"The Flaws in the NBA's Pursuit of the NHL Model"

In this article by Jonathan Tjarks at RealGM.com, here's the money quote:

"TV revenues are the life-blood of professional sports, and they have been exploding rapidly in the last few years. Parity prevents teams from gaining traction with the casual fan, and casual fans are what drive TV ratings. Measures that prevent Alexander Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby from facing off in the playoffs, just like measures that would have prevented Larry Bird and Magic Johnson from playing in the 1980’s, have damaged the NHL’s popularity, and therefore, its profitability."

8 months ago AK1984 10 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

On the other hand

you eventually have to decide what the balance point is. If maximum TV revenues are your goal, then you want only large market teams in the play-offs, particularly the last 3 rounds. And if the goal is ensuring that the Bird’s and Magic’s face off against each other every year, then the simplist method is to eliminate 18 of the 30 teams. In my view, the issue on parity has increasingly become the issue of dilution of talent. Perhaps the real question is not parity, it’s simply why bother to have the other 18 teams? After all, what is their purpose if maximum TV revenues are the goal? By definition, you don’t want them to have the stars, and you don’t want them in the last 3 rounds of the playoffs. To me, this has become a non-issue. The NBA for whatever reasons has chosen to have 30 teams. And, you cannot expect the fans of those 18 teams to continue to support them if you don’t have parity. And this, by definition, means that you will not have Bird and Magic facing off in the playoffs each year, whatever the TV ratings are. At some point, someone decided that it was more valuable over all to TV ratings and the league to have those additional 18 franchises, than to have 12. The reality seems to be that to discuss this type of issue, one needs to evaluate league TV revenues based on having 30 teams, as well as having only 12. If the writer had provided this comparison, then he’d have gotten to the core of the issue. As it is, he was lazy. Would, after all, league TV revenues be more with 30 teams, or with 12? Only then can you discuss relative profitability.

by ebenc on Sep 17, 2011 6:16 AM PDT reply actions

The NBA makes it's money in the playoffs

Which last so long you could consider it a 16 team league. I dont think a drastic contraction would do the trick. What would your playoffs look like in that world? Would the regular season just be for seeding – all the teams make the playoffs? Do you have a 10 team playoff that lasts half as long as the current scheme? What does that do to revenue? If you are asking me the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Contract 6 teams: Raptors, Wolves, Hornets, Hawks, Kings and Bucks.

by Oden Mad, Oden Smash! on Sep 17, 2011 12:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Even if contraction was an option, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Toronto are financially sound franchises.

Meanwhile, Sacramento and New Orleans are the only two that make sense for immediate contraction.

After that, cities including Indiana, Milwaukee, Memphis, and maybe Charlotte might have a rocky future in five or so years. Not now, though.

Oh, and even if contraction occurred where the NBA was whittled down to 24 teams, a 16-team playoff would continue to be the setup for monetary reasons. There’s nothing wrong with 2/3rds of a 24-team league making the playoffs after an 82-game season, either, as that’s what happened in the mid-’80s.

Game 2 of the 1986 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals between the #1 seed Boston Celtics (67-15) and the #8 seed Chicago Bulls (30-52): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO_HKcCMYig

Yet, even though I think it’d help the NBA with competitive balance to weed out six teams, scaling back to a 24-team league isn’t in the cards. Despite being a cool idea to contemplate, I know it’s unrealistic and a non-starter. Too bad, so sad.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 17, 2011 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions

I'd also hate to cut the 1000s of jobs involved with support staff and broadcasting teams

No one in the world can beat me at RBI baseball 3(nes).

by svlittle on Sep 18, 2011 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions

we need to add at least 8 more teams, preferably all from Canada or Mexico

and we should whittle it down to a 4-team playoffs [or a 2-team playoff if you’d prefer]

"I was a victim of a series of accidents, as are we all."

by thankyouforblaze on Sep 18, 2011 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions

You can't legislate true parity

Since the NBA first introduced a Salary Cap,which of 4 major sports has had most Champions-MLB,which is only one w/no cap. NASCAR has tried to make it’s cars as uniform as possible,only to see one Driver and his team win it’s last 6 Championships.

More to the point,are the Lakers and the Clippers. Both have extremely rich ownership,they play in the same building,they have the same TV market yet have vastly different TV deals and ticket revenues. Once the Lakers become the Clippers for a few yrs,watch how the ticket revenues collapse as well as the TV deal.

Lost in the revenue sharing/making a profit argument,which I tend to support,is what incentive is there for teams to do well? If you’re going to make money no matter what,why bother putting the best possible team you can on the court? It’s not like you’ll keep any extra income from ticket sales of from a better TV deal. Worse,you could end up losing some revenue sharing money,because you ’re contributing more to NBA pot.
MLB has greatly increased the amount it gives small income teams and the result has been those owners largely pocketing the money and not spending it on their teams.

The NBA is unlike other sports in that one dominant player can instantly change the status of a team. You can have the best QB,RB,WR in football and if your offensive line sucks,too bad.
You can have the greatest pitcher alive,but what happens in the other 3-4 games he’s not pitching,if no one gets on base for your all-time hitter,ho long before teams just walk him.
OTOH put LeBron,Wade,Howard on a team w/a bunch of mediocre players and you’re in Play-Offs w/a shot at a title.

Either the top players have to constantly switch teams(which is so bad that everyone reacted w/horror when it happened and the new CBA is supposed to make harder) or you have to believe that elite players grow on trees and every team will get one-or two.
There are thirty NBA teams. If you want every team to win a title equally,that’s one title every 30 yrs. When a major markets get a title once a generation,see how fast your revenues dry up.I’d rather not have 30 teams making $8mil in TV money,instead of a half-dozen or so raking in big bucks that can be spread around some.

And the casual fans are just that,casual fans.They get involved because there’s something buzz-worthy to follow,a huge star,a great team. No great teams because of parity,no casual fans. Great players w/no shot at playing in Play-Offs,no casual fans.

by Tisbee on Sep 17, 2011 8:30 AM PDT reply actions

No, you cannot legislate true parity

However, you can create a reasonably level playing field, and then let the competition take care of itself. Owners that want to make more money will, those that want to make less will do the same. And there will always be both. Some teams will draft well – some won’t. And some will coach well, and the rest won’t. the issue isn’t partiy, merely creating a level playing field. If that happens, you will have some owners willing to spend what they can to win, and that will very likely increase the number of competitive teams by some number over the current system.

As far as great teams and great players, casual fans don’t differentiate in the same way that avid fans do. They do know when they’ve got a winner, and most support winners more than losers. Whether that requires one great player, or a couple, is likely the question.

by ebenc on Sep 17, 2011 11:09 AM PDT reply actions

Parity?

Past 6 NBA Seasons:
5 different teams won title
7 different teams made Finals
14 different teams made Conference Finals
Not one Conference Final team from 2010 made Conference Finals this yr

by Tisbee on Sep 17, 2011 5:36 PM PDT reply actions

in reality, many of the continually mediocre-to-bad teams are badly managed.

maybe if all 30 teams had smart GMs and owners who were willing to pay a bit more money, than there would be more parity.

by YoniRap on Sep 19, 2011 2:54 PM PDT reply actions

The NHL's financial problem is not that they have a hard cap

that is hurting its popularity. As I understand it, the real problem is that revenues are actually increasing too much for many of the small market teams, who cannot keep up with the increase in the minimum amount they must spend each year under the hard cap rules.

There is revenue sharing, but it is conditional. So since the large market teams are the ones growing the most financially, many of the small market teams cannot meet the financial benchmarks necessary to receive the shared funds and are not getting the money they need to be able to meet salary obligations.

It’s not an issue, IMO, of the hard cap not working. It’s an issue of the need for better revenue sharing in order to complement the hard cap.

by Storyteller on Sep 21, 2011 9:15 AM PDT reply actions