Malazan Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 People forget how popular the NBA was before their last strike. Even with the star power found in today's NBA, it's half as popular as it was before the strike. oh, there are numbers to back this assertion up?
CosmicBills Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) oh, there are numbers to back this assertion up? 5%Plenty. Go take a look at television ratings for the NBA for the past decade. The numbers dropped over 34% for the playoffs post 1998. Almost a 50% drop in regular season ratings. Edited February 6, 2011 by tgreg99
reddogblitz Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 5% Plenty. Go take a look at television ratings for the NBA for the past decade. The numbers dropped over 34% for the playoffs post 1998. Almost a 50% drop in regular season ratings. Yeah, but basketball is boring.
dave mcbride Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) If these owners werent around there would be 32 other rich white guys lining up at the door to lay down 800 million dollars they know they cannot lose. If these players didnt exist, you would have replacement players and crappy pro football. Thank you! That's much more eloquent than what I could have come up with. There are plenty of crappy NFL teams. No one seems to mind. Next season's games are paid for. What's your point there? You seem to not know the first rule of the American entertainment business -- build your show around stars. From Broadway to Nashville to Hollywood to NFL headquarters in NY, it's a proven route to success. Fooling with that isn't wise, and stocking teams with rookie "stars to be" from Washington State, Texas Tech, and the CFL isn't going to get it done. Having said all of this, I seriously doubt the mettle of the players to hold out for long. You're right about there being an endless supply of new talent who aren't beholden to the NFLPA. Football players aren't baseball players, who are more likely to be able to fight the long fight. Plus baseball is far more star- and stat-driven than football. Moreover, careers are too short and there are too many interchangeable bodies in football. Basically, if individual stats don't matter much (relatively speaking), than I'll venture that players in that sport are less likely to win a labor action. Edited February 6, 2011 by dave mcbride
Doc Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Chuck Schumer and Ralph can agitate about revenue all they want, but if they read the current CBA, they will see it included a massive increase in revenue sharing for "low revenue" (not low profit) teams. The US AG has no power to help the players here. That's a dream. Jones was not "pushing for the CBA"--he was actually a holdout because of the increase in revenue sharing. He didn't see why he had to line Ralph's pockets when he was dropping $600 million + on his Xanadu and Ralph still had his fans pissing in troughs. Ah, yes. An owner needs to spend $600M so that the fans don't have to piss in troughs.
Malazan Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 5% Plenty. Go take a look at television ratings for the NBA for the past decade. The numbers dropped over 34% for the playoffs post 1998. Almost a 50% drop in regular season ratings. http://www.nba.com/2010/news/10/27/tnt-ratings/index.html
CosmicBills Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 http://www.nba.com/2010/news/10/27/tnt-ratings/index.html Yup ... It took over a decade to recover. Also those are record numbers for TNT not network records. The point is the NBA was one of the most popular sports in America pre 98 strike. They thought they could withstand a work stoppage. They were wrong. The NFL is vastly more popular now than the NBA was then but it would be pure folly to believe they're immune to the backlash that other leagues have suffered once greed got I. The way of games being played.
spartacus Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 that's a dicey proposition you're making, frought with numerous landmines. the NFL would risk opening itself up to further lawsuits and congressional insight, the latter of which would open a big can of worms. some NFL owners are already unhappy with Chuck Schumer pushing the ball on revenue sharing in regards to the Bills, and i think Schumer will be pushing that ball further as a new CBA is reached. also keep in mind, Smith has a friend at the White House, as he previously worked with AG Eric Holder. the landmines are a result of the litigation- but the litigation is initiated by a decertification of the NFLPA - which is out of the owner's hands. Clearly the union intends to decertify if there is a lockout - so how are the owners in worse shape legally if they do not initiate a lockout?
Delete This Account Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) the landmines are a result of the litigation- but the litigation is initiated by a decertification of the NFLPA - which is out of the owner's hands. Clearly the union intends to decertify if there is a lockout - so how are the owners in worse shape legally if they do not initiate a lockout? the lawsuit filed recently against the owners over alleged cohesion in free agency last summer is likely just the start. and your point on the owners pushing through the new deal will open up its own can of worms, both legally and on capitol hill, never mind also creating uncertainty among its sponsors and fans who could very well be slow to sign up for "replacement games." jw Edited February 7, 2011 by john wawrow
Recommended Posts