Lockout of the year in the year of the lockout
It’s bad enough that we fans are facing a fall and winter with no football because the players and owners of the NFL can’t find a decent way that satisfies all parties to split up the magnificent profits their sport is generating. Some people seem to think that, in recent weeks, the NFL lockout is close to being settled. I implore you not to hold your breath. In a fascinating turn of events, the NBA has decided to join the 2011 Lockout Party. But there’s a key difference here. Unlike the NFL, the NBA is actually losing money.
In an earlier article, I explored what the NFL lockout reveals about American society these days. While I eventually pointed out that the NFL players are in the best position to prevent a lost year, I maintained that the situation is because of the owners. Even though NBA owners have taken the same step, it appears they are being more honest and forthright when it comes to the losing money issue. Commissioner David Stern maintains that 22 of 30 teams are “operating in the red,” and we don’t know yet how true that is. We do know the league lost $300 million just last year.
One reason fans have turned their nose towards the NBA in favor of college basketball is the way the games are officiated. If you watch broadcasts, it’s mentioned a lot. It comes up in the highlights, too. The amount of content on the internet, in magazines and newspapers on this subject is astonishing. A certain amount of this can be chalked up to fans complaining, but at a certain point the sheer volume has to be a concern. And yet, the NBA has done nothing to address this issue.
Watching a guy who makes over $18 million a year get free throws on a play that is a charge in college doesn’t exactly speak to the heart of the average American. Why can’t NBA referees call games as they are in the NCAA? That question has bothered me ever since I started watching basketball, and to this day I have never received a legitimate response to it. If that did start happening, I think the quality of basketball’s product would increase. The look of “it’s not possible for me to commit a foul” might recede from the faces of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and many others.
Last season, there was a team from each conference that won less than 20 games (Cleveland, Minnesota). There were four more teams that got to 20 wins, but were still under 30 (Toronto, Washington, Sacramento, New Jersey). The combined payroll of those six teams is roughly $260 million dollars. That’s a lot of investment for not very much production. Every year there are at least half a dozen teams like this. There’s not enough quality talent to have 30 decent basketball teams and I’m not sure why that is necessary. Most leagues got too big during the 1990s because expansion seemed a relatively easy and affordable thing to do during an economic boom. In the end, this is poor logic.
Under the current system, the teams located in big markets have too large of an advantage over franchises in smaller markets. That is why a larger scale of revenue sharing is one of the issues on the table. This could alleviate the hit small market teams incur when they’re in a down year. Teams with a rich history and a big market location (Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago) have a competitive advantage. This could help the Charlottes and Milwaukees of the league stay afloat, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into a quality product. There is no legitimate minor league in basketball and amateurs with enough skills and physical capability can make the jump to the pros quickly.
The lack of these factors in baseball, for example, allow small market teams to stay relatively competitive if they have the right people in charge of identifying and recruiting talent. The Oakland A’s proved that for many years in the early 2000s as have the Tampa Bay Rays in the last three seasons. Because basketball players don’t necessarily require the type of development that is needed in baseball, on average, it appears that league is simply too big with the current soft cap and luxury tax system.
LeBron James, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade proved last summer that stars can be willing to forgo large salaries for the chance to play for a better team. If the NBA moved to a hard cap, it wouldn’t necessarily preclude teams from having multiple stars. It would also disperse the talent around the league better, forcing teams to recruit better role players and concentrate on defense. That’s a much more enjoyable brand of basketball to watch anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment