The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

[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.