SI's Thomsen illuminates main head-scratchers of the CBA dispute

[sturt]

Doesn't work? Maybe not for you, but for most NBA fans, it definitely works. And there is a difference between being a fan of your particular team, and being a fan of the league itself. Of course a fan of a particular team will watch his team before another team. But if he's not a season ticket holder, what will compel him to actually go to a game live to see his team? If what you say is true, the average NBA fan would have no problem watching his/her team play the Washington Wizards or the LA Lakers.

Unfortunately, for the average NBA fan, who their team play DOES MATTER. It's the reason why these NBA teams have started to do practice variable ticket pricing. The ASG knows that fans won't be compelled to see the Hawks play New Jersey on a Saturday night than they would the Mavericks on that same night. So they'll lower the price for the Nets game, and raise it for the Mavs game.

Again, we agree it is star-driven.

But we disagree about the implications of that to this discussion... I'll remind you that what you've just said here is not all that different from what I said previously...

Yes, a star heightens interest when the interest is already there.

But a star is not "the" interest.

Teams are.

And returning to your purpose for having made the assertion in the first place, North...

The NBA isn't team driven. It's SUPERSTAR driven. And now these owners are mad that these players are not only commanding stratospheric contracts, they're starting to form alliances to team up with each other.

Once again . . this is the monster that the owners created, and will continue to create. They'll negotiate a new deal, and some owner who really wants a player will find a loophole in the new CBA, and exploit the hell out of it ( such as how owners did with upfront balloon payments )...

So to follow up what I said in my previous post, if people want contracts based on performance, give Blake the option to opt out of his deal right now and make big money, instead of punishing him by staying a Clipper for 2 more years.

Again, I say,

My sense, fwiw, is that our problem is that too many fans are either disengaged or are so anti-owner or otherwise pro-union that they fail to recognize where their own interests lie.

Too many fans see this as only owners and players having interests.

Not so. We as fans have an interest, too, yet have no immediate voice at the table (... though, if they screw up too too much, of course, we could end up having a voice that says "No, we just won't spend our money, then, on this product. You should've thought of us.").

I don't care so much about what is fair to the player, any more than I care what is fair to the owner.

I care that my team be have an advantage in being able to hold on to its productive players, but also that the rules ensure that rosters have enough flexibility that we can let go of the lesser players and pursue others.

Translation: It is in my interest as a fan to see guaranteed multi-year contracts to a point, but a substantially reduced one from the current circumstance, and to see the lion's-share of compensation tilted to a year-to-year system that rewards players according to each one's perceived value to their teams in the most recent year.

Edited July 24, 2011 by sturt

[dlpin]

Okay, maybe I'm dense. Please elaborate... I'm not getting your line of rationale here. Small market teams, by definition, do not have the same revenue/profit potential that a larger market team does, so offering more money in DEN or PHX than in NY is less plausible without a cap than with one.

Let me repeat myself for the third time, since it has apparently escaped you:

there is a difference between team salary restrictions (the cap) and individual salary restrictions.

I didn't say anything against the cap. I am for a cap. A cap takes care of the differences in money between Denver and Phoenix and NY.

But once you have a cap in place, I am completely against standard contracts with fixed compensation, like max contracts, performance based contracts, etc. The only times a small market team will beat a big market team is when the small market team outbids the big market team. Now, with a cap in place they will end up spending relatively the same. But it should be up to the franchises if the want to spend half their cap on one player or not. If cleveland wanted to spend 30 million on Lebron and fill the roster with a bunch of role players, they should be able to. It would have been the only way they would have kept him.

One of the stronger selling points of the model I've put on the table is that... congruent with your suggestion about Bosh and LeBron... there's a significant drop-off between the compensation of a given team's top player and that of its 2nd and 3rd. And by building into the system a hierarchy on each team wherein recent performance is the overriding factor in determining a player's total compensation, it inherently has the effect of ensuring the best talent is spread league-wide... and the best up-and-coming talent gravitates toward those teams where they see opportunity to become a team's #1.

This is a terrible idea:

- All else the same, the top stars will still be in the top markets

- There is no objective measure of performance. Base it on stats and you will have players stat padding. Base it on votes and it becomes a popularity contest, especially since it takes at least a couple of seasons for everyone to really realize that a player's game had declined or improved.

[sturt]

...I didn't say anything against the cap. I am for a cap. A cap takes care of the differences in money between Denver and Phoenix and NY.

But once you have a cap in place, I am completely against standard contracts with fixed compensation, like max contracts, performance based contracts, etc. The only times a small market team will beat a big market team is when the small market team outbids the big market team. Now, with a cap in place they will end up spending relatively the same. But it should be up to the franchises if the want to spend half their cap on one player or not. If cleveland wanted to spend 30 million on Lebron and fill the roster with a bunch of role players, they should be able to. It would have been the only way they would have kept him.

I'm not sure the plan I'm advocating is understood. It is, after all, "up to the franchises if they want to spend half their cap on one player or not." Review the terms outlined, and you'll see that's the case.

There are two main components to most players' compensation packages: the major part, called "Player-Directed Merit Pay," based on recent performance and dictated by league revenues and assigned by a vote of their peers; and a minor part, called "Team-Directed Guaranteed Pay," which is the team's own discretionary pay dictated by negotiation b/t the player and the team much like it already is, but just shrunk down to 25% or so of what is currently is.

Using your analogy of LBJ...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe LBJ is on the record as saying it came down to CLE or MIA... the attraction to MIA being purely the idea of playing alongside two other elites.

If he had chosen MIA under this system, those two elites would not have been following him to MIA... meaning the attraction of MIA would not have existed in the first place.

So, no, he would have chosen CLE assuming there was not some substantial difference in the Team-Directed Guaranteed Pay (smaller guaranteed portion) of his compensation package. Why? Because the Player-Directed Merit Pay... the bigger money... is going to be the same no matter where he goes, since he would ostensibly be the #1 guy almost anywhere else.

This is a terrible idea:

- All else the same, the top stars will still be in the top markets

- There is no objective measure of performance. Base it on stats and you will have players stat padding. Base it on votes and it becomes a popularity contest, especially since it takes at least a couple of seasons for everyone to really realize that a player's game had declined or improved.

Back up.

One elite player will likely be in every market, but which market more likely is a function of where there is a supporting cast.... e.g., Dwight will stay in ORL unless he perceives there's a team where there's a second and third tier of players that better suit him. It's less a financial decision and a matter of how large the market is because the pay is mainly going to be the same... and more of a basketball decision.

Where there is not an elite player, players who believe they are worthy of that are naturally going to gravitate... if Jamal thinks he has a shot at being, say, the top guy when all is said and done next off-season in Charlotte, or otherwise that he feels certain he's at least going to land at that second tier (#2 or #3), he'll pursue that in a big way.

That's all good. That's where we want this thing to go... basketball decisions and players aligning themselves into rosters where they think they can fit best, and thus maximize income. So, as opposed to how it's been... players choosing to play based on dollars and years... this introduces a new paradigm that pushes a player to consider more strongly where he's the best fit. Money and years are not so very different from team to team as supporting cast is likely to be.

Okay?

As to the "no objective measure"... no argument... but then how's that any different than there being no objective measure for how much a player ought to be worth now? You prefer a system that yields players' compensation being determined every 3-6 years or so based almost solely (except for incentives) on perceived value 1, 2 or 3 times over their career?

I just don't. I think that's a major "what-are-we-thinking?" problem with how we've always previously thought about all of this.

So, assuming people agree with that premise (though realizing some don't, at least not yet)...

We can't get to a totally "objective measure" unless we're going to go to something that only incorporates quantitative data (stats), and by the assessment of practically any basketball observer (GM, coach, scout, player, fan), quantitative data cannot help but fall short of conveying many players' worth to their team (... and that, after all, is what you're left to decide... worth to his team... since the overall pie, ie the gross amount to be paid to each guy on the roster, is a matter of a set formula that applies to every team equally).

Worth to his team could be decided by any number of means, then. But the thinking is that most of us, when given the choice, would prefer to be assessed by our peers--that is, the people who really have a sense for what goes into the job. That's why I settled on a system that puts players in charge, though with some built-in barriers to make it less likely that manipulation would occur.

If you don't like that, okay. I just think the players would, and they're the ones whose union would be at the table.

An alternative... maybe even a better alternative... would be having other teams' coaches and scouts involved in such a vote.

Regardless of the specific execution, though, such a measurement would reflect the value of each player to their current team.

Edited July 25, 2011 by sturt

[dlpin]

I am sorry, but your "proposal" is still insanely convoluted and extremely unlikely to yield the desired results. Take away the two all star teammates and players will still want to flock to the biggest markets. And having 1/4 of the salary vary is nowhere near enough to ensure that doesn't happen.

This whole "#1" idea is silly. How many NBA players are true number 1s? Which would mean a bunch of players getting overpaid. And voting on salaries? That is a recipe for destroying chemistry and endless bickering. Not to mention, of course, that players with more visibility would benefit, creating another incentive to go to a big market. Not to mention, of course, that it would destroy teams that do well on drafting, like OKC.

There is a much simpler and more efficient way of dealing with stuff like this, which is the free market. Put a cap on team salaries and let owners and players vote with their wallets. Much simpler, much more straightforward, and much less likely to lead to unintended consequences.

I won't keep at it because this proposal is too convoluted and too unlikely to be adopted. But I guarantee that if anything like that came to pass, the unintended consequences would be much more serious than the occasional bad contract in the nba.

[sturt]

Okay, I'll play.

Take away the two all star teammates and players will still want to flock to the biggest markets.

Because? There has to be a "because."

And having 1/4 of the salary vary is nowhere near enough to ensure that doesn't happen.

Still not confident the concept is getting across(?). This sentence is difficult to understand in light of what I've stated. The actual intention is that the Team-Directed portion is small enough to be significantly less a factor, but large enough to potentially be. 25% is not a number I'm married to, but only using for sake of illustration of the concept.

This whole "#1" idea is silly. How many NBA players are true number 1s? Which would mean a bunch of players getting overpaid.

The pejorative terms "silly" and, earlier, "insanely convoluted," are just that, and not productive because they amount to simple opinion. "Insanely convoluted," too, is a matter of relativity--don't even try to tell anyone that after completing a read of the Larry Coon FAQ that the current system is, itself, less than "insanely convoluted." What I've proposed here has been described in only a few bullet points--not even in the same ballpark.

But to the questions: First, 30 isn't a perfect number, but it isn't far off, given the number of players selected currently to the All-Star Game each season.

And "would mean a bunch of players getting overpaid"... you mean, as opposed to now? Really?

Let's get real. There will always be players getting overpaid and underpaid.

The problem corrected by this system is that currently players' entire pay gets determined for years and years at a time because that is the way the marketplace has been constructed... and that, because "we've always done what we've always done." No one has ever backed up and said, "Wait a minute. Why this way... one that sets up players to be SO overpaid and underpaid?"

This system makes at least two major contributions to making pay more in-line with what it should be: first, that the largest part of players' pay gets re-evaluated every year... that's huge; and second, that it largely is self-correcting since players will gravitate to make basketball decisions in moving from team to team rather than financial ones.

And voting on salaries? That is a recipe for destroying chemistry and endless bickering.

How so? It's a blind ballot. Not sure why you come to that conclusion.

(Criticism gets a lot more credibility when it, at least, doesn't perceive negatives that aren't actually there.)

Not to mention, of course, that players with more visibility would benefit, creating another incentive to go to a big market.

Don't know how to respond to this. You're saying that players would vote for other players based on visibility rather than what they actually perceive to be the value of another player to the other player's team? (Or am I missing some nuance?)

I disagree. Players play the game and know it from the inside.

The only thing bias I would think might enter into it is that those perceived as dirty players would likely take a hit.

Not to mention, of course, that it would destroy teams that do well on drafting, like OKC.

When teams draft well, they have the benefit of young players' services for 3 years. If they want to lock them up, they have to make commitments, and if the player is willing to be locked up, they too have to make a commitment. If Westbrook thought he could be a #1 for another team, he probably wouldn't make any longer-term commitment. On the other hand, Durant probably would have little incentive to leave OKC.

There are plusses and minuses.

Destroy? No. These criticisms seem to be going pretty far off the road just to try to be increasingly more critical.

There is a much simpler and more efficient way of dealing with stuff like this, which is the free market. Put a cap on team salaries and let owners and players vote with their wallets. Much simpler, much more straightforward, and much less likely to lead to unintended consequences.

I'll give you this much: It is the devil you know. So, you're more comfortable with it. But as long as you keep a system that isn't sensitive in a major way to the fluctuations of players' contributions, it will continue to be less than it ought to be.

I won't keep at it because this proposal is too convoluted and too unlikely to be adopted. But I guarantee that if anything like that came to pass, the unintended consequences would be much more serious than the occasional bad contract in the nba.

Already dispensed with the convoluted charge above.

Unlikely to be adopted? It's not only "unlikely," it's not even going to be raised to any decision-makers' attention.

But your guarantees, in light of the responses I've just given, are not credible.

Edited July 25, 2011 by sturt

[red2play]

You need a hard cap because we are sick of seeing the Lakers/Celtics winning half of the trophies, that's another reason why the NFL is successful, diversity. We need to remove guarunteed money from the contracts, at least past 3 yrs. The cap also needs to be lowered so at least 70% of the teams, WITHOUT INCOME SHARING, can be profitable.

[AHF]

You need a hard cap because we are sick of seeing the Lakers/Celtics winning half of the trophies, that's another reason why the NFL is successful, diversity. We need to remove guarunteed money from the contracts, at least past 3 yrs. The cap also needs to be lowered so at least 70% of the teams, WITHOUT INCOME SHARING, can be profitable.

Personally, I am in favor of revenue sharing among teams to level out the playing field some in terms of team resources. Teams in NY, LA, etc. will always have a HUGE advantage over teams like Memphis, New Orleans, Minnesota, etc. without meaningful revenue sharing.

[dlpin]

You need a hard cap because we are sick of seeing the Lakers/Celtics winning half of the trophies, that's another reason why the NFL is successful, diversity. We need to remove guarunteed money from the contracts, at least past 3 yrs. The cap also needs to be lowered so at least 70% of the teams, WITHOUT INCOME SHARING, can be profitable.

1st, the reason the NFL is successful is not diversity. It is simply that football is vastly more popular than basketball. A college football game between a powerhouse and a 1-aa team gets better ratings than any nba regular season game. There is a reason why the detroit lions, the poorest team in the nfl, has higher revenues than all but 2 teams in the nba (lakers and knicks). If anything, recent history shows that the NBA is at its most popular when the big market teams are dominating. There is a reason the finals involving the spurs are the worst rated in recent history. You could have 10 straight Patriots-Cowboys super bowls and the nfl would still be more popular.

And I am sorry, but lowering the cap so that teams can be profitable without income sharing makes no sense. Revenues are so concentrated on the bigger markets that you'd still have two tiers, only with players making a lot less money. The solution to disparity is not to make the bigger markets even more profitable while the small ones still struggle to break even. It is to spread the wealth around. The lakers signed a local tv deal of 150 million a year, while the kings make 11 million a year.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

A hard cap would destroy the Atlanta Hawks.

We have a gross history of not drafting well at all, along with a history of top name free agents not wanting to play here, even when we have a ton of cap space. Neither Bibby nor Jamal would've been able to be acquired, if the Hawks were operating under a "hard cap" . . unless that hard cap is set at where the current Luxury Tax is set, which wouldn't make much sense to do.

If the owners wanted to do something dramatic, and set a hard cap at 55 million, that would destroy the Hawks.

[AHF]

A hard cap would destroy the Atlanta Hawks.

We have a gross history of not drafting well at all, along with a history of top name free agents not wanting to play here, even when we have a ton of cap space. Neither Bibby nor Jamal would've been able to be acquired, if the Hawks were operating under a "hard cap" . . unless that hard cap is set at where the current Luxury Tax is set, which wouldn't make much sense to do.

If the owners wanted to do something dramatic, and set a hard cap at 55 million, that would destroy the Hawks.

Are you thinking we couldn't have made those trades because they would have increased our future salary obligations above the cap limit? For the season in which the trades were made, the salaries basically balanced so that wouldn't be an issue.

As far as managing future year issues, I don't see a way to do a hard cap without the ability to cut players and shed contracts to get under the cap. From the player's perspective that would work as long as the teams are paying the players some adequate amount of money for the right to cut the player. For example, you could do something where you guarantee the first 3 years of a player's contract at 100%, 75%, and 50% but cutting the players doesn't hit the cap the same way. So if you had a player who signed a contract worth $8M, $9M, $10M and cut them a week into the contract, that contract would come off the cap but the team would have to pay the player $19M to cut them (100% of 8M, 75% of 9M, and 50% of 10M). The players might buy off on something like this because the player would then be free to sign with another team and the system would result in paying out more to players than a simple hard cap.

[Trueblood]

Some thoughts....

Hard cap is too general a term. A lot depends on where the hard cap is set. A $45 million cap is a joke but if you get it to $70 million with layers below it meaning a mid level exception threshold at $60 million and a soft cap at $50 million, then you may have a deal...

I say we keep the grandfather clause. That's what allows teams to sign their own stars for a number above the max salary. For instance, let's say the cap comes down to $50 million and 7-9 year vets can now only get 25% of the cap if they leave as opposed to the 30% that they get now. That means that Chris Paul could only sign for a base salary of 12.5 million (25% of 50) if he wanted to go to the Knicks but a grandfather clause could net him an extra 5% off the $16.5 million he makes now meaning that his base salary if he stays in New Orleans would be $17.3 million. An extra $2.5 million couldn't keep Lebron in Cleveland but an extra $4.8 million could very well keep the new batch of free agents from bolting....

The Hawks have new ownership. Whatever blunders they have made in the past shouldn't be held against them. Now that someone with his head on straight is making the calls, I don't see a hard cap or further contract restrictions having too much of a negative effect on the team. Hire the right people to make the decisions and that will have a much bigger impact than a favorable or unfavorable cba.

[Trueblood]

Also, I wouldn't sell recent parity short. During this past collective bargaining agreement, we saw 5 champions in 6 years.

2006-Miami

2007-San Antonio

2008-Boston

2009-Lakers

2010-Lakers

2011-Dallas

[Joker]

Yes. But my question continues to be, why should the union do that? Why are performance-based contracts a bad idea if, in the end, ownership still invests the same pool of money (by percentage) in payroll overall?... and, especially if we buy-in to the premise that putting the best athletes on the rosters equates to a better game overall which equates to more viewers/attendance overall which equates to more income overall... which then, equates to a higher base number and more money getting paid to players overall...?

Basketball is not Football. Players can't be easily replaced. A lot of ball hogging especially on bad teams. It would chaos because the quality of professional talent just isn't deep like it is with Football.

[Joker]

Which is the exact argument that I give to all the right wing hard liners who want to get rid of guaranteed deals altogether. Much of them are in New Orleans and I always give the example of Chris Paul and that he was practically a 2 time MVP while still under the rookie salary scale but they never have a good comeback for that.

Ok, we can agree to disagree on that one but I'd prefer to see the Hawks win over 50 games without a superstar as opposed to be like the Clips with a superstar yet fall out of the playoffs time and time again. But that's just me. If most Hawks fans feel what you're saying then I guess I see differently than a lot of Hawks fans. This would actually make for an interesting poll. Would you prefer to see Lebron in a Hawks uni even if the team had no supporting cast and he kept getting tossed in the first round or would you prefer no star and go to the EC finals?

I would take Lebron. Lebron on any NBA team will make them a contender. He is just that good. The Magic have a team of scrubs with Dwight and they were hell to deal with as well as won 50 games. We aren't contenders now or later. We are struck in good but not great unless we trade to make an upgrade while creating a better fit and upgrading what we have as well because of the trade.

[Buzzard]

Sturt . . I contend that since the average NBA fan isn't a season ticket holder, that fan ( while maybe a fan of a particular team ), will choose to see his team play a particular opponent. Preferably one that is deemed to be very good, or has a must-see type superstar on it.

I think what you say, only holds true to season ticket holders. Because if a fan skips seeing the Hawks play the Raptors, and instead opts to see the Hawks play the Lakers, he is in essence choosing to see his/her team play the Lakers, than to play the Raptors.

And most notably, he's going to see the superstar, which is Kobe. The league and the networks market around superstars, not teams ( unless you're the Miami Heat with 2 superstars and a 3rd guy who is a legit all-star. )

National TV games

Clippers: 20

Hawks: 8

Despite us being a more successful team from top to bottom, the Clippers will get shown more on TV this season ( if we have a season ).

The league markets itself as a star driven league. The fans come out in droves whenever a star player rolls into their city. GMs and owners damn near fall all over themselves when a superstar becomes available. But the average fan cares more about the team than the star?

I think you are missing the point by trying to make a point here. All pro sports is driven by TV revenue. If you have a nationally televised game involving a California team and in particular a Los Angeles team vs a Georgia team in particular Atlanta, which do the networks think will draw the most casual NBA viewers?

California estimated population 2008 24 Million plus or Georgia 9 million plus. Now compare metropolitan areas: Los Angeles almost 13 million estimated 2010 vs Atlanta a little over 5 million estimated 2010.

Sure its a star driven league but do the Clippers really have bigger stars than us? Or is it because they have a market share twice as large as us? I think the latter, which is exactly why the Clippers are on TV over twice as much. I am a casual fan now because I do not live in Atlanta anymore. No way I am driving 500 miles to watch a Hawks game; or 400 to Cleveland to watch the Hawks play. I have driven to Indy to watch the Hawks play a few times. But when it comes to the television, unless its the playoffs the Hawks are the only team I watch.

I may no longer live in the region anymore but I still consider myself a Hawks fan. And would bet any amount of money I could afford that there are twice as many casual Clippers fans than Hawks fans watching their team when on TV. This due only to one thing, the population and market share of the Clippers is over twice as large as the Hawks.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Buzzard

[Trueblood]

I would take Lebron. Lebron on any NBA team will make them a contender. He is just that good. The Magic have a team of scrubs with Dwight and they were hell to deal with as well as won 50 games. We aren't contenders now or later. We are struck in good but not great unless we trade to make an upgrade while creating a better fit and upgrading what we have as well because of the trade.

That's under the assumption that he would make any team a contender and I agree that I would take Lebron if he were to indeed make the team a contender.

However, my hypothetical was asking if the fans would rather have a 50 win plus team that got to 2nd round or further in the playoffs or take a team with Lebron where the supporting cast was so bad that he was getting bounced in the first round and only winning 45-50 games. In that scenario, which would you take?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I think you are missing the point by trying to make a point here. All pro sports is driven by TV revenue. If you have a nationally televised game involving a California team and in particular a Los Angeles team vs a Georgia team in particular Atlanta, which do the networks think will draw the most casual NBA viewers?

California estimated population 2008 24 Million plus or Georgia 9 million plus. Now compare metropolitan areas: Los Angeles almost 13 million estimated 2010 vs Atlanta a little over 5 million estimated 2010.

Sure its a star driven league but do the Clippers really have bigger stars than us? Or is it because they have a market share twice as large as us? I think the latter, which is exactly why the Clippers are on TV over twice as much. I am a casual fan now because I do not live in Atlanta anymore. No way I am driving 500 miles to watch a Hawks game; or 400 to Cleveland to watch the Hawks play. I have driven to Indy to watch the Hawks play a few times. But when it comes to the television, unless its the playoffs the Hawks are the only team I watch.

I may no longer live in the region anymore but I still consider myself a Hawks fan. And would bet any amount of money I could afford that there are twice as many casual Clippers fans than Hawks fans watching their team when on TV. This due only to one thing, the population and market share of the Clippers is over twice as large as the Hawks.

Let me correct something right off the bat. I got my National TV numbers wrong for the Hawks. I counted both ESPN/TNT/ABC games for the Clippers + games on NBATV. I didn't count the NBATV games for the Hawks. So actually, the number is Clippers 20 - Hawks 12.

The networks could've cared less about the Clippers ( despite the huge L.A. population ) until they got a box office attraction that people would want to see live and on TV.

Blake Griffin.

And yes, Griffin is a bigger "star" than anybody on the Atlanta Hawks. The game the Clippers played on Feb 4th in Atlanta proved that. Crowd was listed at 19,363 . . on a Friday night . . for a Clipper team that was 19 - 29 at the time. He's basically the Clippers version of Dominique.

Believe it or not, that game was the 3rd most attended weekend game for the Hawks last year, only behind the March home games vs Miami and Boston. That game drew more fans than weekend games vs the Hornets ( with Chris Paul ), the Knicks ( with Amare Stoudemire ), and the Thunder ( with Kevin Durant ). Shoot . . a Sunday evening game vs the Suns back in November ( when the Hawks were 6 - 1 and had the best record in the league ), only drew 13,000 people.

That L.A. population was still there before Blake got there, yet, the networks had little desire to put the Clippers on TV. Even when the Clippers were a playoff level team 5 or 6 years ago with Elton Brand - Sam Cassel - Corey Magettee as their 3 stars, the Clippers still weren't featured on national TV much at all. And this after that team had won 47 games, beat Denver in the 1st round, and was a Game 7 win away from beating the Suns to reach the Western Conference Finals.

Why?

Because Elton Brand and Sam Cassell as your two main stars didn't "move the needle" to the average NBA fan, and definitely didn't to the TV execs that want to put on games nationally. But those same TV execs are willing to put the Clippers on 20 times next year, despite them not making the playoffs or even being an above .500 team.

Why?

Blake Griffin.

This is why the owners' demand for the players taking less than 50% of the revenue is ridiculous. This league has been marketed since the arrival of Magic and Bird around stars, and preferably superstars. And this is exactly what the fans come out to see.

Basketball is not like football, in which being a good team will guarantee that fans will come out and support you in droves. Heck, our fan base proves that ( with our 22nd in total home attendance number in 2011 ). In this league, unfortunately, you need star players to get fans to consistently come out . . or you need to be good enough to let them THINK that you can win a championship. And this belief also permeates to the network execs that put these games on.

If the owners have their way, the NEW NBA will be a league in which star and superstar players will still get paid top dollar. But because of the reduced cap number, those mid-level type players are going to either have to take drastic pay cuts, or get squeezed out altogether. What the Miami Heat are today, may be exactly what the NBA looks like in the future. And if you're a franchise who can't secure those two or three top level players, you're still going to be left behind.