Poll--Do you care if the NBA has a lockout?

[CameronBornAndBred]

The front page has a link to how far apart the players and owners are, and it appears that a lockout is fairly likely.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/nba/story/8489627/
What are your thoughts? Do you care for selfish reasons (Kyrie stays because he has nowhere to go) or do you not care at all?

[CameronBornAndBred]

The only reason I watch any NBA game is to follow past Dukies. If they are locked out then that means we'll have some current players that will be here again next year unless they go to Europe. So for selfish reasons, I don't care if they get locked out or not. Also, the salaries are insane, so for that reason, it would be nice to see a league stand up and say "enough is enough".

[Namtilal]

True, the NBA lacks passion in most games, and the isolation and 2-on-2 offensive sets aren't as exciting as college ball, but it's great basketball and the skills of the players are incredible to watch. And, go from watching the pro's to watching any but the highest level of college ball, and you feel like you're watching high school-level execution.

However, I would love to see most of the top freshmen stay an extra year, and to see Irving and Rivers together. After years of watching his creativity, nothing K does would ever suprise me -- could we see a lineup of Irving, Rivers, Curry, and Dawkins with a big? Of course not, but how to keep that talent on the bench?

[El_Diablo]

I don't watch the NBA anymore, so I don't really care one way or the other.

That said, reading the position the owners are taking is a little ridiculous. Okay, the league lost $350 million last year (that figure is probably exaggerated for bargaining purposes, but I'll accept it for argument's sake) during the middle of the biggest economic downturn in recent history. So, to balance things, they want want to reduce player salaries by $800 million. Huh? Why is the entire loss going to be borne by the players, plus an extra $450 million? What about cuts in the other 43% of expenditures? If the owners made some stupid contract decisions (and most, if not all, of them did) then they are more at fault than the players on a systemic level for the rampant player salaries. If they're going to pay someone $6 million a year to sit on the bench the entire season while someone like Jon Scheyer is available at the league minimum, then I don't have any sympathy for those operating losses.

And what happens when the economy recovers over the next few years and the big money starts rolling back in? Player salaries will be depressed and locked in for the long term at recession levels, and the owners will have an absolute bonanza. I don't see this particular proposal going very far. Of course, it's just posturing at this point.

[theAlaskanBear]

I don't watch the NBA anymore, so I don't really care one way or the other.

That said, reading the position the owners are taking is a little ridiculous. Okay, the league lost $350 million last year (that figure is probably exaggerated for bargaining purposes, but I'll accept it for argument's sake) during the middle of the biggest economic downturn in recent history. So, to balance things, they want want to reduce player salaries by $800 million. Huh? Why is the entire loss going to be borne by the players, plus an extra $450 million? What about cuts in the other 43% of expenditures? If the owners made some stupid contract decisions (and most, if not all, of them did) then they are more at fault than the players on a systemic level for the rampant player salaries. If they're going to pay someone $6 million a year to sit on the bench the entire season while someone like Jon Scheyer is available at the league minimum, then I don't have any sympathy for those operating losses.

And what happens when the economy recovers over the next few years and the big money starts rolling back in? Player salaries will be depressed and locked in for the long term at recession levels, and the owners will have an absolute bonanza. I don't see this particular proposal going very far. Of course, it's just posturing at this point.

Yeah, it's pretty absurd. Especially when you factor in owners' penchant for handing out huge contracts. $350 million = LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. Joe Johnson, Amare, and Rudy Gay = $300 million. The NBA cap is set at a % of revenue so when the Association announced the caps were going to rise to $58 million people were surprised because the predictions were so dire. Revenue is clearly not falling. There are 11 teams over the luxury tax threshold at $69 million. Any operating losses are the fault of the owners and managers...though I can see how some small market teams might have issues -- but the answer is simple, field a better product.

[CEF1959]

I care, but mostly because of what it means to the college game and our seniors next year.

If there is a lockout, Kyle and Nolan lose an entire year of their pro careers. Bad.

If there is a lockout, we get KI and Mason for at least another year. Good.

If there is a lockout, the Holes get HB for another year, and another year for John Henson to learn how to play basketball. Bad.

If there is a lockout, Cal gets another year with some very very good basketball players. Bad.

If there is a lockout, there are a lot of working people whose lives would be disrupted by the loss of income. Think of all the people who work in the game (and I'm not talking about the suits and polo shirts). Bad.

So that's 4-1 against in my tally.

Q: If there is a lockout, will there still be a draft? Or will the next season's draft just be fatter? In any event, a lockout would be bad for Nolan, who in 2012 would be fighting for a spot with a lot more guys. Do I have that right?

[CameronBornAndBred]

Q: If there is a lockout, will there still be a draft? Or will the next season's draft just be fatter? In any event, a lockout would be bad for Nolan, who in 2012 would be fighting for a spot with a lot more guys. Do I have that right?
I would guess that the answer is yes to both questions. Unless they announce ahead of time that there will be no basketball (they won't) then they must have the draft. Next year's draft will be fatter though because the underclassmen will most likely hold out this year knowing the season is up in the air.

[jipops]

I'm actually a little more confident that there won't be a lockout. Stern has shown himself to be the savviest of all pro sport commissioners. A lockout would hurt NBA business for several years. I don't think he is going to let that happen.

[JasonEvans]

I'm actually a little more confident that there won't be a lockout. Stern has shown himself to be the savviest of all pro sport commissioners. A lockout would hurt NBA business for several years. I don't think he is going to let that happen.

I think a lockout is very likely. The owners want a lot and they will lock the players out to test the player's resolve.

Stern's comment about cutting salaries by $800 mil is just him laying out the opening offer from the owners. They know there is no way the players will agree to anything like that. What the owners really want is what the NFL has -- a hard salary cap.

Now, the problem with a hard cap is that many teams are already well over whatever the cap will be. The Lakers and the Heat would have to be broken up if there was a hard cap. The Lakers have over $90 million in committed salaries in 2012-13 and the hard cap figures to be in the $60-70 million range at the highest. The Heat are not far behind. Would the league voluntarily break up its two marquee franchises?

I don't think the players will agree to a hard cap very easily. There would almost have to be a lockout and a loooong labor impasse to get something that radical done. I think the owners are prepared for it though because the financial benefits are huuuge.

--Jason "the lockout would come after the draft and I don't think it will impact the draft as much as some speculate" Evans

[Cockabeau]

I want Nolan and Kyle to have the opportunity to play in the NBA.

But lets ponder something:

KI
Rivers
Curry
Plumlee
Plumlee

:mouth waters:

[theAlaskanBear]

I think a lockout is very likely. The owners want a lot and they will lock the players out to test the player's resolve.

Stern's comment about cutting salaries by $800 mil is just him laying out the opening offer from the owners. They know there is no way the players will agree to anything like that. What the owners really want is what the NFL has -- a hard salary cap.

Now, the problem with a hard cap is that many teams are already well over whatever the cap will be. The Lakers and the Heat would have to be broken up if there was a hard cap. The Lakers have over $90 million in committed salaries in 2012-13 and the hard cap figures to be in the $60-70 million range at the highest. The Heat are not far behind. Would the league voluntarily break up its two marquee franchises?

I don't think the players will agree to a hard cap very easily. There would almost have to be a lockout and a loooong labor impasse to get something that radical done. I think the owners are prepared for it though because the financial benefits are huuuge.

--Jason "the lockout would come after the draft and I don't think it will impact the draft as much as some speculate" Evans

It's not just the hard cap. They are asking for non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL. Hopefully thats just wishful thinking...

[thenameisbond]

I only care to the extent that it directly affects our players who are ready to move on to the next level.

[Reddevil]

I care, but mostly because of what it means to the college game and our seniors next year.

If there is a lockout, Kyle and Nolan lose an entire year of their pro careers. Bad.

If there is a lockout, we get KI and Mason for at least another year. Good.

If there is a lockout, the Holes get HB for another year, and another year for John Henson to learn how to play basketball. Bad.

If there is a lockout, Cal gets another year with some very very good basketball players. Bad.

If there is a lockout, there are a lot of working people whose lives would be disrupted by the loss of income. Think of all the people who work in the game (and I'm not talking about the suits and polo shirts). Bad.

So that's 4-1 against in my tally.

Q: If there is a lockout, will there still be a draft? Or will the next season's draft just be fatter? In any event, a lockout would be bad for Nolan, who in 2012 would be fighting for a spot with a lot more guys. Do I have that right?

I'm not really concerned about how it may help other teams. Duke will be fine. It will make things tough for some ordinary folks that would be out of work, and that matters. Some players will get a raw deal, but over the long haul most will be fine. What really interests me is how many of the so-called one-and-dones around the country will actually remain eligible into their sophomore years.

[CameronBornAndBred]

What really interests me is how many of the so-called one-and-dones around the country will actually remain eligible into their sophomore years.
Oooh, I hadn't thought of that. Better get to class boys! Calipari better have a sitdown with his kids and some tutors.

[weezie]

I'm actually a little more confident that there won't be a lockout. Stern has shown himself to be the savviest of all pro sport commissioners. A lockout would hurt NBA business for several years. I don't think he is going to let that happen.

So, I agree here. I enjoy the NBA, I watch it, but man oh man, does the league need to get stuff pulled together. A lock out wouldn't bother me, it's time for players and owners to remove the scales from their eyes. I hesitate to put the onus entirely on the players but the league has become a complete bloated bore.

[DevilOfATime]

I don't watch the NBA. I got my SI the NBA Preview and did not bother reading it. I just gave it to my friend. If I watch the NBA that is if I can't get to sleep, and I need something to put me to sleep. I used to watch the NBA years back, but now its boring and its like watching paint dry. The NFL that is the only pro league, I watch and is very exciting every Sunday and every Monday.

[Spret42]

I don't want one, but the NBA needs one. They need to get the financial house in order.

The league has never been better with the type of young player it has. Team USA had 5 guys who hadn't turned 22 when the tournament was played. The league has a chance to really be great. I want them to fix this stuff so I can enjoy it.

[PADukeMom]

Nope, don't watch & don't care. While I do feel for Kyle & Nolan players like Lebron & Wade make me feel very little sympathy for them.

[Son of Mojo]

I want Nolan and Kyle to have the opportunity to play in the NBA.

But lets ponder something:

KI
Rivers
Curry
Plumlee
Plumlee

:mouth waters:

This line up may happen anyway--I don't think either Plumlee is ready to go to the league on what they've shown (although I know that means nothing to the "Potential" league) and have always believed KI would stay at least two years, solidified more by thinking he would want to play with Rivers. I only follow enough to see how Blue Devils in the league perform and even that is iffy for me because it's a game of five 1 on 1 matchups. There's little if any team play--it's almost more exhibition than competition at times IMO.

[Acymetric]

Yeah, it's pretty absurd. Especially when you factor in owners' penchant for handing out huge contracts. $350 million = LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. Joe Johnson, Amare, and Rudy Gay = $300 million. The NBA cap is set at a % of revenue so when the Association announced the caps were going to rise to $58 million people were surprised because the predictions were so dire. Revenue is clearly not falling. There are 11 teams over the luxury tax threshold at $69 million. Any operating losses are the fault of the owners and managers...though I can see how some small market teams might have issues -- but the answer is simple, field a better product.

That 57% is of basketball income, but doesn't account for expenses. So yes, they're bringing more money in, but my understanding is they're also having to spend more money...with the net result being lower profit (or in some cases, as I understand, actually losing money). I agree with whoever (Jason?) said that the owners clearly don't expect to actually cut player salaries that much...watch a few episodes of Pawn Stars and you'll see whats going on here.

I don't have much sympathy for either side, but the players certainly aren't victims here (just like NFL defenders aren't victims...reactions to that mess are just absurd), cutting player costs seems pretty reasonable to me. Honestly I don't think the owners are going to budge much...so the question to me is how the players will respond when they see the owners are ready and willing to go to a lockout. I hope they reach an agreement, I've really started to enjoy the NBA the past 2 or 3 years (ever since that Suns-Spurs playoff series where the Suns got screwed with those suspensions).

[jipops]

So, I agree here. I enjoy the NBA, I watch it, but man oh man, does the league need to get stuff pulled together. A lock out wouldn't bother me, it's time for players and owners to remove the scales from their eyes. I hesitate to put the onus entirely on the players but the league has become a complete bloated bore.

The NBA is in far better shape now than in past decades. Competitively it is far ahead of where it was back in the 90's where the talent pool was considerably lower and only a few competitive teams existed each season. Yes, there are definitely issues to be addressed, but I actually don't find it a bore at all. The quality of play is far better than it was a decade ago where everyone's offense consisted of the best player getting the ball and everyone else move out of the way. I hope a Knicks/Heat series of the mid-nineties never happens again and I doubt it ever will. It could be argued that the quality of basketball now exceeds the college game. I think the general greed is what turns people off. This seems to shape opinions of the league. Personally, a lockout would stink, I love keeping up with the nba.

[jipops]

I think a lockout is very likely. The owners want a lot and they will lock the players out to test the player's resolve.

Stern's comment about cutting salaries by $800 mil is just him laying out the opening offer from the owners. They know there is no way the players will agree to anything like that. What the owners really want is what the NFL has -- a hard salary cap.

Now, the problem with a hard cap is that many teams are already well over whatever the cap will be. The Lakers and the Heat would have to be broken up if there was a hard cap. The Lakers have over $90 million in committed salaries in 2012-13 and the hard cap figures to be in the $60-70 million range at the highest. The Heat are not far behind. Would the league voluntarily break up its two marquee franchises?

I don't think the players will agree to a hard cap very easily. There would almost have to be a lockout and a loooong labor impasse to get something that radical done. I think the owners are prepared for it though because the financial benefits are huuuge.

--Jason "the lockout would come after the draft and I don't think it will impact the draft as much as some speculate" Evans

Is it that the owners want a lot or they just want to stop losing money?

Chris Sheridan has an article on the subject.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&page=lockout-102110

[Reddevil]

If there is a lockout, there are a lot of working people whose lives would be disrupted by the loss of income. Think of all the people who work in the game (and I'm not talking about the suits and polo shirts). Bad.


When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.

[NSDukeFan]

The NBA is in far better shape now than in past decades. Competitively it is far ahead of where it was back in the 90's where the talent pool was considerably lower and only a few competitive teams existed each season. Yes, there are definitely issues to be addressed, but I actually don't find it a bore at all. The quality of play is far better than it was a decade ago where everyone's offense consisted of the best player getting the ball and everyone else move out of the way. I hope a Knicks/Heat series of the mid-nineties never happens again and I doubt it ever will. It could be argued that the quality of basketball now exceeds the college game. I think the general greed is what turns people off. This seems to shape opinions of the league. Personally, a lockout would stink, I love keeping up with the nba.

The quality of the basketball is why I have always enjoyed college basketball more than the NBA. I think you make a good point that the league (though I would say it is not every team) has gone away from the one-on-one isolation game that I do not enjoy. There are certainly some NBA teams that are fun to watch, but isolation one-one-one and pick and roll does still dominate a lot of the action. I much prefer a ball movement offense and have actually found that is lacking from many of the college teams as well, more because of disorganization, a lack of good decision-making and understanding of what a good shot is. This is not surprising when a lot of the top talent leaves after one or two years. I am a basketball fan and do enjoy both, but it depends on which teams are playing.

[sivartrenrag]

The lockout would be bad. I don't watch the NBA but a lockout would be terrible for current and former Duke players.

I want Kyrie and Mason to come back for another year because they want to, not because they're forced to.

[Cockabeau]

I think an NBA lockout is probable because the MLB and NFL have been taking market share away from the NBA ever since Jordan left.

1)The players aren't going to budge because they want the huge guaranteed contracts for players

2)The owners aren't going to budge because profitability has been on a steady decline.

3)I myself believe that once NBA players get that fat contract they tend to rest on their laurels a bit and as a result-regular season NBA games are unwatchable.

[BD80]

... the position the owners are taking is a little ridiculous. Okay, the league lost $350 million last year ... So, to balance things, they want want to reduce player salaries by $800 million. ...

Classic negotiating tactic. The typical player only considers what makes it into his own pocket. Threaten that right away, and the other points become easier to negotiate. This way, the owners can get concessions on FUTURE contracts, FUTURE salary caps etc.


... If there is a lockout, Cal gets another year with some very very good basketball players. Bad. ...

Well, those players who remain eligible, which would be Brandon Knight and ...

If all his players were to stay eligible, it might lead to a scholarship crunch, which would be amusing.


I'm actually a little more confident that there won't be a lockout. Stern has shown himself to be the savviest of all pro sport commissioners. A lockout would hurt NBA business for several years. I don't think he is going to let that happen.

I envision a partial work stoppage. Say half the season. The real money is in the playoffs, which the players play for a (small) fixed amount. Half a season means the players lose half their salaries, but the owners still get the majority of the TV revenue. Half the season still gives a decent basis upon which to base playoff eligibility.


It's not just the hard cap. They are asking for non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL. Hopefully thats just wishful thinking...

I can see room for compromise. Shorter contracts (five year max?) along with a limit on guranteed years (3?). This will help save the owners from themselves.

As for a hard cap, I can see it implemented in stages. Teams over the cap will not be allowed to use the mid-level exemptions, and the penalty will be higher each year. What will be interesting is how teams like Miami, NY, LA, Dallas and NJ will react to the "party line."

[Lord Ash]

I only care in that it will have an impact on our program and on our players who are now in the NBA.

[Billy Dat]

I LOVE THE NBA!

It has always surprised me how much of a gulf exists between hard core college bball fans and hard core NBA fans. Many college fans, as per the poll, can't stand the NBA because they find the style boring. Many NBA fans dislike college ball because the quality of athelete is so inferior. If you love basketball, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't love both...but I realize that I am in the minority.

After watching the FIBA World Championships, I can say without hesitation that the NBA would do well to shorten the game to 40 minutes. As a regular NBA fan, a good strategy for those wanting to get into the league is the following:
-Watch only second halves during the regular season. Check on the game at halftime and if the margin is 10 points or less, tune in.
-Watch games between the top tier teams. This season, the Heat, Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Oklahoma City, Dallas and Utah are, to me, the teams with the best chance of making the finals. Other teams that should be in the playoffs, and therefore can also draw your attention, include Milwaukee, Atlanta, the new New York Knicks, Chicago, Phoenix, Houston, and San Antonio. Any match-up featuring any of the Lakers, Heat, Celtics and Oklahoma City needs to be watched.
-Watch games featuring Duke players who actually see the floor including the Magic (JJ and Duhon), Bulls (Luol and Boozer), Bucks (Magette), 76ers (Brand), Suns (G.Hill), Houston (Shane), Indiana (Dunleavy and McRoberts)
-The Miami Heat phenomenon needs to be watched. This team is now the #1 target of all other squads, Lebron's persona is transforming from happy guy to mean guy on a mission, it will be interesting to see if they can get it done.
-The best player in the world competition between Lebron, Wade, Kobe and Durant is up for grabs and it will be interesting to see who, at the end of the year, has the belt
-I think if the game appears boring, you have to challenge yourself to really examine the game within the game. NBA strategy is largely based on exploiting mismatches. Watching a game, if you pay attention, reveals a million hints at who is considered weak and who is strong...who are they isolating on defense?
-I find it funny that people criticize the lack of ball movement in NBA games when Duke has run a pro style offense for years that relies on individual "read and react" situations, "quick hitters", 1-4 spreads and the like. But, lots of Duke fans complain about Duke's offensive strategy, too.
-Overall, I think there is as much quality talent in the NBA as there has been in years..it's a good year to try it out again.

As for the potential lock-out, one thing that sticks in my mind is that during the last lockout, management quickly discovered that a large % of the players were overextended and living, basically, paycheck to paycheck. If that hasn't changed, I can't see the union being very strong. Lastly, I am really surprised by how many people are siding with the owners. Granted, the players make an insane amount of money, but so what? They ARE the league, plain and simple. You act like these owners are paupers...come on. I am supposed to feel bad for someone with the means to buy an NBA team, like they need some kind of handout....they're the guys who agreed to those contracts. I know it's not that simple, but I also know most of them are well into the 8 figures on the appreciated value of their franchises since they bought them.

[JasonEvans]

Is it that the owners want a lot or they just want to stop losing money?

Chris Sheridan has an article on the subject.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&page=lockout-102110

Great link. My favorite part --


In the end, cooler heads will probably prevail and reasonableness will probably triumph. I'll even go way out on a limb and take a gander at exactly when that'll happen: between 10 and 11 ET on the night of July 3, 2011 -- 70 to 71 hours after the sides stop the clock to continue talking.

If Sheridan is even close to being right about this, I want to go to the track with him and bet on some ponies.

-Jason "his article makes a ton of sense-- but I find that sense often gets ignored in labor negotiations" Evans

[AZLA]

I like NBA basketball ONLY when it's the PLAYOFFS and actual defense (and all the other wonderful facets of basketball other than easy scoring) is played. The regular season, except for the key match ups, tends to incite yawning and doesn't compare to what is at stake on the college level. The NBA product is a little too saturated in schedule and over-priced. Despite the playoffs being interesting, they will never compare to the NCAA Tourney which doesn't allow for do-overs (IMO).

With the NBA brass recently calling for 1/3 cut in salary, I was wondering how it would impact Kyrie or Singler as the lockout seems most likely. But, then for Kyrie being at Duke is a great place to sit out any potential strike because he will still be practicing and competing against the best, under a great coach who has proven he can coach pros at the highest level. He can just focus on his game, his Duke experience and earn another year towards his degree. Not too shabby a predicament, all things considered. Singler's situation is obviously different, but I'm sure he's already weighed the possibilities.

However, this leads me to a question -- how soon would a lockout take place? I assume the draft would occur prior to the lockout; therefore, younger one-and-doners would have to seriously rethink putting their name in the hopper -- right?

Last question -- would NBA players union consider it a scab move for players to try and play overseas if they had an open contract during any potential strike?

[rhcpflea99]

AZLA the 98 lockout didn't effect underclassmen from declaring that year. I don't believe it will have much effect on the one-done decision. The league will allow players to play overseas but the minute the lock out is over back to work.

[jipops]

-The best player in the world competition between Lebron, Wade, Kobe and Durant is up for grabs and it will be interesting to see who, at the end of the year, has the belt
-I think if the game appears boring, you have to challenge yourself to really examine the game within the game. NBA strategy is largely based on exploiting mismatches. Watching a game, if you pay attention, reveals a million hints at who is considered weak and who is strong...who are they isolating on defense?
-I find it funny that people criticize the lack of ball movement in NBA games when Duke has run a pro style offense for years that relies on individual "read and react" situations, "quick hitters", 1-4 spreads and the like. But, lots of Duke fans complain about Duke's offensive strategy, too.
-Overall, I think there is as much quality talent in the NBA as there has been in years..it's a good year to try it out again.



These are great points. When is the last time the nba has been this deep in dominant players? And these are guys that truly do extend themselves at both ends of the court, you can't tell me they don't. I would even say that the NBA has been revitalized by USA basketball and world competition and we know a bit about someone who has been involved with that.

Granted, regular season ball can tend to drift into lapses of non-intensity. But a lockout would deprive us NBA fans of some excellent basketball. And if you're not watching the progress of Blake Griffin, you're missing out.

[1991 duke law]

I am no expert on how much money professional sports teams make, but I have had some experience on the finance side and it is my understanding that owning a sports team (whether MLB, NBA, NFL or NHL) is not, in many cases, a gateway to huge annual profits. Capital appreciation has been much better. So I anticipate that there may be some truth to the lack of profitability. That being said, owners are, like owners of all businesses, putting up significant capital (and arguably) putting that capital at risk so they have a right to significant profits. Thus, an owner profiting of his investment does not bother me.

Somehow I cannot get my head around salaries of 20M or so for the top players and 5-10M or so for average players. The amounts paid are, by any standard regardless as to whether they are the world's best, ridiculous. However, that being said, I accept the free market and do not begrudge players that can convince stupid owners and society to allow them to earn millions and millions of dollars for playing basketball. I do not personally support the salaries so I do not purchase tickets to the games. If college basketball disappeared I would sorely miss it but if the NBA disappeared I would not notice.

Due to my general view as to how the players are so grossly overpaid I feel absolutely no sympathy if they fry the golden goose and they are all put out of work and make nothing. At times I wonder if they appreciate how fortunate they are. In fact, if you are stupid enough to let the golden goose get fried, you should never have been making that much in the first place. Harsh but my view.

[Scorp4me]

I hate the NBA and it's not because of the quality of product or any of that crap, it's the very culture. Here we are in an economy where most people would just be happy with a job. In a situation where the real hero's in this world, like teachers are being cut left and right and the ones who keep their jobs are paid very little. And we have NBA players getting to do what they love and whining because they aren't making enough millions. I'm pulling for a lock out. Get rid of all them and bring in the scrubs and pay them. Heck, pay them nice, I'm not saying they don't deserve good money. Then let the players who realize how good they have it (I'm thinking the Battier's and heck even the Hansbrough's of the world) and deserve it have their job back.

You really think the next draft of players is going to complain because they're only making 2/3's of what the previous group did? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but if they do that they'll gain at least one fan.

[1991 duke law]

I hate the NBA and it's not because of the quality of product or any of that crap, it's the very culture. Here we are in an economy where most people would just be happy with a job. In a situation where the real hero's in this world, like teachers are being cut left and right and the ones who keep their jobs are paid very little. And we have NBA players getting to do what they love and whining because they aren't making enough millions. I'm pulling for a lock out. Get rid of all them and bring in the scrubs and pay them. Heck, pay them nice, I'm not saying they don't deserve good money. Then let the players who realize how good they have it (I'm thinking the Battier's and heck even the Hansbrough's of the world) and deserve it have their job back.

You really think the next draft of players is going to complain because they're only making 2/3's of what the previous group did? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but if they do that they'll gain at least one fan.

Ok - I like this fellow's post. I'll second it.

[Duvall]

I hate the NBA and it's not because of the quality of product or any of that crap, it's the very culture. Here we are in an economy where most people would just be happy with a job. In a situation where the real hero's in this world, like teachers are being cut left and right and the ones who keep their jobs are paid very little. And we have NBA players getting to do what they love and whining because they aren't making enough millions. I'm pulling for a lock out. Get rid of all them and bring in the scrubs and pay them. Heck, pay them nice, I'm not saying they don't deserve good money. Then let the players who realize how good they have it (I'm thinking the Battier's and heck even the Hansbrough's of the world) and deserve it have their job back.

You really think the next draft of players is going to complain because they're only making 2/3's of what the previous group did? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but if they do that they'll gain at least one fan.

You know that this is a lockout, and not a strike, right? Why are you complaining about the millionaires that aren't planning a work stoppage instead of the billionaires that are?

[tommy]

Stern's comment about cutting salaries by $800 mil is just him laying out the opening offer from the owners.

Stern pretty much admitted as much with this quote: "There's a swing of somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 to $800 million that we would like to change. That's our story and we're sticking with it."

"That's our story and we're sticking with it" means tongue is planted firmly in cheek.

[Billy Dat]

I hate the NBA and it's not because of the quality of product or any of that crap, it's the very culture. Here we are in an economy where most people would just be happy with a job. In a situation where the real hero's in this world, like teachers are being cut left and right and the ones who keep their jobs are paid very little. And we have NBA players getting to do what they love and whining because they aren't making enough millions. I'm pulling for a lock out. Get rid of all them and bring in the scrubs and pay them. Heck, pay them nice, I'm not saying they don't deserve good money. Then let the players who realize how good they have it (I'm thinking the Battier's and heck even the Hansbrough's of the world) and deserve it have their job back.

You really think the next draft of players is going to complain because they're only making 2/3's of what the previous group did? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but if they do that they'll gain at least one fan.

Are you, then, against all professional sports where the same commentary applies? If that's your stance, as Duvall stated, why side with the uber-rich owners? For that matter, what about Duke who makes untold millions each year on the backs of players who get a ~$50,000/yr scholarship? Do you care that Coach K makes millions more than the professors, or that he parlayed the Lakers' job offer into a lucrative salary increase? Did K not realize how good he had it when he negotiated that raise?

[1991 duke law]

Are you, then, against all professional sports where the same commentary applies? If that's your stance, as Duvall stated, why side with the uber-rich owners? For that matter, what about Duke who makes untold millions each year on the backs of players who get a ~$50,000/yr scholarship? Do you care that Coach K makes millions more than the professors, or that he parlayed the Lakers' job offer into a lucrative salary increase? Did K not realize how good he had it when he negotiated that raise?

While these questions are not in response to my post, I would like to respond:

1. Being not aligned with the players does not mean that you are supporting the owners. The fact that the owners are wealthy, independant of the franchise that they own, is not relevant. These owners derived their wealth outside of these teams, the teams have not made them wealthy. And, as noted, in many instances they are not making large amounts of income from the teams (long term capital appreciation put aside). In any event, when you make an investment of 300M or so it is reasonable to expect a return on that investment. I do not think that you can compare the owners profits and the players profits unless you feel that no business should be able to make excessive profits relative to the salaries of the employees. That would mean that all businesses in our capitalist society should be shut down or realigned from a profit perspective. Heck, if you feel that way you should move to Canada where we are all socialists.

2. I feel the same way about all professional sports, not just basketball.

3. I do not buy into the scholarship and the school makes so much money argument. Schools give scholarships to many sports that make no money. Schools are a non profit organization so that the "profits" allegedly made are used for other good purposes. If student athletes do not wish to be used in this fashion, they can reject the $50,000 scholarship (presumed cost of attending Duke for a year). We should all be so unfortunate to get a $50,000 scholarship and be used in this fashion. In any event, that does not have any bearing on whether professional athletes are overpaid and spoiled.

4. Coach K through his career has not made any where near the compensation that NBA players make. While his salary may be too high (I am not debating this point), it is still comprehendable. But that being said, the discussion is not whether coaches in college basketball make too much money.

Anyhow, not trying to be argumentative, but I find no sympathy for the players. It seems that no matter how big the pie gets it is never enough.

[Billy Dat]

While these questions are not in response to my post, I would like to respond....

Clearly, I was being a little hyperbolic, but

RE 1. The same owners approved these lofty contracts. They are happy to cry poverty on the whole, but when it comes to their own teams, they overpay. They are as much to blame for the current system as anyone. I agree that the salaries are out of whack, but it always surprises me that most people's instinct is to side with ownership. If people think players are selfish and egomaniacal, I don't think they'd find these owners to be much better.

RE 2. Fair enough

RE 3. My point here is that the hoops team subsidizes a lot of other things that go on at Duke in ways that we can't begin to fathom. Obviously, the players get a lot for their scholarships, but the value they deliver is worth far more than $50,000 each per year.

RE 4: I think you underestimate how much K makes...I think his salary is somewhere around $3-$4MM per, which is about the current NBA average salary. The original poster was comparing NBA players to teachers, so I thouight it was apt to compare K to his fellow faculty members - he does teach at Fuqua.

[Acymetric]

Stern pretty much admitted as much with this quote: "There's a swing of somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 to $800 million that we would like to change. That's our story and we're sticking with it."

"That's our story and we're sticking with it" means tongue is planted firmly in cheek.

Although generally that's what the phrase means, I think in this case he just chose his words poorly.

[1991 duke law]

Clearly, I was being a little hyperbolic, but

RE 1. The same owners approved these lofty contracts. They are happy to cry poverty on the whole, but when it comes to their own teams, they overpay. They are as much to blame for the current system as anyone. I agree that the salaries are out of whack, but it always surprises me that most people's instinct is to side with ownership. If people think players are selfish and egomaniacal, I don't think they'd find these owners to be much better.

RE 2. Fair enough

RE 3. My point here is that the hoops team subsidizes a lot of other things that go on at Duke in ways that we can't begin to fathom. Obviously, the players get a lot for their scholarships, but the value they deliver is worth far more than $50,000 each per year.

RE 4: I think you underestimate how much K makes...I think his salary is somewhere around $3-$4MM per, which is about the current NBA average salary. The original poster was comparing NBA players to teachers, so I thouight it was apt to compare K to his fellow faculty members - he does teach at Fuqua.

I agree - you are right that these dumb owners create the mess of overpaying.

You are also right that K does make way more than other faculty members. But at least he is only making average type of pay (compared to the NBA) when he is the best that there is!

[Indoor66]

I agree - you are right that these dumb owners create the mess of overpaying.

You are also right that K does make way more than other faculty members. But at least he is only making average type of pay (compared to the NBA) when he is the best that there is!

Actually, K has had a much better 30 year run than most of the faculty!

[OZZIE4DUKE]

The only reason I watch any NBA game is to follow past Dukies. If they are locked out then that means we'll have some current players that will be here again next year unless they go to Europe. So for selfish reasons, I don't care if they get locked out or not. Also, the salaries are insane, so for that reason, it would be nice to see a league stand up and say "enough is enough".
Me too. If a Duke player isn't playing, I'm probably not watching an NBA game. Maybe the finals.

The choice I was looking for in the poll was
> I care if there is a lockout. I want a lockout to insure that Kyrie Irving and Austin Rivers can play together in 2011-2012 at Duke. I know, it's selfish on my part, but that's the way I feel.

[LSanders]

Oooh, I hadn't thought of that. Better get to class boys! Calipari better have a sitdown with his kids and some tutors.

I hear there are some "skilled" tutors from the Hill that Cal might want to contact ...

[AZLA]

AZLA the 98 lockout didn't effect underclassmen from declaring that year. I don't believe it will have much effect on the one-done decision. The league will allow players to play overseas but the minute the lock out is over back to work.

Thanks for the info, good to know.

Now they're also talking about contracting teams. The 1/3 payroll reduction obviously feels like the first line in the sand as a standard negotiating tactic -- followed by the counterpunch -- threatening to shrink the team count and ultimately headcount. I think that's where the big fear factor will come into play. Reducing more roster positions by eliminating teams adds teeth to the bargaining position, but this type of early posturing demonstrates vulnerability amongst owners. I couldn't imagine they would actually follow through on this by turning on themselves to gain an advantage on the players. I understand the players union wants owners to profit-share much like MLB, but the owners would essentially be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I'll be curious to see what the NBA players union does in terms of solidarity attention. Perhaps they'll borrow something out of the NFLPA -- salute the other players prior to start of the game.

Maybe Marty will end up having some former Duke / NBA players come and play overseas with him instead ;).

[jipops]

I have to disagree with this notion that NBA players are spoiled, whiny, undeserving and don't give a flip. This is incorrect. There are and have been many NBA players out there that are generally decent people making the most of their natural abilities and provide a good life for themselves and their families. I would say these guys are more the norm than the exception. Yes, there are plenty of bums, prima donnas, nut-cases and dishonest jerks out there, the same types that exist in NFL, NHL, MLB, and all facets of college and amateur sports. I played with a lot of whiners as a kid at the Y. But isn't that just more human nature than the sport itself? I don't understand begrudging someone who is able to profit off of his natural abilities. As long as sports is valued so highly as entertainment, there is going to be a lucrative market for people with these abilities. Whether that is right or wrong is your own opinion. But having these profitable skills doesn't make them bad people.

[weezie]

The quality of play is far better than it was a decade ago where everyone's offense consisted of the best player getting the ball and everyone else move out of the way.... It could be argued that the quality of basketball now exceeds the college game.

As an old Pistons fan, our team was never a "me only" offense. And I agree that the quality of play and skill in most cases surpasses the college game...how could it not? Just like the NFL is faster and better than college football, right?
Shooting is an obvious example. But regular season games are tiresome, loud, over-recorded musical ear-bleeding festivals where nothing bloody much happens until the 4th quarter. Of course, play-off games are always the exception.
I also agree that there are far more decent, charitable and kind NBA players than the popular media cares to highlight.

[1991 duke law]

As an old Pistons fan, our team was never a "me only" offense. And I agree that the quality of play and skill in most cases surpasses the college game...how could it not? Just like the NFL is faster and better than college football, right?
Shooting is an obvious example. But regular season games are tiresome, loud, over-recorded musical ear-bleeding festivals where nothing bloody much happens until the 4th quarter. Of course, play-off games are always the exception.
I also agree that there are far more decent, charitable and kind NBA players than the popular media cares to highlight.

Of course there are, we have a tonne of Duke alum in the NBA! But seriously, we obviously generalize when citing the spoiled players - I have no doubt that there are many good guys in the league.

For sure the quality level is higher but I do not see the intensity in most NBA games whereas I do see it in most college games. I would rather watch less talented kids play the college game than the one on one play in the NBA. Don't get me wrong, I will watch the NBA on tv but only when there are no college games (or Simpsons or American Dad) on tv.

[JasonEvans]

First of all, as AZLA mentioned earlier, Stern is now following up his "cut payrolls by a third" with a "we are going to shrink the number of teams (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AoXXq9xVYFkPV4O7gK2ZfSQ5nYcB?slug=ap-stern)" threat.


“It’s a sensitive subject for me because I’ve spent 27 years in this job working very hard not only to maintain all of our teams, but along the way add a few,” Stern said during his preseason conference call. “But I think that’s a subject that will be on the table with the players as we look to see what’s the optimum way to present our game, and are there cities and teams that cannot make it in the current economic environment."

I also want to chime in on the "players are overpaid" debate.

Think for a moment about the very best businessmen in the world -- Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Soichiro Honda, Warren Buffett, George Soros, and so on. These men have made millions off their business acumen. They are the best in the world at what they do and have been compensated for it.

Well, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, and the such are the best in the world at what they do. They were given wondrous genetic gifts but they have worked tirelessly to hone and improve their skills. Demand for their talents is off the charts because they do things that no one else can do and the way they do it brings tremendous amounts of money to the organizations for whom they perform.

Why should they not be entitled to impressive compensation just like those businessmen? Heck, they don't make 1/100th as much as those business tycoons do.

Now, one can argue that the world's best professor/teacher/fireman/policeman does not make nearly as much as the best athlete. That is an unfortunate function of what society values but is hardly the fault of the athlete/musician/actor/computer programmer/banker who make millions or even billions from their skill and acumen.

--Jason "they deserve what the market will pay them-- that is what everyone deserves" Evans

[1991 duke law]

First of all, as AZLA mentioned earlier, Stern is now following up his "cut payrolls by a third" with a "we are going to shrink the number of teams (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AoXXq9xVYFkPV4O7gK2ZfSQ5nYcB?slug=ap-stern)" threat.



I also want to chime in on the "players are overpaid" debate.

Think for a moment about the very best businessmen in the world -- Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Soichiro Honda, Warren Buffett, George Soros, and so on. These men have made millions off their business acumen. They are the best in the world at what they do and have been compensated for it.

Well, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, and the such are the best in the world at what they do. They were given wondrous genetic gifts but they have worked tirelessly to hone and improve their skills. Demand for their talents is off the charts because they do things that no one else can do and the way they do it brings tremendous amounts of money to the organizations for whom they perform.

Why should they not be entitled to impressive compensation just like those businessmen? Heck, they don't make 1/100th as much as those business tycoons do.

Now, one can argue that the world's best professor/teacher/fireman/policeman does not make nearly as much as the best athlete. That is an unfortunate function of what society values but is hardly the fault of the athlete/musician/actor/computer programmer/banker who make millions or even billions from their skill and acumen.

--Jason "they deserve what the market will pay them-- that is what everyone deserves" Evans

Jason - I do not take issue with their right to make the money but I simply will not support their making such money by purchasing tickets to games. I do not view the contribution to society equal among great athletes and great innovators (and i acknowledge that many if not most in finance are not innovators). But if you compare jim Balsilie to Lebron James, i would suggest that creating RIM has far more positive impact on the world than Lebron doing what he does. Again, I should stress that the free market allows you to earn whatever people will pay and currently people will pay Lebron 20M to play ball.

[Cockabeau]

Jon Barry had it right. You give every player in the NBA a one year contract. Everyone becomes a free agent at the end of the year.Instantly you'll see the quality of a regular season NBA games go up i'll tell you that much.

[darthur]

Jason - I do not take issue with their right to make the money but I simply will not support their making such money by purchasing tickets to games. I do not view the contribution to society equal among great athletes and great innovators (and i acknowledge that many if not most in finance are not innovators). But if you compare jim Balsilie to Lebron James, i would suggest that creating RIM has far more positive impact on the world than Lebron doing what he does. Again, I should stress that the free market allows you to earn whatever people will pay and currently people will pay Lebron 20M to play ball.

In the tech industry at least, I would argue that a lot of them were just in the right place at the right time. I work at Google and love them, but Larry Page and Sergey Brin are absurdly rich right now only because Yahoo didn't buy their search engine idea when they came knocking. And the people who made many millions at the Google IPO? It doesn't take exceptional skill to have been hired early by the company. It takes being in Mountain View, California and looking for a job around 2000.

The difference between being disgustingly rich and being pretty rich is often just a matter of luck, and athletes are not the only ones who benefit.

[1991 duke law]

In the tech industry at least, I would argue that a lot of them were just in the right place at the right time. I work at Google and love them, but Larry Page and Sergey Brin are absurdly rich right now only because Yahoo didn't buy their search engine idea when they came knocking. And the people who made many millions at the Google IPO? It doesn't take exceptional skill to have been hired early by the company. It takes being in Mountain View, California and looking for a job around 2000.

The difference between being disgustingly rich and being pretty rich is often just a matter of luck, and athletes are not the only ones who benefit.

Good point. Luck is a huge element and that is why I tend to look at many of these situations as "winning the lottery". That being said, we can agree that you have to bring something to the table in order to get the luck that allows you to become filthy rich (or just pretty rich).

[JasonEvans]

Jason - I do not take issue with their right to make the money but I simply will not support their making such money by purchasing tickets to games.

Fair enough. I see your attitude as a perfect way of dealing with some of the absurdity in sports and I fully support your right to boycott the exorbitant price of professional sporting events.

--Jason "I wish I had your willpower ;)" Evans

[Duvall]

Jason - I do not take issue with their right to make the money but I simply will not support their making such money by purchasing tickets to games.

I really don't follow this argument. Do you watch television or movies?

[dcdevil2009]

Jon Barry had it right. You give every player in the NBA a one year contract. Everyone becomes a free agent at the end of the year.Instantly you'll see the quality of a regular season NBA games go up i'll tell you that much.

You'll also see teams shuffle players every year and lose any sense of identity as fans won't be able to get attached to their home team's players

[1991 duke law]

I really don't follow this argument. Do you watch television or movies?

Not sure what you don't follow. Does stating that you do not purchase basketball tickets necessitate that you do not watch tv's or movies?