First of all, I have to ask… how is your bracket looking? That bad, huh? Well don’t feel too bad about it because the NCAA men’s basketball tournament is turning into an exercise in roulette. On paper, I can tell you what should have happened in each of the four play-in games, each of the 32 second round games, and each of the 16 third round games but as they say so many times that I’m sick of hearing it, games are not played on paper.
Similarly to last year, I attempted to look at the field of 68 from a statistical perspective and determine who should be the best team in the country and just like last year, I was able to predict some very interesting upsets and I also fell drastically short on others.
Before I go any further, for the sake of this post, the word “upset” will be used to describe a game in which a lower seed beats a higher seed… that’s all. Secondly, even though I referred to them correctly in the first paragraph, I will break with the new convention set this year. There were four play-in games, 32 games in the first round, and 16 games in the second round. I do not consider it a round when 8 teams are playing and 60 teams are sitting at home. I will arbitrarily say that half the teams in the field should be playing to qualify as the first round. Maybe if the number increases to 16 or 32 teams then I can call it the preliminary round or maybe the wildcard round but the first round is still when the majority of teams are playing for the first time.
Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, why do I call this tournament a complete gamble? Entirely due to one thing that professional leagues strive for and college leagues have – parity. The interesting part is that with regards to the NCAA tournament, parity does not mean that any team can break through and win a national championship. It simply means that any team can play for forty solid minutes with any other team in the field. When I looked at this field, I see 6-8 legitimate title contenders (Kansas, Ohio State, Duke, Pittsburgh, Florida, North Carolina, and Connecticut). I also see 6-8 teams that have little to no business being in this tournament but they won their conference tournaments so they get in automatically as a 15 or 16 seed and I’m fine with that. What we’re left with is anywhere from 52 to 56 teams that are on relatively similar ground and this theory is proven out by the fact that there are relatively few blowouts (outside of the group of title contenders I mentioned earlier) and there are 3 teams with seeds higher than 10 in the sweet 16.
There are such things as flukes but was Butler a fluke? Several of the analysts said that Richmond was a very tough draw as a number 12 seed and while they did not play Louisville, they were easily the best team on the floor against Morehead State (#13) and Vanderbilt (#5). Washington was a #7 seed and yet gave #2 North Carolina every bit that they could handle and nearly came away with a victory despite doing their best to lose the game.
My point in all of this is the seeds are blurring together. The difference between a #3 and a #12 might be nothing more than who they played during the season, the luck they had with injuries, the conference they played in, and individual match-ups they have. What makes this tournament so wonderful and so terribly difficult to predict is the fact that if Jimmer Fredette shoots the ball well and his teammates also shoot the ball well, BYU looks like a national title contender. Against Gonzaga, they were 14-28 from 3-point range and shot 52.5% overall en route to scoring 89 points and routing the Bulldogs. In their last game before the NCAA tourney on March 12, they were 19-59 from the floor (32.2%) and 6-24 from 3 point range (25%) and they were destroyed by San Diego State.
Much was made during the selection show and the three days leading up to the start of the first round about how many losses there were for these teams and many people took that to be an indictment of the overall quality of the field, saying that it was very low. However, I take a differing view. Simply put, parity rules. On March 15th, the final AP poll was released and in the top 25, five teams had 10 or more losses and another two had 9 losses. Four of those seven teams were from one conference that is widely considered the deepest and best basketball conference in the country, the Big East.
Is #9 Connecticut (26-9) a better team than #10 BYU (30-4)? According to record, no they aren’t. However, when you take into account that of Connecticut’s 9 losses, six came to teams ranked at the time, two came to teams ranked in the final AP poll, and the last (Marquette) received votes in the final AP Poll, it sounds like they were all quality losses. Would a stronger team have won some of those games? Of course, but when one team plays just three games against ranked opponents and the other plays 15 game against ranked opponents, 26-9 starts to look a lot better than 30-4.
On top of all of this, when filling out a bracket you have no idea who is going to show up. Louisville was 7 minutes into their game against Morehead State when they scored their first point. I was sure that the dry spell would end after three or so minutes when Louisville was fouled while shooting and had two free throws (which were both missed). On the flipside of the Louisville/Pittsburgh coin, Ohio State came in as a bit of a wildcard for me considering they have had some underachieving tournament teams in the past. Right now, they are playing like the number one overall seed and after spotting George Mason an 11-2 lead, they ran them out of the state of Ohio, cruising to a final score of 98-66.
SWEET 16 PREDICTIONS
Out of the final 16 teams, I correctly predicted 7 of them (Kansas from the Southwest, Ohio State and Kentucky from the East, Duke and San Diego State from the West, and BYU and Florida from the Southeast). Given that wonderful record and that I’ve correctly predicted just 31 of 48 games correctly, take this all with a grain of salt (or a salt mine worth of salt).
EAST
North Carolina likes to give up points (170 in two tournament games thus far) but they are good enough offensively. They will get past Marquette.
Kentucky is good. Ohio State could be the only great team in this field and they are clicking on all 10 (12, I don’t know, 16?) cylinders.
Regional Final – Ohio State over North Carolina
WEST
Duke struggled mightily against Michigan and Arizona has played well enough to put together last minute victories against Memphis and Texas.
Connecticut is somehow continuing their streak from the Big East tournament but they face a very solid San Diego State squad.
Regional Final – sticking to my guns, San Diego State will advance to Houston by beating Duke.
SOUTHWEST
Kansas isn’t playing like the Buckeyes but they are playing well and winning solidly.
The other three teams in the region are seeded 10th, 11th, and 12th.
Regional Final – Kansas over the three dwarves, becoming just the second team ever to advance to the Final Four by never having to play a team seeded higher than 9.
SOUTHEAST
Butler is scrapping by and they are an exceedingly dangerous team due to their veteran presence. Despite Wisconsin’s success thus far this is a team that scored 33 points in losing to Penn State in the Big Ten tournament. That performance would fly in 1950 but not 2011.
Is Florida going to be able to stop the Jimmer Show? The answer is it doesn’t matter. They have to stop the other eleven guys on the roster. Against Gonzaga, BYU players not named Fredette were 20-36 from the floor and 7-16 from 3 point range for 55 points. Against San Diego State, those numbers were 9-34, 4-17, and 24 points.
Regional Final – Butler makes a return trip to the Final Four by beating whoever survives the seven overtime slugfest between Florida and BYU.
FINAL FOUR
Butler continues their magic by beating Kansas (and thus ruining any chance my bracket had at respectability) and Ohio State steamrolls San Diego State who is just overjoyed to be in the Final Four.
On Monday, Ohio State takes a 20 point lead into halftime. Once everyone changes the channel to see how well Rob Lowe will do as Charlie Sheen’s replacement on “Two and a Half Men”, Butler starts chipping away, tying the game with ten seconds left. True to this tournament’s form, Butler is called for a reach-in foul 60 feet from the hoop and the fouled Buckeye steps to the line and calmly sinks two free throws with four seconds remaining.
Then Matt Howard does what Gordon Hayward couldn’t do last year; hit a halfcourt runner at the buzzer to win the game 73-72.
Wow, I got my heart pumping just thinking about that. Enjoy the basketball people, this is the best ball that you’re likely to ever see.
(having said all that, it’d be nice but far more likely is Ohio State and Kansas playing a three overtime epic and the Buckeyes prevailing to take the trophy)
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The Rime of the Ancient Sports Leagues
Money money everywhere and all the leagues did shrink
Money money everywhere and not a drop to drink
Ah, few things take me back quite like the poem based on Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”… anyway, enough nostalgia. At some point, the NFL Players Association and the NFL owners will sign a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. It might be sooner and it might be later (my better half is hoping for later… she tolerates me watching American Football of any kind). Between “The Decision” of LeBron James and “The Manipulation” of Carmelo Anthony, the hard line taken by the NFL owners, and the sounding of Hank Steinbrenner, I think that there is a larger issue that is troubling all of the major professional leagues in North America. In the interest of full disclosure, I did feel the need to say North America instead of the United States because of the 8 teams (out of 122) that reside north of the border.
So what is the larger issue? That millionaires and billionaires can’t agree over who gets the money? I hate to be so blunt about it but if you are under the impression that this problem is a new one to the economic model of this country, you’ve obviously been living under a rock for the past few decades. What is the solution? Nationalize the whole industry? While that might be the answer for some problems, it is not the answer for this one (although it would probably help reduce the deficit significantly).
What I’d like to do is examine each sport and see where they stand with regards to the specific issues which are plaguing them publicly. I don’t delve into the inner workings of professional sporting leagues and it’s entirely possible that the biggest problem facing each league isn’t the one I mention. However, these are the issues that are getting the most play in the press and it’s there that I will focus this post.
Before we get into it, I have to apologize to all of you hockey fans out there. I don’t understand hockey and the only time in my life that I’ve ever watched a hockey game from start to finish was the 2010 gold medal game. Having said that, I don’t know what is plaguing the league other than the fact that it’s getting closer and closer to being replaced as a member of the “Big 4” club by NASCAR. I don’t follow hockey and I still say that would be a sad day.
NBA
Last summer we were bombarded by “The Decision”. Starting last year and going almost all the way up to the trade deadline this year we were treated to “The Manipulation”. The big picture issue is whether or not superstars should team up and form these trios in an attempt to win with three stars and ten role players. Many say that it started with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett being traded to the Celtics to team up with Paul Pierce and has continued today with the Miami Heat and the New York Knicks (and you could probably throw the Lakers in there… especially if the rumors are true and Dwight Howard ends up there soon). The question is, is this good for the league?
I’ve heard and read about many former players that are condemning these actions, saying that they would rather beat the best than play with the best and I completely understand this mentality. However, how many titles did LeBron James win in Cleveland as the lone superstar? How about Dwayne Wade in Miami? How about Kobe Bryant in LA?
In this day and age, the titles follow the superstars and while that last example may not quite hold water (Kobe) that would depend entirely on your definition of superstar. While I personally would not put Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom into that category, I also don’t think they’re that far off.
Going back further, how many titles did David Robinson win as the dominant inside force he was before Tim Duncan came along? How many did Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett combine for before they teamed up?
As I’m sure you can guess the answer to all those questions is zero. One player can’t take a team all the way in the NBA today and I would argue that the same has been true throughout the history of the NBA. In 1997, a panel consisting of members of the media, former players and coaches, and former and current front office members selected the greatest 50 players from the first fifty years of NBA history. By the logic exhibited by several former players, you would never want to team up with those guys; you would want to beat those guys. Of those 50, only 4 never played with another member of the exclusive club.
George Mikan
Bob Petit
Isaiah Thomas
Patrick Ewing
Another noteworthy factoid from that list; only once has a team has had five players that ended up being named one of the NBA’s 50 greatest players ever playing on the same team. They were:
1973-74 New York Knicks
Willis Reed
Walt Frazier
Dave DeBusschere
Jerry Lucas
Earl Monroe
Considering that Mikan and Petit played in an era where there were so few good players, much less stars, I think we can safely exclude their combined 6 championships from this discussion. Thomas and Ewing combined to play 30 seasons in the NBA and won two titles (both by Thomas). At that time the Lakers and Celtics dynasties of the ‘80’s were winding down and the Bulls weren’t quite ready for the spotlight yet, leaving a perfect void for a very good and tough team led by one great player.
I fully understand that very few of the players on that list manipulated their way from one team to another or staged an hour long primetime special to say nine words but the fact remains that championship teams have always formed around the combination of great players with role players filling in the gaps.
So what is the harm with great young players wanting to team up in an attempt to win a championship? If they don’t care about winning and only want to set records and make money, they can easily go to a team like Cleveland or the Clippers, make $20 million a season and get the lion’s share of the ball. Instead, you have three young superstars in James, Wade, and Bosh who are all willing to take a slightly diminished role in order to play with one another. That, in this day and age of prima donnas, isn’t such a bad trait.
The problem I have is not that they wanted to team up, it’s how they did it; through the media. Carmelo Anthony very publicly wanted out and that drastically reduced Denver’s leverage in the trade negotiations as teams knew they were desperate to get something back for him. On the other hand, LeBron James wrangled a three ring circus and then left the Cavaliers with nothing.
Now you have the formation of an aristocratic class of teams in the NBA, the Heat, Celtics, Knicks, Lakers, and Spurs with the Bulls and Mavericks close behind, while the rest of the league is left high and dry.
Is there a solution? Yes.
Will the owners like it? No.
Why? The almighty dollar.
THE NFL
Whenever it comes to labor renegotiations in professional sports, you have to maintain some semblance of perspective. According to figures researched by Plunkett Research, LTD (a firm that looks into industry trends, statistics, and analysis of top companies) the NFL produced $7.8 billion in total revenue last year. The numbers vary slightly from year to year but the exact numbers aren’t really necessary; ballpark figures will suffice. Under the current collective bargaining agreement (hereafter abbreviated CBA) the owners take $1 billion off the top of that number to distribute amongst themselves. After that, it goes into a pool that is shared by the owners and players. Under the current agreement (if my memory serves me this today) the players cut of that is 60%. If we assume that revenue figure is accurate, that comes out to $4.08 billion that goes to the players, both past and present.
However, the owners are shrewd businessmen and like more zeroes in their bank accounts. They want to take another billion off the top before the revenue sharing kicks in. With these figures, the owners’ share of the pie would go from $3.72 billion to $4.32 billion. If we were to simply spread the remainder of the pie amongst the roughly 1,600 NFL players and we were to ignore things like pension plans, then the average salary in the NFL would drop 14.7% from $2.55 million to $2.18 million.
Again, we have a situation where millionaires are arguing with billionaires over a very large, lucrative pie. I’ll admit that there are certain issues that the owners have (such as a rookie salary wage) that make a lot of sense. However, trimming another 13% of their leagues revenues out for themselves is nothing short of ridiculous. The problem is it’s entirely possible that they’ll get it.
MLB
Is the league’s business model straying towards socialism? Perhaps, a little but I don’t have any problem with that. What I do have a problem with is teams like the Yankees and Red Sox paying vast amounts of money that eventually ends up in the hands of teams that simply deposit it in their bank accounts. The entire point of the revenue sharing agreement was for teams who didn’t play in a market that could justify a $100 million payroll (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa Bay) to have a $100 million payroll and compete directly with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox.
First of all, I’m not suggesting that every team should be spending $100 million on its 25 man roster. However, it’s difficult to call the Yankees and Red Sox the problem when the Pirates have spent less money in the last five years (while posting a 321-488 record) than the Yankees did to go 95-67 this past year.
What is the solution? A salary cap? The problem with a cap of any kind is the players don’t want anything to do with it and the player’s union is the strongest of any of the Big 4 sports (in my opinion). What’s another solution?
What are the solutions to these problems?
ARE THERE SOLUTIONS?
All of them center on the almighty dollar. Everyone wants more money and they want to sacrifice less and less to the guys on the other side of the bargaining table. On top of that, none of the parties that are actually doing the bargaining (the player’s rep and the commissioner) want to appear weak by giving too much or else they’ll be out of a job very quickly and you must remember that these are not minimum wage jobs.
All of these problems are easy to solve one of two ways (though really it just ends up as one big problem) as long as you don’t include the players in the decision making process… or the owners for that matter.
In the NBA, eliminate the salary structure that is now in place. How much help will that provide with regards to keeping players in smaller markets? Quite a bit. The difference right now between a max contract in Miami and a max contract in Cleveland is one additional year. The Average Annual Salary (AAS from now on) remains roughly the same. Now imagine that the Cavaliers were able to offer a contract worth an additional $10 million per season… or $20 million. Would that be enough to offset the desire to go to more tourist friendly cities? Absolutely, but here comes the problem… payrolls explode and now, the Cavaliers can’t afford that kind of payroll and neither can the Clippers or the Kings or the Nets. Finally, after much consternation and realizing that all the great players end up in big markets anyway, the NBA eliminates four teams.
In the NFL, the player’s union records some landmark deals in order to secure more of the revenue pie for active players but also much more for retired players and the NFL owners are exposed as the 19th century businessmen that many of them are, putting profits ahead of the well-being of the workers. Salaries continue to escalate to the point that some teams can keep the high priced players and some can’t. In a stunning move by what has been for years the most popular sport in America, Commissioner Roger Goodell announces that he will be contracting four teams.
In Major League Baseball, Hank Steinbrenner wins his argument and in an amazing turn of events, the owners are no longer forced to pay a luxury tax on their high payrolls or share revenues with the less fortunate teams. After a Cinderella run to the ALCS, the Kansas City Royals (who have a nice trim $15 million payroll) lose to the monstrosity that is the Yankees (with their $400 million payroll) and the Yankees go on to win yet another World Series. Admitting that eliminating the luxury tax was a terrible idea, the commissioner of baseball decides to contract four teams in an attempt to level the playing field.
There is one other solution other than contraction and that would be moving the teams to markets that will actually support a professional franchise. However, in this day and age of being able to choose any one of dozens of leisure activities, how many franchises can these major markets support? New York currently has seven teams and they all seem to prosper. Los Angeles has five with a glaring lack of an NFL team and again, they all seem to be well supported. Can other cities support that many teams?
Like I said, the solutions are all tied together but the roots of them all lead back to the same place.
The almighty dollar.
Money money everywhere and not a drop to drink
Ah, few things take me back quite like the poem based on Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”… anyway, enough nostalgia. At some point, the NFL Players Association and the NFL owners will sign a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. It might be sooner and it might be later (my better half is hoping for later… she tolerates me watching American Football of any kind). Between “The Decision” of LeBron James and “The Manipulation” of Carmelo Anthony, the hard line taken by the NFL owners, and the sounding of Hank Steinbrenner, I think that there is a larger issue that is troubling all of the major professional leagues in North America. In the interest of full disclosure, I did feel the need to say North America instead of the United States because of the 8 teams (out of 122) that reside north of the border.
So what is the larger issue? That millionaires and billionaires can’t agree over who gets the money? I hate to be so blunt about it but if you are under the impression that this problem is a new one to the economic model of this country, you’ve obviously been living under a rock for the past few decades. What is the solution? Nationalize the whole industry? While that might be the answer for some problems, it is not the answer for this one (although it would probably help reduce the deficit significantly).
What I’d like to do is examine each sport and see where they stand with regards to the specific issues which are plaguing them publicly. I don’t delve into the inner workings of professional sporting leagues and it’s entirely possible that the biggest problem facing each league isn’t the one I mention. However, these are the issues that are getting the most play in the press and it’s there that I will focus this post.
Before we get into it, I have to apologize to all of you hockey fans out there. I don’t understand hockey and the only time in my life that I’ve ever watched a hockey game from start to finish was the 2010 gold medal game. Having said that, I don’t know what is plaguing the league other than the fact that it’s getting closer and closer to being replaced as a member of the “Big 4” club by NASCAR. I don’t follow hockey and I still say that would be a sad day.
NBA
Last summer we were bombarded by “The Decision”. Starting last year and going almost all the way up to the trade deadline this year we were treated to “The Manipulation”. The big picture issue is whether or not superstars should team up and form these trios in an attempt to win with three stars and ten role players. Many say that it started with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett being traded to the Celtics to team up with Paul Pierce and has continued today with the Miami Heat and the New York Knicks (and you could probably throw the Lakers in there… especially if the rumors are true and Dwight Howard ends up there soon). The question is, is this good for the league?
I’ve heard and read about many former players that are condemning these actions, saying that they would rather beat the best than play with the best and I completely understand this mentality. However, how many titles did LeBron James win in Cleveland as the lone superstar? How about Dwayne Wade in Miami? How about Kobe Bryant in LA?
In this day and age, the titles follow the superstars and while that last example may not quite hold water (Kobe) that would depend entirely on your definition of superstar. While I personally would not put Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom into that category, I also don’t think they’re that far off.
Going back further, how many titles did David Robinson win as the dominant inside force he was before Tim Duncan came along? How many did Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett combine for before they teamed up?
As I’m sure you can guess the answer to all those questions is zero. One player can’t take a team all the way in the NBA today and I would argue that the same has been true throughout the history of the NBA. In 1997, a panel consisting of members of the media, former players and coaches, and former and current front office members selected the greatest 50 players from the first fifty years of NBA history. By the logic exhibited by several former players, you would never want to team up with those guys; you would want to beat those guys. Of those 50, only 4 never played with another member of the exclusive club.
George Mikan
Bob Petit
Isaiah Thomas
Patrick Ewing
Another noteworthy factoid from that list; only once has a team has had five players that ended up being named one of the NBA’s 50 greatest players ever playing on the same team. They were:
1973-74 New York Knicks
Willis Reed
Walt Frazier
Dave DeBusschere
Jerry Lucas
Earl Monroe
Considering that Mikan and Petit played in an era where there were so few good players, much less stars, I think we can safely exclude their combined 6 championships from this discussion. Thomas and Ewing combined to play 30 seasons in the NBA and won two titles (both by Thomas). At that time the Lakers and Celtics dynasties of the ‘80’s were winding down and the Bulls weren’t quite ready for the spotlight yet, leaving a perfect void for a very good and tough team led by one great player.
I fully understand that very few of the players on that list manipulated their way from one team to another or staged an hour long primetime special to say nine words but the fact remains that championship teams have always formed around the combination of great players with role players filling in the gaps.
So what is the harm with great young players wanting to team up in an attempt to win a championship? If they don’t care about winning and only want to set records and make money, they can easily go to a team like Cleveland or the Clippers, make $20 million a season and get the lion’s share of the ball. Instead, you have three young superstars in James, Wade, and Bosh who are all willing to take a slightly diminished role in order to play with one another. That, in this day and age of prima donnas, isn’t such a bad trait.
The problem I have is not that they wanted to team up, it’s how they did it; through the media. Carmelo Anthony very publicly wanted out and that drastically reduced Denver’s leverage in the trade negotiations as teams knew they were desperate to get something back for him. On the other hand, LeBron James wrangled a three ring circus and then left the Cavaliers with nothing.
Now you have the formation of an aristocratic class of teams in the NBA, the Heat, Celtics, Knicks, Lakers, and Spurs with the Bulls and Mavericks close behind, while the rest of the league is left high and dry.
Is there a solution? Yes.
Will the owners like it? No.
Why? The almighty dollar.
THE NFL
Whenever it comes to labor renegotiations in professional sports, you have to maintain some semblance of perspective. According to figures researched by Plunkett Research, LTD (a firm that looks into industry trends, statistics, and analysis of top companies) the NFL produced $7.8 billion in total revenue last year. The numbers vary slightly from year to year but the exact numbers aren’t really necessary; ballpark figures will suffice. Under the current collective bargaining agreement (hereafter abbreviated CBA) the owners take $1 billion off the top of that number to distribute amongst themselves. After that, it goes into a pool that is shared by the owners and players. Under the current agreement (if my memory serves me this today) the players cut of that is 60%. If we assume that revenue figure is accurate, that comes out to $4.08 billion that goes to the players, both past and present.
However, the owners are shrewd businessmen and like more zeroes in their bank accounts. They want to take another billion off the top before the revenue sharing kicks in. With these figures, the owners’ share of the pie would go from $3.72 billion to $4.32 billion. If we were to simply spread the remainder of the pie amongst the roughly 1,600 NFL players and we were to ignore things like pension plans, then the average salary in the NFL would drop 14.7% from $2.55 million to $2.18 million.
Again, we have a situation where millionaires are arguing with billionaires over a very large, lucrative pie. I’ll admit that there are certain issues that the owners have (such as a rookie salary wage) that make a lot of sense. However, trimming another 13% of their leagues revenues out for themselves is nothing short of ridiculous. The problem is it’s entirely possible that they’ll get it.
MLB
Is the league’s business model straying towards socialism? Perhaps, a little but I don’t have any problem with that. What I do have a problem with is teams like the Yankees and Red Sox paying vast amounts of money that eventually ends up in the hands of teams that simply deposit it in their bank accounts. The entire point of the revenue sharing agreement was for teams who didn’t play in a market that could justify a $100 million payroll (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa Bay) to have a $100 million payroll and compete directly with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox.
First of all, I’m not suggesting that every team should be spending $100 million on its 25 man roster. However, it’s difficult to call the Yankees and Red Sox the problem when the Pirates have spent less money in the last five years (while posting a 321-488 record) than the Yankees did to go 95-67 this past year.
What is the solution? A salary cap? The problem with a cap of any kind is the players don’t want anything to do with it and the player’s union is the strongest of any of the Big 4 sports (in my opinion). What’s another solution?
What are the solutions to these problems?
ARE THERE SOLUTIONS?
All of them center on the almighty dollar. Everyone wants more money and they want to sacrifice less and less to the guys on the other side of the bargaining table. On top of that, none of the parties that are actually doing the bargaining (the player’s rep and the commissioner) want to appear weak by giving too much or else they’ll be out of a job very quickly and you must remember that these are not minimum wage jobs.
All of these problems are easy to solve one of two ways (though really it just ends up as one big problem) as long as you don’t include the players in the decision making process… or the owners for that matter.
In the NBA, eliminate the salary structure that is now in place. How much help will that provide with regards to keeping players in smaller markets? Quite a bit. The difference right now between a max contract in Miami and a max contract in Cleveland is one additional year. The Average Annual Salary (AAS from now on) remains roughly the same. Now imagine that the Cavaliers were able to offer a contract worth an additional $10 million per season… or $20 million. Would that be enough to offset the desire to go to more tourist friendly cities? Absolutely, but here comes the problem… payrolls explode and now, the Cavaliers can’t afford that kind of payroll and neither can the Clippers or the Kings or the Nets. Finally, after much consternation and realizing that all the great players end up in big markets anyway, the NBA eliminates four teams.
In the NFL, the player’s union records some landmark deals in order to secure more of the revenue pie for active players but also much more for retired players and the NFL owners are exposed as the 19th century businessmen that many of them are, putting profits ahead of the well-being of the workers. Salaries continue to escalate to the point that some teams can keep the high priced players and some can’t. In a stunning move by what has been for years the most popular sport in America, Commissioner Roger Goodell announces that he will be contracting four teams.
In Major League Baseball, Hank Steinbrenner wins his argument and in an amazing turn of events, the owners are no longer forced to pay a luxury tax on their high payrolls or share revenues with the less fortunate teams. After a Cinderella run to the ALCS, the Kansas City Royals (who have a nice trim $15 million payroll) lose to the monstrosity that is the Yankees (with their $400 million payroll) and the Yankees go on to win yet another World Series. Admitting that eliminating the luxury tax was a terrible idea, the commissioner of baseball decides to contract four teams in an attempt to level the playing field.
There is one other solution other than contraction and that would be moving the teams to markets that will actually support a professional franchise. However, in this day and age of being able to choose any one of dozens of leisure activities, how many franchises can these major markets support? New York currently has seven teams and they all seem to prosper. Los Angeles has five with a glaring lack of an NFL team and again, they all seem to be well supported. Can other cities support that many teams?
Like I said, the solutions are all tied together but the roots of them all lead back to the same place.
The almighty dollar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
