TalkBasket.net Basketball Forums

Full Version: NBA lockout
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
[size="5"][url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ian_thomsen/11/14/nba.players.disband/index.html"]Senseless NBA players, owners will look back on lockout with regret[/url][/size]



Quote:[size="2"]Twenty years from now, when the men on each side of the table look back on the abandoned NBA season of 2011-12, what will they say it was all about? What were the issues? Why couldn't they agree?Right now the owners are blaming the players, and the players are blaming the owners. If only the other side of the table would have shown common sense then an agreement would have been made long ago -- that's what each side is saying about its former partner.



But 20 years from now, when the emotions have boiled away and they can see this breakdown for what it is, the owners and players will also blame themselves. The wise people on each side of this argument will think about what they might have done differently, and they will realize the needless harm that was done.



There was no natural disaster at play here. Nothing beyond the control of the owners and players forced them to push this season to the edge of cancellation. They did this together.



They will continue to blame and complain about each other. But any person of reason, watching from afar, is going to recognize blame on both sides of the table. You may feel more anger for the owners or for the players, but if you are a fan of basketball then the bottom line is that you are angry with everybody who had anything to do with the fact that there is $4 billion in revenue on the table and they can't even talk any longer about how to share it.



For the NBA owners and players to shut down their league during the worst economic times in more than 60 years has got to be the dumbest thing they could imagine doing. At a time when so many businesses are fighting for every last dollar, the NBA players and owners are giving back money to their season-ticket holders -- their die-hard fans -- and saying we don't want it. Put that money back in your pockets for now, and when we decide to start playing again, think about whether we are worthy of your investment.



The priorities and sensibilities of the owners and players exemplify an arrogance that now threatens the future of their business. But the players and owners don't see it that way. They are too focused on viewing their relationship as a divorce rather than a marriage.



Someday the owners and players are going to view this argument the way millions of people around the world view it today. At that time in the distant future, when it will be far too late, everyone involved is going to feel regret for his role in a mess that -- given the economic environment and the pessimistic mood of the country -- threatens to become worse than the Tim Donaghy scandal, the 2004 brawl in Detroit and the 1998-99 lockout combined. This breakdown was not set off by the union's legal maneuverings on Monday, and it didn't happen with commissioner David Stern's recent ultimatum. It goes beyond the lockout of July 1 or the launching of negotiations more than two years ago.



It goes back to when the losses were starting to pile up among the smaller-market franchises, as they realized they were being outspent by the deeper-pocketed teams. If Jerry Buss, Jim Dolan and other big-market owners had been willing to share their revenues earlier and more comprehensively for the greater health of the league, could the division among owners have been headed off?



Or look at it from the other side of the owners' room. If so many of these small-market owners had operated their teams more wisely and efficiently, might the bigger-market teams have been more willing to share money with them on good faith that they were investing in the health of the league?



And then could the owners together have not inched forward on a few points of contention here and there in order to ensure agreement with the players?



There will come the day when everyone is going to hold himself accountable. How much did union executive director Billy Hunter learn from the lockout of 1998-99? Not enough, it appears, for he failed to organize a system to deal with the crisis in which he and the players now find themselves. Why wasn't every player in the league provided a copy of the final NBA proposal? Why were there so many breakdowns in communication between players and their union representatives?



This will be a subject of enormous dissension and regret moving forward, as scores of players will insist they would have voted in favor of this proposal if presented with the opportunity. As the months pass by and the reality settles in, there will be complaints of how the chain of command broke down and the membership was failed. This is a small union of less than 500 members with equal voting rights, and yet many of them believe they had no say in this decision to file a lawsuit rather than begin the season Dec. 15. The union leadership spent the last two years warning players to save their money, yet the same leadership didn't prepare itself to learn from the mistakes in communication of 13 years ago.



How did Stern lose his ability to reason with Hunter and the players? How is it that a leader who has empowered African-American culture more than any other commissioner (remember the Allen Iverson era when the NBA was accused of being too hip-hop?) is now facing veiled charges of racism and plantation governance?



Over the last decade Stern has seen his relationships with the players suffer, much as his leadership of the owners has suffered. The players appear to view him as some kind of dictator who enforced a dress code and a respect-for-the-game rule, while giving him little credit for raising their average salary to $5 million; he surely played a role in transforming the negative image of NBA players in the 1970s to help them become popular around the world. Yet something went wrong somewhere along the way, and Stern went from being the partner of players (as he was during the era of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird) to being viewed as their dictator. Perhaps this was a natural progression for someone who has been in charge for so long. Someday, in his heart of hearts, he will wonder where it went wrong, and the part he played in this breakdown of negotiations.



The same can be said for the group of powerful agents who encouraged the legal action that was taken by the players Monday. They surely will regret their failure to push for decertification earlier, when there was a stronger chance to save the season. As time goes by and their clients suffer, will these agents be viewed as contributors to the players' suffering? I believe they acted in good faith, as a result of frustration for their clients and themselves. But there may be unexpected consequences for their agenda, and especially for their sense of timing. Someday there is going to be a deal, and it will be very easy for the players to compare the terms of that agreement against the collectively bargained agreement they could have had Monday, in addition to a 72-game season.



Someday, too, the players will regret their moves, step by step along the way. As of this day they view the league's final proposal as an ultimatum. As the years go by, however, they may come to realize that the proposal of a 50-50 split and other concessions was the best offer that Stern could negotiate for them, and that while trying to herd his divided owners he was essentially negotiating on behalf of the players. This statement is going to anger players and agents, but I believe it to be true: I believe Stern wanted sincerely to save the season, and that he marshaled his political capital in forcing owners to put forth a proposal that the players may be able to accept. Everyone knows that many of those owners were not happy with the deal Stern offered.



Imagine the regret so many players will experience 20 years from now. And for what? They had surrendered a lot of money in these negotiations so far, and in the end they refused to accept every last dictate of owners, which is understandable in light of the players' polarization from the owners. In the bigger picture, however, the players' stance does not reconcile with the realities of the time in which they live.



Recently an essay by Etan Thomas posted on ESPN.com chose to compare the plights of the players union with the stand taken by the so-called 99 percent who have formed the "Occupy" movement on Wall Street and other locations around the world. I have enormous respect for Thomas, a sensitive poet who is serving his union's executive board for no pay because he believes in the principle. This is why I could not believe how out of touch he was to view the mission of his union as having anything at all in common with the movement to Occupy Wall Street. How in the imagination of any reasonable person could a player in the highest-paid league in the history of mankind begin to compare the terms of this $4 billion negotiation against the people who are unable to feed their families, who have lost their homes to foreclosure and who believe they have been neglected by employers and government?



If someone as smart and sensitive as Etan Thomas cannot recognize the great fortune that has placed him among the elite 1 percent, and how very little the rest of the world will sympathize with his cause, then what hope is there for any common sense to prevail amid this senselessness? He and the players talk about principle, but what will they be saying about the high price of that principle 20 years from now?



Here is the fundamental problem, and I believe 99 percent of you will agree with me: The owners and players share too much in common. People on each side of the table believe absolutely that they are in the right, that they won't be dictated to, and that they would rather see no season in 2011-12 than to surrender to their partners-turned-enemies.



The result is that they are all doomed to regret their role in what has happened. Because someday they're going to think about why they got into this business. The owners bought into the league because they love sports, and the players have always played because they love to play. That love is what brought them together, and now look at the harm they're doing to the thing they love most.



[/size]
^I agree with almost all of this! The only thing I disagree on is that the players did agree to 50/50 split on the last offer. Still that doesn't matter because what this guy wrote is true. This was a senseless suicide pact between the owners and players. The entire ordeal is f****** disgusting. I have little empathy for either side.^
THIS ARTICLE IS BRILLIANT!. So pissed, I wish I could go on a rant. To bad no one would listen...<img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' />
[quote name='Raze Lupin' timestamp='1321355147' post='36050']

THIS ARTICLE IS BRILLIANT!. So pissed, I wish I could go on a rant. To bad no one would listen...<img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' />

[/quote]

Message board rants are awesome!
Quote:Recently an essay by Etan Thomas posted on ESPN.com chose to compare the plights of the players union with the stand taken by the so-called 99 percent who have formed the "Occupy" movement on Wall Street and other locations around the world. I have enormous respect for Thomas, a sensitive poet who is serving his union's executive board for no pay because he believes in the principle. This is why I could not believe how out of touch he was to view the mission of his union as having anything at all in common with the movement to Occupy Wall Street. How in the imagination of any reasonable person could a player in the highest-paid league in the history of mankind begin to compare the terms of this $4 billion negotiation against the people who are unable to feed their families, who have lost their homes to foreclosure and who believe they have been neglected by employers and government?



Etan Thomas is an idiot amongst idiots. I read his piece on ESPN, cry me a river. Etan Thomas epitomizes the critical need for a systemic overhaul. The owners wanted non-guranteed contracts (although they deviated from their stance) and the exact reason is for players like Etan Thomas. He is the exact type of cancer that kills teams' shot at being competitive for years on end. I don't blame Etan for signing his 6 year $37 million contract. It was my stupid Bucks management who offered a horseshit player like Etan Thomas that kind of money and it was the even dumber Wizards who decided to match the offer sheet. The Bucks and Wizards deserved to suck for a year or two for making shitty decisions but 6 years is a long time to be punished. Etan beat the system, good for him but now he needs to sit back shut up and count his money. Oh he's on the executive board for no pay? How generous.
It's not his fault he got that contract by idiots who run a team. I mean shouldn't these people know their shit? Even in the smallest business like a coffee shop, the boss financial policy is long-term, not short term. You gotta think ahead 5-10 years and really wonder what the situation will be then to allocate your budget accordingly. And an NBA club can't do that? I'm sure they all employ accountants, economists, marketeers etc...



This actually reminds of the Vasilopoulos (of Olympiacos) case. Just because he was in the team from a young age and survived the squad changes, he became the captain cause he had the most years. And when his contract expired and just because there was a rumour that Panathinaikos could bid on him they offered him an unthinkable 1.5m euros net per season contract. Result? He got injured and hasn't really played for the past 2 1/2 season. In fact he is still injured and Olympiacos refused to pay him for the most of last season because he was injured, violating the contract terms.



Like the teams who make such idiotic investments and they foresee that those money will be spent, those players who receive those money might have made their own financial and investment plans with that money... what happens if one day the club comes and tells you that although we had a contract, we won't pay you, while the player could have his own business or trying to build a hotel for example?



It's not as simple as it sounds.
[size="6"]I FREAKIN KNEW IT!!!!!![/size]



The latest article on ESPN is reporting several players wanted to either take the deal, consider the deal and negotiate. It seems a significant amount of players wanted to put it to a vote. The entire Orlando Magic team said they would take the deal. Many other players were in favor of voting. It also seems that a significant amount of players did not want to decertify/disclaim! How did the union leadership miss this!?



http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story...t-proposal



Quote:[size="3"]Steve Blake says the didn't want deal[/size]

EmailPrintComments

161

By Dave McMenamin

ESPNLosAngeles.com

Archive

LOS ANGELES -- NBA players' union president Derek Fisher claimed there was unanimous support coming from the 30 team player representatives on hand in New York to vote against the owner's most recent collective bargaining proposal. But that does not mean all of the league's approximate 450 players were against the deal.



In fact, there was dissension of opinions amongst Fisher's own Los Angeles Lakers teammates about whether the deal should have been accepted or not. Lakers guard Steve Blake told team player representative Shannon Brown prior to Monday's meeting that he was in favor of accepting a deal that would have included a 50-50 split of basketball related income and still allowed for a 72-game season if approved by the union this week.



More on the Lakers



For more news, notes and analysis of the Lakers, check out the Land O' Lakers blog from the Kamenetzky Brothers. Blog



"I spoke to (Blake) and he was one of the guys who wanted to take the deal," Brown said in a phone interview with ESPNLosAngeles.com on Tuesday. "I respect his opinion. I didn't try to sway it. I gave him the advantages and the disadvantages of taking the deal and not taking the deal. Going into the meeting, I understood that he was one of those people that were for taking the deal.



"I'm not going to say that everybody was for not taking the deal, but I can say it was a majority that was for (turning it down). I can say that much."



Blake disagreed with Brown's assessment of his stance on the last deal offered by the owners and issued a statement to ESPNLosAngeles.com on Tuesday evening.



"It has been my goal, throughout my career and even more so during the lockout to be a responsible and active member of our Players Association," Blake wrote. "With that said, many of the reports published have been inaccurate. I have actively had conversations with my teammates, Player Representatives and the Executive Committee over the past weeks and months about the status of the negotiations and proposals. My stance is simply to make sure we weigh all proposals. I have not made a decision on whether or not a proposal was right to take, just simply encouraging all of our players and representatives to review everything carefully and then make the appropriate choices as a collective body."



Other players who were in favor of the players accepting the league's "last-best" offer have gone public since the union announced its decision to disband by filing a disclaimer of interest in order to pursue a lawsuit against the league.



Houston's Kevin Martin told SI.com, "If you know for sure (the owners) are not moving, then you take the best deal possible." Boston's Glen Davis questioned the union's decision in an interview with the Boston Herald and Cleveland's Samardo Samuels told the Akron Beacon Journal, "A lot of people in the league are panicking." Also, Chris Duhon, the Orlando Magic's player rep, tweeted on Sunday that his team would accept the deal prior to Fisher's announcement on Monday that it was a unanimous decision to reject the proposal.



Davis said he felt "out of the loop" leading up to the union's decision, but Brown said there was plenty of information that was easily available to any player proactive enough to ask for it.



"It's not hard for people to get the information," Brown said. "It's all about if they really, really want it or not."



Brown said that the players' association was vigilant in sending out a steady stream of emails to its constituents as developments in negotiations occurred. He said he knew of player reps trying to reach out to their teammates only to find the phone number they were provided with had been changed or disconnected.



"It wasn't like things were done behind anybody's back," Brown said. "Everybody knew and know what's going on at all times because the letters that were sent out."



The 25-year-old free agent said that the Lakers weren't limited to reaching out to Brown for info just like Magic players did not have Duhon as their only resource.



"You don't even necessarily have to call your (team's) player rep," Brown said. "If you have another guy that's one of your buddies that might be a player rep or a player that's attending those meetings, you can call him."



Blake echoed Brown's plea for player involvement.



"I believe that each player has a voice in this process and it is our job to make sure that we are heard," Blake wrote. "Each player should be asking questions, contacting their player reps and continue to be an active part of this process. I'll continue to be proactive and remain updated on all things related to the lockout. This is our business, it's how we support ourselves and our families and it's too important to take a backseat in the process."



The Lakers were represented better than any other team during the negotiating sessions, with Fisher serving an influential role as the president, backup center Theo Ratliff presiding over many meetings as a member of the union's executive committee and Brown fulfilling his duties as the team's player rep. Kobe Bryant and Luke Walton took it upon themselves to attend several meetings as well.



Brown's player-rep duties in answering to his Lakers teammates became easier because of Fisher.



"He's the president; you know what I'm saying? For the most part, they're calling him," Brown said.



Brown said the presence of Bryant, who was set to make $25.2 million for the 2011-12 season, and other max-contract players like him risking their salaries to fight for a better deal was significant. Back in June, Brown opted out of the final year of his contract that would have paid him approximately $2.4 million this season.



"I respect the fact that there were a lot of players that were down for what we did that were making a whole bunch of money that wouldn't have been affected by taking a deal, but they still realized it wasn't a fair deal," Brown said. "So, I respect that a lot."



Whether players were unanimous or not on Monday, the lockout moved on Tuesday with the players filing two anti-trust lawsuits against the owners.



"Hopefully we get a fair deal put on the table that we feel is acceptable for both parties and we move on with the season," Brown said. "It's not going to obviously be a full, 82-game season. But at least we get to play some basketball and give the fans and everybody what they want to see. Hopefully a deal comes about in the next week or so and we can get back out there."



Dave McMenamin covers the Lakers for ESPNLosAngeles.com.



Follow Dave McMenamin on Twitter: @mcten
I think there is no way lock-out doesn't end because that will be a huge blow not only to owners(profits), not only to players(...we talk about very much money...), not only to the game(it will be the first time in league's history) but also will be a huge blow to the American community, I think. I don't think Americans will accept this... <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bag.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Bag' />



WE TALK ABOUT BILLIONS - NBA IS A GLOBAL SHOW AND A GLOBAL PRODUCT --- There will be an NBA season.
[quote name='TeoTheGreek13' timestamp='1321553260' post='36110']

I think there is no way lock-out doesn't end because that will be a huge blow not only to owners(profits), not only to players(...we talk about very much money...), not only to the game(it will be the first time in league's history) but also will be a huge blow to the American community, I think. I don't think Americans will accept this... <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bag.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Bag' />



WE TALK ABOUT BILLIONS - NBA IS A GLOBAL SHOW AND A GLOBAL PRODUCT --- There will be an NBA season.


[/quote]



I disagree. The damage is already done in the perception of American society and people have already given up. The general masses already think both the players and owners are acting ridiculous. The fact that Americans love to misuse the "in this economy" tagline for absolutely every aspect of life further fuels people's disgust for millionaires inability to reach an agreement amongst themselves.



I think that only die hard fans such as those who post on Basketball message boards <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' /> and casual fans of teams like the Heat, Mavs and Lakers are upset about there not being professional basketball. The rest of the casual fans will happily focus their attention to American Football and NCAA basketball.



This situation is so similar to the NHL lockout a few years ago its scary. Back then the NHL players were absolute morons who turned down a decent deal, lost a season, almost lost a second season but signed a last second deal (much worse than what was originally offered) to avoid a catastrophe. There was even talk that about half the NHL teams would have to fold if the lockout continued, it was getting pretty interesting for a while. The NHL recovered for two reasons. First, they changed the rules to be more fan friendly. They specifically made the nets larger to increase the likelihood of high scoring games. The NHL also got extremely lucky in that coming out of the lockout they had two young superstar rookies in Ovechkin and Crosby coming up the ranks (they were both #1 overall draft picks but because they lost a season they entered at the same time).



In terms of popularity, the NFL is by far number one to Americans. The MLB and NBA are second and third and I would rank those two are pretty close (I'd give the slight edge to the MLCool. The NHL is a distant fourth and the MLS a more distant fifth. The fact is people didn't really care about the NHL lockout because people didn't really care about the NHL to begin with. With the NBA, people are pissed and pissed at both sides. It's going to take a long time for the league to recover. While the 2012 NBA draft class is pretty stacked, they really need another 2003 caliber draft class to bail them out of this mess with the fresh blood the same way that Ovechkin and Crosby were able to offer something fresh to the NHL.
[quote name='Black Urum' timestamp='1321513893' post='36094']

It's not his fault he got that contract by idiots who run a team. I mean shouldn't these people know their shit? Even in the smallest business like a coffee shop, the boss financial policy is long-term, not short term. You gotta think ahead 5-10 years and really wonder what the situation will be then to allocate your budget accordingly. And an NBA club can't do that? I'm sure they all employ accountants, economists, marketeers etc...



This actually reminds of the Vasilopoulos (of Olympiacos) case. Just because he was in the team from a young age and survived the squad changes, he became the captain cause he had the most years. And when his contract expired and just because there was a rumour that Panathinaikos could bid on him they offered him an unthinkable 1.5m euros net per season contract. Result? He got injured and hasn't really played for the past 2 1/2 season. In fact he is still injured and Olympiacos refused to pay him for the most of last season because he was injured, violating the contract terms.



Like the teams who make such idiotic investments and they foresee that those money will be spent, those players who receive those money might have made their own financial and investment plans with that money... what happens if one day the club comes and tells you that although we had a contract, we won't pay you, while the player could have his own business or trying to build a hotel for example?



It's not as simple as it sounds.

[/quote]



I agree that management should be on the hook for offering way too much to players that didn't deserve it. The problem is that players, like all of us respond to incentives. The concept of the "contract year phenomenon" is very real in the NBA, whereby player's in the last year of their contract put in the extra effort to play much better than usual in order to secure a big deal in the off-season.



Let's take a look at the Etan Thomas example. In his "contract year" the 2003-2004 season his averages per game are below.



8.9 points

0.9 assists

1.6 blocks

0.5 steals

6.7 rebounds



It was the best season of his career in every category.



He then signed a 6 year $36.8 million dollar contract. Here are his averages for over the course of that contract:



4.9 points

0.3 assists

1.0 blocks

0.3 steals

4.0 rebounds



It's not as cut and dry as I just made it look because injuries were involved but the fact that he never came close to his 2003-2004 season in ANY category definitely makes you wonder if his comfortable six year deal didn't give him the wrong incentives. Why work his ass off when he can just give an average effort? He's getting paid the same either way. What's the incentive to put forth the extra effort? In 2003-2004 he had to bust his tail to get the big contract. He got the big deal and then relaxed. Now, management should have recognized that he simply wasn't as good of a player as he showed in 2003-2004 and given him a more reasonable contract but it doesn't change the fact that the system is broken.



The non-guaranteed contract should go both ways. A guy like Luc Mbah A Moute on the Bucks is a good example of the opposite scenario. He signed a crazy cheap deal (3 years $2 million TOTAL). A player of his caliber is definitely worth a good $2-3 million per season. He should be able to secure a better deal for himself based on his level of play.



I think the most important point is how the real world works. In my job my employer could say that I did a great job and give me a big pay raise (see Etan Thomas). If I failed to meet the expectation of my new larger salary (see Etan Thomas), my employer wouldn't be able to just get rid of me (see the Washington Wizards) but they would put a plan in place to improve my performance. If I continued to fail to meet the job expectations then they would certainly plan my exit. My employer wouldn't just sit around and say "oh we made a mistake let's stick with Skangles underperforming for the next 5 years." Why should NBA players get this special perk? They're earning millions. If under a non-guaranteed contract system a player gets cut (fired) they have a much bigger cushion to fall back on given their millions of earnings then I would have if I got fired. As a fan, I pay to see these players play with the expectation that every player on the court is busting their ass at all times to win. I don't buy that people earning millions need guaranteed contracts if they don't perform. It is not my fault as a fan if these players are financially irresponsible. Sorry Antoine Walker, you sir are incompetent at life. Enjoy playing for Idaho in the D-League. How does that $30k salary taste? Welcome to reality.



Man I am just full of rants lately. <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Laugh' /> <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />
THE NBA LOCKOUT IS OFFICIALLY OVER!!!!!! SEASON TO START DECEMBER 25TH!!!
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/728105...ative-deal







Quote:NEW YORK -- A person familiar with the deal says NBA owners and players have reached a tentative agreement to end the lockout.



The person spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity Saturday because the agreement has not yet been announced.



After a secret meeting earlier this week, the sides met for more than 15 hours Friday, working to try to save the season. Under the deal, a 66-game season would begin on Christmas.



This handshake deal still must be ratified by both owners and players.





Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press



They will play 66 games?? <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Blink' /> There is 30 teams ,isn't 58?? 29 at home + 29 as visitor <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/agree.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Agree' />
@Stefans: it's probably gonna be 2 games against all teams (58) and 2 extra games against the teams from the same division (8) just my assumption, maybe one of our American friends can help us here?
I'm guessing here. This is what I think they did. 1st the home and away games is not even for all teams. You're right there are 30 teams. Also there are two conferences, Western an Eastern conference each has 15 teams. In a normal season, 4 or 3 domestic conference games are played (Most teams play 2 home 2 away; some teams only 3). Next 2 foreign conference games are played (1 home 1 away, some only 1). This will sum up to 82 games. In years past 2 teams have played 83 games. Now Because of lockout If you play (4 or 3) domestic conference games (the home and away will not be even) that is 60 games. Then add 1/2 game from the foreign conference that's 7 games. 60+7= 67 I know the number is not exactly 66 but I'm sure this is the logic they used. What I'm not sure of is the exact amount of domestic and foreign conference games that will be played. Home and away games are not always equal.
Maybe Stern should get fix organization of games than of money <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/crazy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Crazy' />



In Europe you have equal (home and as visitor) games.I doubt that I will understand NBA calendar <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bag.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Bag' />
[quote name='Raze Lupin' timestamp='1322324987' post='36268']

I'm guessing here. This is what I think they did. 1st the home and away games is not even for all teams. You're right there are 30 teams. Also there are two conferences, Western an Eastern conference each has 15 teams. In a normal season, 4 or 3 domestic conference games are played (Most teams play 2 home 2 away; some teams only 3). Next 2 foreign conference games are played (1 home 1 away, some only 1). This will sum up to 82 games. In years past 2 teams have played 83 games. Now Because of lockout If you play (4 or 3) domestic conference games (the home and away will not be even) that is 60 games. Then add 1/2 game from the foreign conference that's 7 games. 60+7= 67 I know the number is not exactly 66 but I'm sure this is the logic they used. What I'm not sure of is the exact amount of domestic and foreign conference games that will be played. Home and away games are not always equal.

[/quote]



Good synopsis, I think the key is that teams always played the max 4 games against their divisional rivals and the teams that they played only 3 times came from another division within the conference. To anybody with any shred of common sense it is apparent that divisions mean absolutely nothing since teams are playing the vast majority of their conference 4 times regardless but Stern and his lackeys continuously stress this insignificant aspect of the game.



They haven't announced how the 66 game schedule will be structured but it wouldn't surprise me at all if teams played more often against their own conference rather than the parity of playing a home-and-home against every team in the league with a few leftovers.
They should just change the NBA regular season to 58 games, 29 home 29 away, make it more simple and shorter because right now it's ridiculously long and many teams know they have nothing to fight for long time before the season ends.
[quote name='skangles' timestamp='1322326723' post='36276']

Good synopsis, I think the key is that teams always played the max 4 games against their divisional rivals and the teams that they played only 3 times came from another division within the conference. To anybody with any shred of common sense it is apparent that divisions mean absolutely nothing since teams are playing the vast majority of their conference 4 times regardless but Stern and his lackeys continuously stress this insignificant aspect of the game.



They haven't announced how the 66 game schedule will be structured but it wouldn't surprise me at all if teams played more often against their own conference rather than the parity of playing a home-and-home against every team in the league with a few leftovers.

[/quote]



Yup i agree! I'm betting a few leftovers. mmmmmm leftovers *makes turkey sandwich*
[quote name='stefans' timestamp='1322325848' post='36272']

Maybe Stern should get fix organization of games than of money <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/crazy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Crazy' />



In Europe you have equal (home and as visitor) games.I doubt that I will understand NBA calendar <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bag.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Bag' />

[/quote]



Well home and away are relatively even here too. Most (97%) teams have 41 home games and 41 away games. Most teams play home conference 4 times away conference 2 away. So it is pretty even. The season is fixed to where every team plays each other at least twice.
Pages: 1 2 3 4