Teams are required to have a payroll equal to or greater than 75% of the salary cap. The teams that operate in that 25% range (75%-100% of the cap) receive kickback money from the tax teams. Teams that operate below the 75% line pay a penalty, which is given to the players.

Revenue sharing is a good idea, but it isn’t all that different than the tax going to teams under the tax. There will still be guys like Sterling that want to run his team strictly like a business, with no element of success really mattering.

You can’t get rid of those teams! Especially the Bucks and Hornets. If you are going to contract the league, it might be a better idea to start with the Jazz…

as far as motivation goes, it would certainly NOT be worse than it is now. There are no guarantees that this gives incentive to all the money-losing teams to try and compete more, but it certainly should provide motivation to at least some (most?) of them. Extra money can’t hurt right? I’ve always gotten the impression that outside a few stingy owners, most of the smaller market/money losing teams really DO want to spend money to compete, but they just can’t afford it – we are blessed to have a billionaire owner who has been willing to lose tens of millions over the years. Most other smaller market teams aren’t nearly that lucky – their owners simply don’t have the cash reserves to do that. Given the capital, it sounds like they would want to try.

I heard someone mention the idea of the NFL’s franchise player tag to try and do something to compensate teams whose superstar bolts on them. This or something like it would also help level the playing field for non-prime cities. Personally, I would like to see the whole sign-and-trade provision go bye. If that superstar wants to walk to brighter pastures, by all means he can, but he needs to know that he has NO option of a sign and trade.