What's new
By:

The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

Saint Cy of JFC said:
And I still think incentives for losing is still what makes regular season American sports so bland.

Everything else is mostly just cultural and almost impossible to truly change with any rule.
Click to expand...

Incentive for losing is obviously a big contributor, but I also think the lack of incentive for winning is the other part of this. There is barely any reward for winning during the regular season, and it actively works against a team's interest to compete hard throughout the year. I'm a big proponent of ideas that give bigger rewards to regular season performance.
 
KqWIN said:
I don't think it's a given that less money will come in. The number of National NBA TV games would remain the same and scarcity could increase interest in all games. It's not as simple as less games equals less money. If the NBA added 10 games, I do not think they would be adding more money even in the short term.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are wrong… the gate receipts and in arena sales would go up even if the tv money didn’t. If this were a perfectly efficient market where scarcity, supply, and demand all meet then maybe it’d all even out. They’d add more games if the calendar, player health, etc allowed it. Not that 82 is the ideal amount to maximize profits but once you are locked into a certain number or revenue/income… it’s hard to accept less. Even if you knock off 10-20 games it won’t automatically make the other 60-70 12-25% better or more profitable automatically.

KqWIN said:
Right now, the NBA has a really poor product when it comes to the NBA regular season and making the NBA regular more interesting/important should be the league's biggest concern IMO. It is a tough problem to tackle, but it's definitely something the league cannot sit idle on.

The championship will always be the pinnacle of every sports league, but my issue is more about the regular season being mostly meaningless. The "or bust" part. These other sports also have championships and they are not watered down by also having important games throughout the year. I honestly think the championship in itself is devalued when there are no interesting storylines throughout the year and the regular season effectively turns into a preseason.
Click to expand...
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Yeah you are wrong… the gate receipts and in arena sales would go up even if the tv money didn’t. If this were a perfectly efficient market where scarcity, supply, and demand all meet then maybe it’d all even out. They’d add more games if the calendar, player health, etc allowed it. Not that 82 is the ideal amount to maximize profits but once you are locked into a certain number or revenue/income… it’s hard to accept less. Even if you knock off 10-20 games it won’t automatically make the other 60-70 12-25% better or more profitable automatically.
Click to expand...

If I’m wrong, then why not increase to 100 games? Short term, immediate profit is obviously not the goal of decreasing games. It’s about building long term interest and quality in the league. But at the same time I’m still not convinced that the hit would be so drastic in the short term.

In any case, a 10-20% decrease in games does not mean a 10-20% decrease in total profit. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the revenue streams that would theoretically lose out (gate etc.) from less games is minuscule compared the national TV deal.
 
KqWIN said:
If I’m wrong, then why not increase to 100 games? Short term, immediate profit is obviously not the goal of decreasing games. It’s about building long term interest and quality in the league. But at the same time I’m still not convinced that the hit would be so drastic in the short term.
Click to expand...

I already told you why. If they thought the calendar would allow it and the players would hold up they would.
KqWIN said:
In any case, a 10-20% decrease in games does not mean a 10-20% decrease in total profit. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the revenue streams that would theoretically lose out (gate etc.) from less games is minuscule compared the national TV deal.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't just be gate or live game revenue though. The local media deals would also take a hit.

I'm told by you and others all the time that "30 teams passed on player X there must be a reason why". So you mean to tell me 30 owners with all the brain power and consulting they employ and the players and player unions are looking at the schedule and trying to find a ton of ways to reduce load, travel, etc. When they could make essentially the same amount of money playing 12-15% less? Maybe you should share your theory with them and get em a little education.

Every time the issue of shortening the season comes up both sides end up passing cuz they know it requires a paycut in the short term.
 
I don't think any proposal to reduce the amount of games has ever gotten any kind of serious attraction... for very obvious reasons. If it was a wash money wise or close to it they would have done it years ago.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I already told you why. If they thought the calendar would allow it and the players would hold up they would.

It wouldn't just be gate or live game revenue though. The local media deals would also take a hit.

I'm told by you and others all the time that "30 teams passed on player X there must be a reason why". So you mean to tell me 30 owners with all the brain power and consulting they employ and the players and player unions are looking at the schedule and trying to find a ton of ways to reduce load, travel, etc. When they could make essentially the same amount of money playing 12-15% less? Maybe you should share your theory with them and get em a little education.

Every time the issue of shortening the season comes up both sides end up passing cuz they know it requires a paycut in the short term.
Click to expand...

Local media deals are tiny compared to the national NBA TV deal, it's not even remotely close. If reducing the amount of games can improve the quality of the product and result in greater viewership for the league's biggest money maker that is a win. A 10% increase in National TV viewership is significantly more important than a 10% loss to gate receipts, concessions, local TV deals and other smaller streams of revenue. You could also say the calendar does not allow for an 82 game season, which is why players are resting in the first place.

As far as the 30 teams saying no.....you don't actually know that. Some teams may be in favor, others may not. This is a completely different situation, and I still don't know what made you so upset about that comment anyways. How dare I assume that there might be something preventing an unsigned player from being unsigned and how dare I say it cannot be a Jazz specific issue if all teams have made the same decision. It's also just one thing to consider when talking about unsigned players, not a hard rule. It's still a fair point, however, but the NBA has made many mistakes before. It's not a rule that is gospel and if you go back and read the posts I assure you it never was presented that way.

Quite honestly, I do feel as though it's the best counterpoint. If it was good, they would have done it already....that's a fair argument. I don't doubt that teams would take a hit in the short term and that fear is preventing it from happening, but that doesn't mean it's the best decision long term. It seems like we're talking past each other at this point. I do not think it will happen and I do not necessarily increase short term profits. But I do believe it is best for the league long term. I believe the short sightedness that you've pointed out as far as short term losses is a mistake.

Oh, and by the way, there was something we didn't know about Shaq Harrison at the time :p
 
Last edited:
KqWIN said:
Local media deals are tiny compared to the national NBA TV deal, it's not even remotely close. If reducing the amount of games can improve the quality of the product and result in greater viewership for the league's biggest money maker that is a win. A 10% increase in National TV viewership is significantly more important than a 10% loss to gate receipts, concessions, local TV deals and other smaller streams of revenue.

As far as the 30 teams saying no.....you don't actually know that. Some teams may be in favor, others may not. This is a completely different situation, and I still don't know what made you so upset about that comment anyways. How dare I assume that there might be something preventing an unsigned player from being unsigned and how dare I say it cannot be a Jazz specific issue if all teams have made the same decision. It's also just one thing to consider when talking about unsigned players, not a hard rule. It's still a fair point, however, but the NBA has made many mistakes before. It's not a rule that is gospel and if you go back and read the posts I assure you it never was presented that way.

Quite honestly, I do feel as though it's the best counterpoint. If it was good, they would have done it already....that's a fair argument. I don't doubt that teams would take a hit in the short term and that fear is preventing it from happening, but that doesn't mean it's the best decision long term. It seems like we're talking past each other at this point. I do not think it will happen and I do not necessarily increase short term profits. But I do believe it is best for the league long term. I believe the short sightedness that you've pointed out as far as short term losses is a mistake.

Oh, and by the way, there was something we didn't know about Shaq Harrison at the time :p
Click to expand...
We really aren't talking past each other. Its simple... you are wrong. In one post you say you don't think it would be a given that less money would come in and in one post you say you don't doubt it would be a short term revenue hit. You are talking past yourself.

Even if it isn't the BIG ticket item the local tv deals, gate receipts, gambling money, all adds up to billions if 10 games were cut... and there is zero guarantee you get that back in a national tv deal. Also because of fixed costs a 10% drop in revenue may equate to a 20% drop in bottom line. If the numbers were close they'd have gotten serious about pulling the trigger and shortening the season.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
We really aren't talking past each other. Its simple... you are wrong. In one post you say you don't think it would be a given that less money would come in and in one post you say you don't doubt it would be a short term revenue hit. You are talking past yourself.

Even if it isn't the BIG ticket item the local tv deals, gate receipts, gambling money, all adds up to billions if 10 games were cut... and there is zero guarantee you get that back in a national tv deal. Also because of fixed costs a 10% drop in revenue may equate to a 20% drop in bottom line. If the numbers were close they'd have gotten serious about pulling the trigger and shortening the season.
Click to expand...

Maybe you have convinced me that it will decrease in the short term, but I still believe it is to a lesser degree than you seem to present. It's not an interesting point of discussion for me because it is not why I advocate for a shortened season and I do not believe short term revenue should be the deciding factor. When making a decision to shortened the season, I think the obvious concern is long term and not the short term. I don't think it will happen, but it really doesn't change my opinion that it should. To me, you have provided the reason why NBA teams are making the mistake (scared about short term loses), but what I really care about is if it is better for the league long term. The National NBA TV deal is by far and away the biggest money maker, it should be the main focus of the NBA and the best way to drive viewership up is to improve the quality of the product.

You are very focused on the short term and IF it will happen. I'm focused on the long term and if it SHOULD happen.
 
I doubt there has been any serious cost-benefits analysis in shortening the season. They arent doing it simply because people dont like change because with change there is always risk.

The owners also always love playing poor too, so they will say that a shortened season equals less profits no matter what and that will cause the players to veto any proposal.
 
If the NBA put harsher penalties on missing games, maybe the players would be more serious about shortening the season, but they have no reason to when they can collect checks regardless of them playing or not. Owners will use any change to act like it's hurting them so they can get a better share of the profits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top