get open looks now, especially off the dribble.
February 15th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
I agree 100%.
How about when the Pistons won two titles? They had Isiah and Dumars, sure - but the reason they won was simple: they brought toughness, defense, and teamwork into a league that was lacking all three.
February 15th, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
Don't forget the Microwave, Vinnie Johnson! He and Zeke and Joe D were the best three-guard combo, IMO.
February 15th, 2010 at 9:21 PM ^
How in the hell can you say those Celtic and Laker teams didn't have toughness, defense and teamwork. Bird and Magic are the ultimate team players.
The Pistons surpassed 2 of the best teams in NBA history. The Lakers and Celts were aging teams when the Pistons finally knocked them off.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^
I was a huge NBA fan back in the day... whatever day that was. Anyway I find the product very unwatchable now, mostly because the officiating is atrocious. It's just hard to watch a game now because it makes me so angry. If there is a lockout I won't miss it at all and I don't even want it back unless they fix the glaring problems.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^
Teams all run the same stuff, the stale atmosphere of the arenas, the general mediocrity of talent...it just isn't the game that it was in the 80's and early 90's.
College basketball is not the same either. It has declined noticably as well. BBall in general is in a down period.