Getting rid of the salary cap in the NBA

[LogicMan]

Scratch Boston from that list. The 3 mega markets would be NY, Chicago and LA. Then a distant next would be Philly, Boston and Dallas. No cap would mean 25 straight years of LA vs NY

No towns fans spends as much money as NE fans, whether its Bruins/Pats/Sox or Celtics.

 

[shopson67]

Fun fact.

Baseball has FAR more parity than any other sport, yet has no salary cap.

Baseball also has a true minor league system, a 162 game schedule, and a much longer, straight draft (worst to first, no lottery). It's not truly comparable to a 15 player roster.

 

[shopson67]

No towns fans spends as much money as NE fans, whether its Bruins/Pats/Sox or Celtics.

They're at a large disadvantage due to size of market vs LA and NYC however.

Let's figure out actual market sizes • r/nba

 

[PhoenixEagles1]

No towns fans spends as much money as NE fans, whether its Bruins/Pats/Sox or Celtics.

It has nothing to do with that. It's a size of city issue and Boston isn't a 1/4 the size of NY, LA or Chicago

 

[StanMarsh51]

It has nothing to do with that. It's a size of city issue and Boston isn't a 1/4 the size of NY, LA or Chicago

I don't think it's as big an issue as you think, because if you look at baseball by comparison where there is no cap, Boston has a top 3 payroll despite but obviously is far from the largest market.

With basketball, the size of arenas are similar throughout the league (18-21K in capacity), so it's not like the big markets are having football sized attendances wheras the small markets are a fraction of that size. And the TV deals for many teams aren't all that significantly different.

 

[RobToxin]

Destroying the "Bigger Market Bigger Advantage" argument with just one word:

Clippers

Sorry @Mecca

 

[The Q]

Destroying the "Bigger Market Bigger Advantage" argument with just one word:

Clippers

Sorry @Mecca

You spelt "Nets" wrong.

 

[RobToxin]

You spelt "Nets" wrong.

And you spelled "Knicks" wrong.

 

[The Q]

And you spelled "Knicks" wrong.

I was torn between the Knicks or the Nets.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't think it's as big an issue as you think, because if you look at baseball by comparison where there is no cap, Boston has a top 3 payroll despite but obviously is far from the largest market.

With basketball, the size of arenas are similar throughout the league (18-21K in capacity), so it's not like the big markets are having football sized attendances wheras the small markets are a fraction of that size. And the TV deals for many teams aren't all that significantly different.

When it comes to spending on teams, salary caps, etc. It's about how much the owners are willing to spend relative to how much the fans are willing to spend and what they can do to offset some of the expense.

We are seeing "small market" teams like GSW, Cleveland, OKC, etc. having success and none of them seem to be having issues getting fans to come to the games.

All of these owners are billionaires, so none of them are hurting for money. Some owners and FO's are better at finding ways to generate extra income (the Lakers deal with Time-Warner for example) than others and some owners are more willing to spend than others.

The main advantage that a large market has over a smaller market is that it has a larger population to pull from. So, larger market teams can often attract fans, even when they aren't that good. One, because they have more fans in the area to pull from, and 2 because larger cities also have transplants who will go to the games when their hometown team is playing even if the team in the city they live in isn't that good.

However, the bulk of the difference comes down to the owners and what they are willing to spend. Go uncapped and let's see which owners want titles and which ones just want to say they own an NBA team.

 

[trojanfan12]

I was torn between the Knicks or the Nets.

The Knets?

 

[The Q]

When it comes to spending on teams, salary caps, etc. It's about how much the owners are willing to spend relative to how much the fans are willing to spend and what they can do to offset some of the expense.

We are seeing "small market" teams like GSW, Cleveland, OKC, etc. having success and none of them seem to be having issues getting fans to come to the games.

All of these owners are billionaires, so none of them are hurting for money. Some owners and FO's are better at finding ways to generate extra income (the Lakers deal with Time-Warner for example) than others and some owners are more willing to spend than others.

The main advantage that a large market has over a smaller market is that it has a larger population to pull from. So, larger market teams can often attract fans, even when they aren't that good. One, because they have more fans in the area to pull from, and 2 because larger cities also have transplants who will go to the games when their hometown team is playing even if the team in the city they live in isn't that good.

However, the bulk of the difference comes down to the owners and what they are willing to spend. Go uncapped and let's see which owners want titles and which ones just want to say they own an NBA team.

No one is selling because no one is actually losing money.

They use the cap to do nothing more than inflate their pockets.

 

[LogicMan]

However, the bulk of the difference comes down to the owners and what they are willing to spend. Go uncapped and let's see which owners want titles and which ones just want to say they own an NBA team.

This ^

 

[Mecca]

Destroying the "Bigger Market Bigger Advantage" argument with just one word:

Clippers

Sorry @Mecca

As long as the trend holds until another Team signs Rose, I'm with it...lol

 

[shopson67]

IAnd the TV deals for many teams aren't all that significantly different.

...until you look at deals like the Lakers'

 

[wazzu31]

When it comes to spending on teams, salary caps, etc. It's about how much the owners are willing to spend relative to how much the fans are willing to spend and what they can do to offset some of the expense.

We are seeing "small market" teams like GSW, Cleveland, OKC, etc. having success and none of them seem to be having issues getting fans to come to the games.

All of these owners are billionaires, so none of them are hurting for money. Some owners and FO's are better at finding ways to generate extra income (the Lakers deal with Time-Warner for example) than others and some owners are more willing to spend than others.

The main advantage that a large market has over a smaller market is that it has a larger population to pull from. So, larger market teams can often attract fans, even when they aren't that good. One, because they have more fans in the area to pull from, and 2 because larger cities also have transplants who will go to the games when their hometown team is playing even if the team in the city they live in isn't that good.

However, the bulk of the difference comes down to the owners and what they are willing to spend. Go uncapped and let's see which owners want titles and which ones just want to say they own an NBA team.

So go uncapped and have the Clippers and Blazers try to buy titles?

 

[trojanfan12]

So go uncapped and have the Clippers and Blazers try to buy titles?

Why not?

 

[wazzu31]

Why not?

Because I think it is silly to have an uncapped league where two owners could buy every team in the league and still have billions in a league that has like 5 difference makers. The Clips are team B in LA but if Ballmer and Allen can buy anyone they want it would be silly. In basketball you can buy a title unlike essentially every other sport.

 

[trojanfan12]

Because I think it is silly to have an uncapped league where two owners could buy every team in the league and still have billions in a league that has like 5 difference makers. The Clips are team B in LA but if Ballmer and Allen can buy anyone they want it would be silly. In basketball you can buy a title unlike essentially every other sport.

It's not nearly that easy. All of these owners are billionaires. They are also businessmen and want to make a profit. Also, not all owners are willing to spend the same. You also have to consider what other revenue streams teams can find. For example, the Buss family doesn't have the wealth of Ballmer or Allen, but they have a tv deal with Time-Warner that allows them to spend like Ballmer and Allen without dipping into their personal fortune.

Go uncapped and let the market bear what it will. As it stands now, we have star players who aren't making nearly what they are worth and role players making far more than what they are worth.

All that having a cap has done is cap what the best players can make while not capping the profits that an owner can make. Also, part of the idea of the way the cap has been structured has been to keep players on their original teams. That clearly hasn't worked.