The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yeah, I don't actually think guys sitting out of games is a huge issue. I do think an increase in injuries is a huge issue.

I think it's a pretty big issue regarding ticket value for games.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah, I don't actually think guys sitting out of games is a huge issue. I do think an increase in injuries is a huge issue.

I agree. I think they don't want coaches completely throwing away games... especially nationally televised games. Having a star injured should be the bigger concern.

I also think the new requirements are also to help satisfy gambling partners. Its all kind of a dog and pony show tbh.

 

[KqWIN]

Its a truly horrible analogy. So the answer for the pasta restaurant is to make less pasta or be open less because sometimes you feel like eating fish and chips (soccer). Even if we increase the quality of the food by a lot you will still want to go elsewhere at times.

IF they have a quantity problem merely reducing quantity does not fix a quality problem. Its hard to argue they have a huge problem when the revenue pie is growing in huge increments.

Look with sports and entertainment there will be the competition side of things and the business side of things. Many times the interests of both will align... sometimes they will not and the league will need to make decisions. Less games likely improves competition but I don't think its the first item on the list of things that I'd change to improve things on that side... business-wise its one of the last things I'd consider. At very most I would remove 3-4 games to ensure that ESPN, ABC, and TNT games aren't scheduled on back to backs, which removes the key problem the league has with load management. The most recent changes are to pander to their media partners with a side of pandering to the gambling markets. Its not about the quality or increasing the meaning of the regular season.

If you say so. I was simply saying, if you aren't enjoying pasta because you're eating too much of it, maybe eat is less often. Replace pasta with anything you enjoy. I like hiking, I would enjoy it less if I was hiking at a rate that was putting me at injury risk and/or I no longer enjoyed it. It's just the basic concept of there can be too much of a good thing.

Like I said before, there's a happy medium to all of this. And for the NBA in particular, there's a happy medium to the amount of games where the number of games best aligns with the interests of the league, owners, and players. There are certainly other ways to tackle the current issues the league is facing. And yes, the league has an issue with viewership and players sitting. Otherwise they would not be addressing it. The revenue pie growing does not mean it is growing as much as it could have. It is obvious that with better viewership and interest in the league the revenue growth would be even greater. I think it is very easy to say the NBA has a problem because their problem is well known and they are actively trying to address it.

I would not even say reducing the games is first on my list either, but I still believe 82 games is too many for the NBA and I mean that from a sport perspective and a long term business perspective. "There's no guarantee that this is better"....yeah yeah I know you want to say that again. There is no evidence that 82 is the best either. 82 is just as arbitrary as 78, 72, 66, 58 etc. This is just one way to improve the quality and as a consequence improve the viewership and revenue. There have been plenty of ideas listed in this thread that I believe would be steps in the right direction. But I guess the NBA should just do nothing at all because revenue still going up!!! /s

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

If you say so. I was simply saying, if you aren't enjoying pasta because you're eating too much of it, maybe eat is less often. Replace pasta with anything you enjoy. I like hiking, I would enjoy it less if I was hiking at a rate that was putting me at injury risk and/or I no longer enjoyed it. It's just the basic concept of there can be too much of a good thing.

Like I said before, there's a happy medium to all of this. And for the NBA in particular, there's a happy medium to the amount of games where the number of games best aligns with the interests of the league, owners, and players. There are certainly other ways to tackle the current issues the league is facing. And yes, the league has an issue with viewership and players sitting. Otherwise they would not be addressing it. The revenue pie growing does not mean it is growing as much as it could have. It is obvious that with better viewership and interest in the league the revenue growth would be even greater. I think it is very easy to say the NBA has a problem because their problem is well known and they are actively trying to address it.

I would not even say reducing the games is first on my list either, but I still believe 82 games is too many for the NBA and I mean that from a sport perspective and a long term business perspective. "There's no guarantee that this is better"....yeah yeah I know you want to say that again. There is no evidence that 82 is the best either. 82 is just as arbitrary as 78, 72, 66, 58 etc. This is just one way to improve the quality and as a consequence improve the viewership and revenue. There have been plenty of ideas listed in this thread that I believe would be steps in the right direction. But I guess the NBA should just do nothing at all because revenue still going up!!! /s

They discuss viewership and revenue growth whether it is a "problem" or not. Its just like how Apple tries to increase sales and growth even though sales and growth are good. It could always be better.

The NBA is trying things right now. They have adjusted lotto odds, play in tournament, and an in-season tournament... you can't try everything at the same time. They are trying the best ideas they believe in currently.

And I know you are mocking my simple analysis of revenue is going up but you keep pushing this narrative that there are too many games... its hard to argue there is a giant issue if customers are still lining up to buy all this "excess inventory" at premium prices. Maybe someday the bucks stop rolling in... but it will likely be due to other market factors and not necessarily the product not being as good as it could be.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

They discuss viewership and revenue growth whether it is a "problem" or not. Its just like how Apple tries to increase sales and growth even though sales and growth are good. It could always be better.

The NBA is trying things right now. They have adjusted lotto odds, play in tournament, and an in-season tournament... you can't try everything at the same time. They are trying the best ideas they believe in currently.

And I know you are mocking my simple analysis of revenue is going up but you keep pushing this narrative that there are too many games... its hard to argue there is a giant issue if customers are still lining up to buy all this "excess inventory" at premium prices. Maybe someday the bucks stop rolling in... but it will likely be due to other market factors and not necessarily the product not being as good as it could be.

They are trying the *easiest to implement* ideas, not the best.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

They are trying the *easiest to implement* ideas, not the best.

Sometimes the best ideas are the ones you can easily implement... that is part of what makes them the best.

 

[KqWIN]

They discuss viewership and revenue growth whether it is a "problem" or not. Its just like how Apple tries to increase sales and growth even though sales and growth are good. It could always be better.

The NBA is trying things right now. They have adjusted lotto odds, play in tournament, and an in-season tournament... you can't try everything at the same time. They are trying the best ideas they believe in currently.

And I know you are mocking my simple analysis of revenue is going up but you keep pushing this narrative that there are too many games... its hard to argue there is a giant issue if customers are still lining up to buy all this "excess inventory" at premium prices. Maybe someday the bucks stop rolling in... but it will likely be due to other market factors and not necessarily the product not being as good as it could be.

Yeah I'm pretty sure they talk about it because viewership is down and the large majority of people think that players sitting out sucks. It isn't the only reason ratings may be down, of course, but I feel pretty confident in calling it a problem because they are in fact trying to address the problem. You can agree to disagree, but I find it very easy to argue. If it wasn't a big issue, it wouldn't be talked about so much and the NBA would not be constantly trying to innovate and address the problem. Changing the NBA schedule to lessen games would be a drastic change and difficult to implement even if it is better long term. Truthfully, I do not think it can happen until local TV contracts are put into the dirt....but I don't think that part is too far fetched.

And if you think media partners are paying a premium now, imagine what they would pay for even more viewership. The National TV product should always be the biggest concern when you're talking about revenue, it is by far the league's biggest money maker.

 

[One Brow]

They are trying the *easiest to implement* ideas, not the best.

Because reducing the number of games in schedule is so difficult? Yes, I know you didn't say that would be hard, but in the context of this discussion and absent a qualification, that was the inevitable inference.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah I'm pretty sure they talk about it because viewership is down and the large majority of people think that players sitting out sucks. It isn't the only reason ratings may be down, of course, but I feel pretty confident in calling it a problem because they are in fact trying to address the problem. You can agree to disagree, but I find it very easy to argue. If it wasn't a big issue, it wouldn't be talked about so much and the NBA would not be constantly trying to innovate and address the problem. Changing the NBA schedule to lessen games would be a drastic change and difficult to implement even if it is better long term. Truthfully, I do not think it can happen until local TV contracts are put into the dirt....but I don't think that part is too far fetched.

And if you think media partners are paying a premium now, imagine what they would pay for even more viewership. The National TV product should always be the biggest concern when you're talking about revenue, it is by far the league's biggest money maker.

In all their changing of the schedule and in all their innovation... they have added games... not subtracted them. They are attempting to have their cake and eat it to by addressing the availability of their stars during national tv games without cutting total games. Who knows if it will work but voluntarily reducing games may have zero impact on the premium or viewership numbers.

 

[KqWIN]

In all their changing of the schedule and in all their innovation... they have added games... not subtracted them. They are attempting to have their cake and eat it to by addressing the availability of their stars during national tv games without cutting total games. Who knows if it will work but voluntarily reducing games may have zero impact on the premium or viewership numbers.

It will or it won't, I've said my reasons why I think it will many times over by now, but viewership as a whole is definitely a huge concern for the NBA. It's the main way they make money. Improving the product by reducing the season and or other methods to make it more interesting and competitive is something I would bet on. Leaving it as is does not come without risk either.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Because reducing the number of games in schedule is so difficult? Yes, I know you didn't say that would be hard, but in the context of this discussion and absent a qualification, that was the inevitable inference.

Yes, it would be.

They would be going against what they've done the last 50 years.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Adding more is always going to be the fastest way to make more money.

Doesnt mean it's the best move for long-term profits.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Adding more is always going to be the fastest way to make more money.

Doesnt mean it's the best move for long-term profits.

So then what’s the fastest way to lose money short term? Who has the longer term view the players or owners? So who gets hurt more if they reduce games? Will the other side subsidize the loss for their partner for the good of the game?

Less also might not be the best move to maximize long term profits… it’s basically what I’ve been saying all along. Less games is an indirect and expensive way to address some issues. Maybe work on those directly in multiple ways before biting that bullet.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So then what’s the fastest way to lose money short term? Who has the longer term view the players or owners? So who gets hurt more if they reduce games? Will the other side subsidize the loss for their partner for the good of the game?

Less also might not be the best move to maximize long term profits… it’s basically what I’ve been saying all along. Less games is an indirect and expensive way to address some issues. Maybe work on those directly in multiple ways before biting that bullet.

1. Shortening the season will result in a initial loss of profit initially. I've never said otherwise.
2. Some owners will, not all.
3. The players will always get hurt the most becuae the owners are billionaires who control more power dynamics.
4. The owners will always try to screw the players as much as possible.
5. You've barely said anything this entire thread. You are just writing paragraphs of nothing.

 

[KqWIN]

Yes, it would be.

They would be going against what they've done the last 50 years.

I think it can only happen if/when the regional cable networks get put into the dirt and a single entity owns all the local TV deals. I am not a streaming platform fanboy but I'm am 100% praying on the demise of regional sports networks and cable.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

"Trust me I'm a CPA bro" reminds me of when Infection tried to tell me Chris Bosh's injury was NBD and he would play in the NBA again because "Trust me I'm a doctor bro".

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

1. Shortening the season will result in a initial loss of profit initially. I've never said otherwise.
2. Some owners will, not all.
3. The players will always get hurt the most becuae the owners are billionaires who control more power dynamics.
4. The owners will always try to screw the players as much as possible.
5. You've barely said anything this entire thread. You are just writing paragraphs of nothing.

Right so asking the players to take a pay cut is rough. In a negotiation both sides try to get all they can from the other party. So if the owners aren't super stoked about a short term loss the players are going to give it a "hell no". We got some fools in here saying the money all good if the games are better... it might get there... it might not... but there will be a front end cost.

I've said plenty in here....

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

"Trust me I'm a CPA bro" reminds me of when Infection tried to tell me Chris Bosh's injury was NBD and he would play in the NBA again because "Trust me I'm a doctor bro".

The whole "sometimes the coach is wrong BS" is cute. Yes I might be wrong about what the best answers are but I'm not dumb enough to believe a coach hasn't done analysis into how to win more basketball games.

If you don't think the NBA, the player's union, and its teams have done a cost benefit analysis on this then it is you who is naive. You then tried to talk about the logistics of "opening the books"... an exercise they do every year by requirement and have a third party verify the info. Then you call me naive... dude this ain't the local donut shop that can shelter their income by taking cash and has a second set of books in the back.

 

[infection]

"Trust me I'm a CPA bro" reminds me of when Infection tried to tell me Chris Bosh's injury was NBD and he would play in the NBA again because "Trust me I'm a doctor bro".

That was never my argument. My argument was the dramatics of saying he’d die playing basketball or saying that a history of anti coagulation absolutely rules somebody out from sports was not correct. You made a smart *** comment asking if I was a physician, as you weren’t aware of that because I didn’t necessarily advertise it, but I said yes. There was no “trust me” and it wasn’t something I was going to bring up until you attempted to shut down the debate thinking that only a physician could speak to that issue (unaware that I was one).

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

The whole "sometimes the coach is wrong BS" is cute. Yes I might be wrong about what the best answers are but I'm not dumb enough to believe a coach hasn't done analysis into how to win more basketball games.

If you don't think the NBA, the player's union, and its teams have done a cost benefit analysis on this then it is you who is naive. You then tried to talk about the logistics of "opening the books"... an exercise they do every year by requirement and have a third party verify the info. Then you call me naive... dude this ain't the local donut shop that can shelter their income by taking cash and has a second set of books in the back.

I didnt say they havent done some sort of analysis, I said they haven't done an in-depth comprehensive analysis because they have not yet seriously considered shortening the season.

ANd yes, you are naive if you think NBA owners are truly opening the books. As a CPA you should know there are work arounds and ways to flub numbers.