Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your opinion of the NBA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Your opinion of the NBA

    Has your opinion of the NBA changed since the lockout started? Please answer the poll above. Eventually we'll probably merge this thread with the lockout thread.

    Just in case you didn't realize, you can't cast your vote for multiple answers.
    59
    opinion of the owners has become more negative
    16.95%
    10
    opinion of the owners has become more positive
    5.08%
    3
    opinion of the players has become more negative
    40.68%
    24
    opinion of the players has become more positive
    3.39%
    2
    opinion of the owners and players is unchanged. I just want basketball again.
    33.90%
    20

    The poll is expired.


  • #2
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    Has your opinion of the NBA changed since the lockout started? Please answer the poll above. Eventually we'll probably merge this thread with the lockout thread.

    Just in case you didn't realize, you can't cast your vote for multiple answers.
    damn it.. i was going for two answers.

    i voted negative on players... but i feel like i should qualify that... its grown negative on the already rich superstar players who feel the need to stick their noses in despite the fact that they're ignoramuses.

    the guys who just want to go to work and do their jobs, i have respect for.. but nobody would notice their voices drowned out by KG's nonsensical barking

    Comment


    • #3
      My opinion has not changed. They are both wealthy douchebags acting like wealthy douchebags, which was expected. Just like we can expect it the next time.

      But, someone actually has a more positive view out of this? I guess Hitler still has supporters so what do I know.....

      Comment


      • #4
        GarbageTime wrote: View Post
        They are both wealthy douchebags acting like wealthy douchebags, which was expected. Just like we can expect it the next time.
        i agree with this completely... BUT it has also concreted my opinion that NBA teams are businesses, and its bad practice for a business to allow their employees any say in how they allocate their revenue. especially when those employees actually have NO financial risk associated with the success of their employers.

        so in the battle of giant douche vs turd sandwich... i pick the owners

        Comment


        • #5
          heinz57 wrote: View Post
          i agree with this completely... BUT it has also concreted my opinion that NBA teams are businesses, and its bad practice for a business to allow their employees any say in how they allocate their revenue. especially when those employees actually have NO financial risk associated with the success of their employers.

          so in the battle of giant douche vs turd sandwich... i pick the owners
          thats not completely true. they have less direct financial risk, but if any company goes bankrupt or has to lay off jobs the employees do assume a financial risk of their own. But I do know what you are getting at.... owners risk their capital. At the same time the employees risk their labour, which does have a value to. The owners also have the potential for the biggest and most long term rewards from that investment of capital.

          And while the NBA is a business, it is not always the same for all teams. I'll (again) mention Mark Cuban who openly admitted to being willing to (and was intentionally) lose money every year in order to win a championship. He also used the name he created for himself through his ownership (and his ridiculous actions) to make millions on deals outside of basketball. He used the Mavericks to build the 'Mark Cuban' brand (so to speak). I don't for a second believe all or even the majority of owners are like this, but I'm real curious as to how many of those 'losing money' have been using this route. (From what I understand, and don't quote me on this as I may be off base, the Orlando ownership group was doing something similar. ie willing to take big risks and a loss on their investment to win)

          Comment


          • #6
            My opinion of the players has become more negative as they have shown they truly do not have a clue.

            Comment


            • #7
              My idea of a prof. league is that each team has equal access to any talent available. period. The success or failure then of each team falls solely on the mangement of the personnel and the choices made. Everything else is secondary. This notion that players can move freely without some system of talent compensation to the losing team is ludicrous to the fans of that team and ultimately a lead to growing imbalance and failure of the franchise. Revenue sharing of course needs to be part of the solution as well.

              While I was neither a player nor owner (just play) proponent, I now feel the players are not in favour of changing the system...and I am not referring to the money. imo the NHL has the best system allowing for player allocation/talent across teams. Witness the possibilities of a Stanley Cup winner rather than the consistent 4-5 teams in the NBA.

              Comment


              • #8
                heinz57 wrote: View Post
                damn it.. i was going for two answers.

                i voted negative on players... but i feel like i should qualify that... its grown negative on the already rich superstar players who feel the need to stick their noses in despite the fact that they're ignoramuses.

                the guys who just want to go to work and do their jobs, i have respect for.. but nobody would notice their voices drowned out by KG's nonsensical barking
                I agree with this. why are the superstars representing at these meetings? they're always going to make big money. it's th elittle guys that are losing in this lock out, they should be at the meetings

                Comment


                • #9
                  albertan_10 wrote: View Post
                  I agree with this. why are the superstars representing at these meetings? they're always going to make big money. it's th elittle guys that are losing in this lock out, they should be at the meetings
                  i think this is why...

                  Bendit wrote: View Post
                  While I was neither a player nor owner (just play) proponent, I now feel the players are not in favour of changing the system...and I am not referring to the money. imo the NHL has the best system allowing for player allocation/talent across teams. Witness the possibilities of a Stanley Cup winner rather than the consistent 4-5 teams in the NBA.
                  they're fighting for their right to stack their teams.... because none of them are real winners

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I completely agree albertan (and not because I'm from Alberta either). I think what's lost in all of this is the fact that there are everyday Joe's and "Jill's" that actually work to keep the games as well as the league running as smooth as possible. They are the people who don't make the minimum six figure paychecks every 2 weeks that are losing the battle as much as the fans. Hopefully, they'll be well compensated for this.

                    I wonder though, if those same people work the same venues but for the other major sports franchises (if they have another one).
                    #Raptor4Life, #Prepping4thePlayoffs

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      heinz57 wrote: View Post
                      i think this is why...



                      they're fighting for their right to stack their teams.... because none of them are real winners
                      And that right there sums it up.

                      I wrote a post on this around page 41/42 of the lockout section.

                      20 years ago, you would never have had top stars in their prime looking to team up together.

                      Today is a different mentality - and it is not only in the NBA, unfortunately (see: baby boomer generation that has raped future generations to come, corporate greed, the 25 year old who thinks he should be immediately promoted to VP, the university kid who's mom is calling the prof and landlord to tell them why the rent and paper are late, the 100 weeks of unemployment insurance currently available in the US, etc. etc.).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I voted twice...
                        Eh follow my TWITTER!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                          thats not completely true. they have less direct financial risk, but if any company goes bankrupt or has to lay off jobs the employees do assume a financial risk of their own. But I do know what you are getting at.... owners risk their capital. At the same time the employees risk their labour, which does have a value to. The owners also have the potential for the biggest and most long term rewards from that investment of capital.

                          And while the NBA is a business, it is not always the same for all teams. I'll (again) mention Mark Cuban who openly admitted to being willing to (and was intentionally) lose money every year in order to win a championship. He also used the name he created for himself through his ownership (and his ridiculous actions) to make millions on deals outside of basketball. He used the Mavericks to build the 'Mark Cuban' brand (so to speak). I don't for a second believe all or even the majority of owners are like this, but I'm real curious as to how many of those 'losing money' have been using this route. (From what I understand, and don't quote me on this as I may be off base, the Orlando ownership group was doing something similar. ie willing to take big risks and a loss on their investment to win)
                          Im not sure if i understood it correctly but i think what Heinz is trying to say is players make boatloads of money, but when the going gets tough, its always the owners who are at a greater risk than the player.

                          Like i always say, i really dont know the technicalities of the CBA, revenue sharing, etc,etc. but im on the owners side here because i feel theyre the ones who get left out in the cold, in a basketball perspective (not considering outside factors like endorsements etc). Case and point, when Lebron left Cleveland, Dan Gilbert was left scrambling. But Lebron, well, he took his money and moved on to better things. But the owner had to deal with declining attendance, less sponsors and all of that because Lebron left. He did make money for the Cavs no doubt about that, but IMO, thats part of his job description. Him playing basketball directly relates to the team making money, he doesnt need to go above and beyond his duties.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            tbihis wrote: View Post
                            Im not sure if i understood it correctly but i think what Heinz is trying to say is players make boatloads of money, but when the going gets tough, its always the owners who are at a greater risk than the player.
                            sorta... what i was trying to say is when the going gets tough the owners are are the only ones at financial risk. the players still get paid... they're employees, not shareholders.. the players only risk is the same as all of ours at our jobs.. and im pretty sure none of us have any say in how much revenue our bosses allocate to employee salaries, and why should we?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              heinz57 wrote: View Post
                              sorta... what i was trying to say is when the going gets tough the owners are are the only ones at financial risk. the players still get paid... they're employees, not shareholders.. the players only risk is the same as all of ours at our jobs.. and im pretty sure none of us have any say in how much revenue our bosses allocate to employee salaries, and why should we?
                              exactly. thats what the salary is for. we work, and get paid for it. we cant really argue for a piece of the pie. we can, but we'll get fired. and i think in the NBA, just because people cheer for players, they think they're entitled to it. that theyre the ones running the company. theyre employees and employers are the ones who pay them, not people who buy your employer's products. some companies do give incentives like stocks and bonuses, but to ask your boss for a 50/50 split is just ridiculous. if they want a share of the profits then they should create their own teams and manage it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X