As we all know today the NFL lockout has just ended and because of DeMaurice Smith and his stubborn attitude to not allow the players to give into any brives from the NFL owners, players are pleased and everyone is happy. The NBA lockout this weekend had it's first meeting with lawyers only. According to Chris Boussard no meeting regarding the NBA lockout involving players or owners is scheduled till August giving the NBA only a few months to get things settled before the NBA season starts getting cut short a few games. The biggest issues with the NBA in this lockout are veteran players are getting paid too much, the NBA having attendance at close to an all time low, the big market teams like the Lakers dominating everything, and the NBA not getting much TV revenue. As a result from all this 22 of the 30 NBA teams are losing money, likely in debt, and could be looking at re-locating as a solution to pay off their debts. What needs to happen with this lockout is the 22 teams losing money need to certify as some kind of a small market owners union with a DeMaruice Smith type leader who will not give in to anything and hold out as long as it takes to get a CBA as a solution to get them out of debt and NOT LET TEAMS LIKE THE LAKERS, CELTICS, AND MAVERICKS DOMINATE EVERYTHING, create this CBA proposal as a non negotiable option for any NBA team or player, and the CBA needs to have these rules:
1.Revenue Sharing-I dunno about you but as a Pacer fan, I'm tired of my team always having to go by this revenue sharing rule and give their opponents half the profits from their home games and hearing word that big market teams like the Lakers do not have to give their opponents a dime from their home games when their making the most money on ticket sales. I think it's time for the NBA to find out who the 8 teams making money (and we know one of those teams is the Lakers) are and have them help out the 22 teams by having them do revenue sharing by giving their opponents half the profits from all their home games only when they play the 22 NBA teams losing money. And as far as revenue sharing would go for the 8 teams making money, once one of the 22 teams losing money pays off their debts all 8 of the teams making money would not have to share their revenue with that team. Also all revenue sharing with the ABA teams to the cities who's ABA teams didn't merge with the NBA during the NBA/ABA merger needs to be put on hold till the ABA teams who merged with the NBA can get out of debt.
2.Salary Cap-lets just face the facts if the NBA is going to get 22 teams out of debt their will have to be a salary cap and for the NBA to have a salary cap the rule about teams having to honor veterans contracts will have to be dropped. The next question becomes what should the NBA cap be set at? Well I think 40-50 million is a fair number, according to ESPN's trade machine the only NBA team under 50 million in cap causalities last season was the Sacramento Kings who will likely re-locate even if they can find a way to pay off their debt in the near future. This cap number would also be a restricted one, teams could sign as many players as they want to minimum wage depending on how long they have been playing in the NBA to get a full roster. However the only reason NBA teams could go over the cap would be to get their roster full.
3.Transition tag-I've given this allot of thought and I think it's more fair then a franchise tag. Each NBA team under this new CBA would be allowed to place the transition tag on one UFA allowing that team to match any contract offer from other teams to get that player back.
All the NBA team's losing money need fight for this CBA and allow the NBA to create a new CBA once they are all out of debt and NOT BACK DOWN FROM IT AT ANY COST. If they don't it's not like it hurts anyone aside from the big market teams either, it makes since that teams like the Pacers will not have to worry about making or losing any money during the lockout and it's not like the NBA players can't make money playing over seas. Plus NBA players know they can make more money in the US then over seas even with the CBA proposal I have presented, so this lockout has to end some time and everyone should have to give into what the 22 teams losing money should want.
The next question becomes who are these 8 teams making money, well we know one of those 8 teams is the Lakers and If I were speculating who the other 7 teams would be I would have to say the Mavs, Bulls, Hawks, Heat, Celtics, Knicks, and Sixers. All 7 of those teams are in big markets and made the playoffs last season.
Now what does no NBA season mean for TV revenue, well for us hoosiers it does not mean FSN Indiana will drop their contract with the Pacers. The Pacers will be on FSN Indiana as long as there is an NBA season and FSN Indiana is on the air. However ESPN may terminate their contract with the NBA if there is no season because they need a professional sport to air 3-4 times a week year round meaning ESPN could give the contract they have with the NBA to a sports organization like the NHL, IFC, UFC, WCL, or MLS assuming they all have a season at similar times to the NBA season unless ESPN wants to start showing a bunch of games of over seas teams who according to ESPN (at least in the Turkish league Deron WIlliams has currently signed with until the next NBA season starts and Kobe Bryant is looking at signing with till the next NBA season) only play 30 games a year not counting the playoffs. TNT however may not terminate their contract with the NBA if there is no season they can always show hit movies, plus the NHL and all the fighting leagues have contracts with Verses and the MLS has a contract with FSC. So no NBA season in 2012 only hurts the big market teams since the Pacers are never on ESPN anyways and the playoffs could just be shown on TNT instead of ESPN until the finals start.
And finally as a Pacers fan in this lockout I would like to say that there is only one person I'm for and that's the 22 teams losing money. And yes the Pacers are one of those teams. I would also like to ad that the NFL is a very fair organization, things couldn't have been done any more equally after this lockout. The NBA is the exact opposite, David Stern (who I might ad unlike Roger Goodell deserved to be booed at the NBA draft (and I think his boo's where louder) things couldn't currently be more unfair. Something else worthy of mention is that 22 teams holding out for a deal like this against the NBA players and 8 other teams would likely mean no 2012 NBA season, ESPN losing their contract with the NBA which will not cancel televising any of the playoffs or Pacers games on FSN Indiana when their is another NBA season, and missing at least part of the 2013 season if not skipping it and maybe even the 2014 season. But personally to me it's worth it
Should the 22 NBA owners losing money do what I've said in this post?
Yes (16 votes)
No (11 votes)
They should but they should also drop the new revenue sharing rule (3 votes)
They should but they should also drop the salary cap rule (0 votes)
They should but they should also have a higher salary cap number (0 votes)
They should but they should also drop the revenue sharing rule and have a higher salary cap number (0 votes)
30 total votes