+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 60 of 60
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    821
    It was the most watched finals but the salary cap went down. Why? Superteams.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    9
    Stats on TV/playoffs. They lost a lot of money:

    So, the NBA postseason was great for television, right? Think again.

    Due to dominant performances by the Cavaliers and the Warriors, the total number of games that could be played impacted the total viewership audience. Just two series (Jazz-Clippers in the first round of the West Conference playoffs and the Celtics-Wizards in the Eastern Conference Semis) went seven games. First-round play saw four six-game series (Spurs-Grizzlies, Wizards-Hawks, Raptors-Bucks, Celtics-Bulls), with Western Conference Semis between the Spurs and Rockets matching six games.

    Here are the series that went just five games:

    Rockets-Thunder (Western Conference First Round)
    Cavaliers-Bulls (Eastern Conference Finals)
    Warriors-Cavaliers (NBA Finals)
    Here are the four-game sweeps:

    Warriors-Blazers (Western Conference First Round)
    Cavaliers-Pacers (Eastern Conference First Round)
    Warriors-Jazz (Western Conference Semifinals)
    Cavaliers-Raptors (Eastern Conference Semifinals)
    Warriors-Spurs (Western Conference Finals)
    According to research from Guggenheim Securities, the Finals average audience was +400% greater than the average pre-Finals audience. In having the Finals go only five games compared to seven games in 2016, Guggenheim notes that Disney lost $90 million in advertisement revenue due to two fewer games.



    Overall, the NBA postseason total viewership was down due to fewer late-round games (four fewer Conference Finals, and two fewer Finals) as well as lower ratings for the Western Conference where the Warriors ran the table en route to going 12-0 before entering the Finals where they lost only Game 4.

    Walt Disney will frame this all as a glass half-full; ratings were up for the Finals compared to last year. Overall, TNT, which aired earlier round games, and Walt Disney’s ESPN and ABC would have wanted more compelling play.

    And all of this is just television. Club owners got fewer revenues due to the lower number of games. While any owner that has a team dominating would rather take a sweep or five game series wins, after all is said and done, revenues always weigh heavier when a series goes six or seven games.

    The 2017 NBA postseason may be a cautionary tale for Commissioner Silver, Walt Disney, which owns ESPN and ABC, as well as Turner Sports, who owns TNT. If next season sees a fourth year of a dominant Warriors and Cavaliers teams, boredom could lower interest further.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...or-finals/amp/

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Kizz Fastfists View Post
    They have been doing it since before I was born and the NBA hasn't done anything to stop it. The union won't go for a franchise tag just like they wouldn't go for the cap smoothing. All NBA franchises are currently turning a profit. As long as that is the case it doesn't matter that the Lakers are making more than the Thunder. Owners are not going to go into a long lockout for the sake of parity when everyone is making money.
    There have also been plenty that stayed. At least for their primes. Clyde Drexler, Stockton and Malone, Reggie Miller etc. The issue now isnt that its a new problem but that the problem is getting worse.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Knrstz View Post
    It was the most watched finals but the salary cap went down. Why? Superteams.
    Because the game has no new markets to expand to. The NBA has become as globalized as it can. The new TV contract pays a flat rate with no yearly increase. The NBA wasting money doing ignorant things like playing regular season games in Mexico reduces income because it increases expenses with no increase to revenue. Similar to how the NFL's cap was flat from 2009 through 2013 despite everyone making a LOT of money. A flat cap does not mean a lack of profit it indicates a lack of increased revenue due to market saturation. If they add another team the cap will go up because of a new revenue source, but the product doesn't improve because of it. Expansion would increase the cap while making the product worse.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Kizz Fastfists View Post
    Because the game has no new markets to expand to. The NBA has become as globalized as it can. The new TV contract pays a flat rate with no yearly increase. The NBA wasting money doing ignorant things like playing regular season games in Mexico reduces income because it increases expenses with no increase to revenue. Similar to how the NFL's cap was flat from 2009 through 2013 despite everyone making a LOT of money. A flat cap does not mean a lack of profit it indicates a lack of increased revenue due to market saturation. If they add another team the cap will go up because of a new revenue source, but the product doesn't improve because of it. Expansion would increase the cap while making the product worse.
    Fewer playoff games due to lack of parity also was a factor.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,572
    Quote Originally Posted by kleese View Post
    Kizz-- my issue with your arguments is that you make definitive statements on things that are anything but definitive.
    This is true. I believe we were being told with great certainty back in May that there was no way we were getting Jimmy Butler or Paul George.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Kizz Fastfists View Post
    They have been doing it since before I was born and the NBA hasn't done anything to stop it. The union won't go for a franchise tag just like they wouldn't go for the cap smoothing. All NBA franchises are currently turning a profit. As long as that is the case it doesn't matter that the Lakers are making more than the Thunder. Owners are not going to go into a long lockout for the sake of parity when everyone is making money.
    There's been a few dynasties that were built from good mgmt decisions over the years like the LAL, Celtics, MJ's Bull's and others but not super teams that have all stars that have teamed up out of nowhere to make a run for a title that is not the same thing. That was started by LBJ in Miami with Bosh and they made a huge deal and glamorized the "decision" and it has grown ever since then every single year after that. You could argue that Shaq going to LA was a similar move back in the day but he didn't have followers and he didn't coordinate it with anyone he just legitimately wanted to go to LAL and play in the big city and he didn't glamorize the choice he made. In fact it was pretty controversial at the time because he was in his prime and everyone was really surprised he did that.. Now that is just the normal way to do it for most all stars..

    If players had the same mentality they had in the past you'd have a trophy sitting in OKC by now with the talent that has been developed here but the players are a lot different now and in a way it's difficult for guys like Russ that truly do want to win a title because it's a can't beat em join em or miss out scenario...

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,978
    The NBA lost around $6M by having 5 games instead of 7. We'll assume GS should have played 6 more games that is a maximum of $20M lost. That isn't enough to move the cap any significant amount. It would have raised it around $300K. If you double that, because of Cleveland, you are talking $600K. That would have had LeBron playing a career high games in a postseason. Even if you argue other series somehow were also effected you are talking about a $1M difference to the cap or 1%!

    The lack of playoffs game had no real impact on the cap stagnation.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    821
    I read that a sweep could have lowered the cap around $1 million dollars. So the extra game helped. Where the super teams really hurt the league is the networks that paid big money for the rights to the games and left $30-40 million on the table per game in advertising. The effects of that may take longer to make an impact but if GS continues to mow over everyone, it will catch up eventually.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Kizz Fastfists View Post
    The NBA lost around $6M by having 5 games instead of 7. We'll assume GS should have played 6 more games that is a maximum of $20M lost. That isn't enough to move the cap any significant amount. It would have raised it around $300K. If you double that, because of Cleveland, you are talking $600K. That would have had LeBron playing a career high games in a postseason. Even if you argue other series somehow were also effected you are talking about a $1M difference to the cap or 1%!

    The lack of playoffs game had no real impact on the cap stagnation.
    I posted it above but here is just some of the losses:

    "In having the Finals go only five games compared to seven games in 2016, Guggenheim notes that Disney lost $90 million in advertisement revenue due to two fewer games."

    Thats the finals. They lost even more in leadup games.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,978
    Quote Originally Posted by ThunderVike View Post
    I posted it above but here is just some of the losses:

    "In having the Finals go only five games compared to seven games in 2016, Guggenheim notes that Disney lost $90 million in advertisement revenue due to two fewer games."

    Thats the finals. They lost even more in leadup games.
    Unless Disney is the NBA then what they "lost" is irrelevant. The NBA sold the rights to the playoffs and Finals for a set price. They do not get paid per game. The money the NBA lost was 25% of the gate of each game that didn't happen. Does anyone know how many games the average NBA playoffs has? That is how you would determine how much theoretical money the NBA lost. The average number of playoff games minus the number in 2017 multiplied by 25% of the average playoff game gate. Then about 50% of that number would be what the NBA lost with the other 50% going to the players (cap). You then take what the players "lost" divided it by the number of teams and that is the amount of cap space lost per team.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,978
    https://clutchpoints.com/nba-finals-...rs-sweep-cavs/

    According to that article a sweep would have led to the cap being $1M less than pre-playoff projections because it would have been the shortest postseason since the changes in 2003.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Kizz Fastfists View Post
    Unless Disney is the NBA then what they "lost" is irrelevant. The NBA sold the rights to the playoffs and Finals for a set price. They do not get paid per game. The money the NBA lost was 25% of the gate of each game that didn't happen. Does anyone know how many games the average NBA playoffs has? That is how you would determine how much theoretical money the NBA lost. The average number of playoff games minus the number in 2017 multiplied by 25% of the average playoff game gate. Then about 50% of that number would be what the NBA lost with the other 50% going to the players (cap). You then take what the players "lost" divided it by the number of teams and that is the amount of cap space lost per team.
    I guess I am looking at the longer term picture. If the ad revenue declines over time then the next contract will result in much reduced deals and thus player salaries. The superteam concept is basically stealing future revenue. The commish and NBA should have throttled the increase plus allowed for one franchise player.

    You are correct in the current losses but I am looking at the long term stability of the league. There have been super teams in the past but they were mostly built from within. This new concept started by LBJ has hurt the league. Thunder have been burned twice by CBAs meant to help small markets only to hurt them. The playoffs were boring this past year and if that happens again you start to hurt your base fans. Fans just want to know their team has a chance to compete and with the super team concept its really becoming a majority of teams are just feeder teams.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,978
    The problem with saying they should have smoothed the cap increases, which I agree with, was the NBAPA had to agree to that in order for it to happen. The union was not interested in cap smoothing and wanted the big spike. The next TV contract will not have the same spike that this one had. There has been some speculation that it will be lower than the current one, because this one was based on unrealistic viewership growth. Somehow all these idiots went brain dead and thought that a new contract would get people to watch more basketball. People who didn't watch were not suddenly going to start and they were not suddenly showing games in new markets. Yes, some of the early round games had lower than normal ratings, but that has happened before and could end up being a one year fluke.

    I think the forming of a few, 2-4, super teams could be exactly what the NBA needs to finally accept that they need contraction. You can't force parity in the NBA with 30 teams. There isn't enough talent to go around for that many teams. GS had been in back-to-back Finals and won 73 games without a "super team". Even in the NFL you have guys like Brady who take less money so they can play with more talent. It doesn't have the same effect in an 11 on 11 game as it does in a 5 on 5, but unless the NBA and the union are going to agree to a rule that a player must take the biggest contract offer they get you can't stop players from teaming up.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Kizz Fastfists View Post
    The problem with saying they should have smoothed the cap increases, which I agree with, was the NBAPA had to agree to that in order for it to happen. The union was not interested in cap smoothing and wanted the big spike. The next TV contract will not have the same spike that this one had. There has been some speculation that it will be lower than the current one, because this one was based on unrealistic viewership growth. Somehow all these idiots went brain dead and thought that a new contract would get people to watch more basketball. People who didn't watch were not suddenly going to start and they were not suddenly showing games in new markets. Yes, some of the early round games had lower than normal ratings, but that has happened before and could end up being a one year fluke.

    I think the forming of a few, 2-4, super teams could be exactly what the NBA needs to finally accept that they need contraction. You can't force parity in the NBA with 30 teams. There isn't enough talent to go around for that many teams. GS had been in back-to-back Finals and won 73 games without a "super team". Even in the NFL you have guys like Brady who take less money so they can play with more talent. It doesn't have the same effect in an 11 on 11 game as it does in a 5 on 5, but unless the NBA and the union are going to agree to a rule that a player must take the biggest contract offer they get you can't stop players from teaming up.
    I agree with that. The difference is that Andrew luck isn't frustrated in Indianapolis and wants to go play for Rams. That's the issue the NBA has to fix. You don't have to have sell parity but you have to sell hope.

    I would also say golden state was a super team before Durant, but one that was built the right way.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts