I don't even want to comment because I think GetSlow is killing it. I agree with basically everything he is saying.

That's merely one aspect. Outside the cap, the business practices of the leagues are essentially the same: domestic players enter through a draft, teams are awarded on a franchise model where a huge fee is taken by the league for owning a team, public ownership is banned by rule.

 

And these days even the difference in cap is at least somewhat mitigated by MLB's revenue sharing rules.

Sure, but curious how you'd maintain the product with a different model when competitive balance is essential to the product the league puts out there for public comsumption?

Sure, but curious how you'd maintain the product with a different model when competitive balance is essential to the product the league puts out there for public comsumption?

 

It's not easy and is completely counter to what we've come to know. It's strange, but European professional basketball is more democratic and more purely capitalistic than any sports league in the United States. The system of promotion and relegation allows for teams that can't or won't compete to slide between various levels of competition and for new teams with a willingness and ability to spend to rise from lower ranks and compete with the best in the country.

 

None of what I'm talking about is likely possible and is certainly not functional, without first eliminating the franchise model and opening up leagues to increased competition.

Let's say I started a new league tomorrow. Let's then say that the team I owned won the title three years in a row. My team would never have the opportunity to prove itself against the best in the NBA because my team is not an NBA franchise... I haven't paid a $300 million cash payout to the NBA front office for the privilege of competing in their closed-off league.

 

Even if 13 different NBA teams wanted to play my team, they couldn't because league rules allow the Commissioner to bar them from playing certain games.

It's not easy and is completely counter to what we've come to know. It's strange, but European professional basketball is more democratic and more purely capitalistic than any sports league in the United States. The system of promotion and relegation allows for teams that can't or won't compete to slide between various levels of competition and for new teams with a willingness and ability to spend to rise from lower ranks and compete with the best in the country.

 

None of what I'm talking about is likely possible and is certainly not functional, without first eliminating the franchise model and opening up leagues to increased competition.

I think that's outstanding, but even with the ability to start with a clean slate, the market for such teams would look like the coverage map of Sprint in the Verizon commercials with teams only in markets on the coasts. Cincinnati have a shot? How about Cleveland? Do you agree that it might be a problem?

I think that's outstanding, but even with the ability to start with a clean slate, the market for such teams would look like the coverage map of Sprint in the Verizon commercials with teams only in markets on the coasts. Cincinnati have a shot? How about Cleveland? Do you agree that it might be a problem?

 

With open membership for any team to start down in lower levels, New York ends up with 15 professional teams because there's money to be made by having leagues at various levels of competition in all sorts of different neighborhoods and sections of the city. Without barriers to entry, new organizations would spring up all over the place. And there are more than enough basketball players in the United States to fill those various levels. I think the free market will ultimately result in teams springing up wherever there's money to be made, meaning that huge markets get served by multiple teams, effectively breaking up that market into smaller areas.

 

 

...at this point I'm dangerously close to rambling like a crazy person, but this is a part of the sports business I think about a lot.

I personally dislike the age limit. Think about how few players get the oppurtunity to play in the NBA. If a kid is good enough at 17, let him play. Forcing him to play in college, yes it will help him develop, but it will only expose him to a higher risk of injury.

Question for PP92, if that youngest of yours turns into the best PG in the country, he's currently a one and done. Let's say that they make it another year now and he's got to stay another year. You pleased with that? I understand that college is a big deal, and he needs an education. But honestly, why did you go to college? Other than the extracurricular stuff (ha), it was to get a better job, make more money, expand your horizons financially, correct? PP92Jr has an opportunity to make more money than we will in a lifetime right out of the chute, what are you considering then?

 

 

My situation is different from the average one-and-done's situation. I have a great job and financially I am good to go so the rush for him to go pro wouldn't be great at all. It would suck to have to pay to follow him around for one more year but I'd get over it as long as he isn't drafted by the Raptors. I can't say I would be that bothered by the rule change. Now if I was broke and in a dire financial situation I'd be pretty pissed.

My situation is different from the average one-and-done's situation. I have a great job and financially I am good to go so the rush for him to go pro wouldn't be great at all. It would suck to have to pay to follow him around for one more year but I'd get over it as long as he isn't drafted by the Raptors. I can't say I would be that bothered by the rule change. Now if I was broke and in a dire financial situation I'd be pretty pissed.

I say let him play. OJT. Get paid young man.

With open membership for any team to start down in lower levels, New York ends up with 15 professional teams because there's money to be made by having leagues at various levels of competition in all sorts of different neighborhoods and sections of the city. Without barriers to entry, new organizations would spring up all over the place. And there are more than enough basketball players in the United States to fill those various levels. I think the free market will ultimately result in teams springing up wherever there's money to be made, meaning that huge markets get served by multiple teams, effectively breaking up that market into smaller areas.

 

 

...at this point I'm dangerously close to rambling like a crazy person, but this is a part of the sports business I think about a lot.

 

 

Sounds like AAU.

I say let him play. OJT. Get paid young man.

 

 

I'm not against that just saying that the factors that would motivate me to push him to go the NBA as soon as possible don't apply to my life situation. I'd be fine with him waiting 2 years.

 

Again, I think kids should get a choice immediately out of high school and if they choose to go to college then they go for 2 years. In my world a kid who doesn't go pro immediately out of high school knows he is going to college for 2 years.

I don't have a problem with the NBA making an age limit, and personally as someone who would rather watch NCAA than NBA, I'm all for it.

 

On another note, I like the ideas that Getslow has in trying to incorporate the religation / promotion aspect of European soccer in the US. I really like the concept. In my opinion currently only the MLB even has enough teams through its minor league affiliates to even begin to make it work, of course the problem with these teams is that they are all affiliated with a MLB team and not operated independently. It would elimate teams tanking for draft picks. You would have to preform good enough to avoid religation. I guess it would also make it much harder to get voters to approve a publically funded stadium, as you would have no guarentee that the team would be able to remain at a certain level.

My situation is different from the average one-and-done's situation. I have a great job and financially I am good to go so the rush for him to go pro wouldn't be great at all. It would suck to have to pay to follow him around for one more year but I'd get over it as long as he isn't drafted by the Raptors. I can't say I would be that bothered by the rule change. Now if I was broke and in a dire financial situation I'd be pretty pissed.

 

Let him go overseas for 2 years and make money.

In my world a kid who doesn't go pro immediately out of high school knows he is going to college for 2 years.

 

That's my thinking as well, but would that kill recruiting some seasons. Say three kids at the end of their Junior years commit to School X. School X quits recruiting other top players because they are out of schollys, then those three kids blow up their senior season and decide to go pro. School X is left holding the bag and then if one isn't drafted the NCAA won't allow them to go to college and play ball.

 

What could be the work around for that? I know NCAA could change their rules to allow undrafted players to still go to college, but I what about the college that's left short 3 players?

 

The reason the rule similar to that works in MLB is that very few baseball players go straight to the MLB, most are choosing between college or the minor leagues...that wouldn't be the case in basketball.

The NBA will not allow kids to enter straight out if high school anymore. Too many kids not ready and it hurts the game because there is a majority of busts.

 

Get kids to have at least 2 years and the NBA can further evaluate and the kids have another year to work on their game while preparing. It benefits both parties and will help both sports in terms of revenue.