More Bad Economic News for the NBA

If The Sternbot would allow the ENTIRE league to be competitive and not slant it toward three or four favorite teams each season, he wouldn’t have this issue with fan support from all areas of the country.

Eboy: what does Stern do which allows only four teams to be competitive?

Eboy once again shut the hell up you have no idea what youre talking about

I agree with the contraction. Look at it. 1) You got Memphis having no clue how to run a team. 2) Charlotte can’t give tickets away. 3) Sacramento wanting to sell or move their team badly. 4) New Orleans still trying to shed their contracts away like snakes do skin. David Stern, there’s nothing wrong with contraction.

We also have to fault these owners. Bob Johnson was oblivious creating the Bobcats. They thought Jordan would change everything when he came aboard, but nothing has changed. And the Memphis ownership gave away Gasol for chump change. And just got Z-Bo? Why? Another thought, more owners should try and be cheap like The Scrooge Jerry Reinsdorf.

get rid of 5 teams from the grizz, clippers, bobcats, pacers, t’wolves, kings and bucks and relocate the other 2 to somewhere like seattle and vegas/kansas/san diego (would include vancouver had the nba not screwed that one up), make sure that their uni’s arent like a d-league uni and make sure that no more than 6 teams go into the playoffs (3v6, 4v5 in 1st round and 1v4/5 and 2v3/6 in the 2nd round etc) – the league is much better (i’d include the thunder in that list but they seem to be viable in okc right now)

Rav that 6 team playoff idea is idiotic. The playoffs are the most profitable part of the nba season, cutting it down is pretty wrong. Not only that, you’re suggesting to limit the games the two top seeds play by giving them byes, possibly the two biggest ticket-attractors by then.

Word to Rav…

One thing the NFL business model GETS that the NBA severely does not is the concept that less is more.

If you have something people like, and you give them less of it, they will want it that much more.

David Stern just simply does not understand the concept, apparently.

Too many teams… too many games. None of it matters until the very end.

donovan: Unfortunately even the NFL no longer gets that less is more, since they are trying to expand from a 16 game season to 18 games.

Over-expansion is a long-term death sentence for the NBA. Too many teams, too few good players, and a crappy economy coupled with high ticket prices leads to empty arenas.

I think a good example of how few good players there are in the league: do a fantasy draft on NBA Live or NBA 2K9; by the 3rd pick you’re really reaching for someone that is more than a one-trick pony (Rashard is probably a good example of this). Too many teams with too few good players does not make for a strong selling point.

While contraction will be an absolute last-ditch effort when everything is crumbling down around them, as a fan I wouldn’t oppose losing Memphis, Minnesota, Charlotte and maybe one more. Know what all 3 of those teams have in common? All 3 were among the 6 most recent expansion teams in the last 20 years. Among all 6 of those teams, Vancouver and the original Charlotte have already changed locations. Minny and Toronto haven’t really enjoyed success on more than a limited basis. The only 2 teams that have worked out out of the 6 are Orlando and Miami. So contraction by 4 teams seems like a pretty reasonable idea from a fan standpoint.

Good businessmen don’t panic. It would be an amateur, reactionary move to do stuff like scrap whole teams as some have suggested, or drastically alter the structure of the playoffs etc. The league as a whole will be fine in the long-run if the economy as a whole will be fine in the long run.

The league’s money problems are a result of the bad economy, NOT a bad league or bad teams. Some of the teams that people have suggested scrapping have long histories and hugely invested fans and communities. In a bad economy stability is what gets you through, not risky moves to try and fix everything at once.

Contraction is not a bad idea, but I would actually support a system of soccer-style relegation too. Imagine how much more motivated the Heisleys and Sterlings of the league would be to spend money if the consequence of not doing so was dealing with D-League level revenues.

Require that franchises lower the price of seats just that tiny bit that will allow them to increase attendance and fill more seats, which will then naturally grow interest in the game and keep more generations attending. Move teams in “deserted” cities to better markets. Memphis to Kansas (where the KU Jayhawks have EVERYBODY loving b-ball), OKC Thunder to ANYWHERE else, etc.

@darrow – similar sort of thing has been done here – some teams who know they wont sell out for certain games sell tickets for very cheap in order to get the kids in (e.g. £5 adults, £1 kids) and they tend to go down quite well – cant see why the teams who struggle to sell out dont sell a few tickets like that – they get to expand their fanbase, the parent may buy the kid a jersey from the teamstore that they wouldnt have bought otherwise and there is of course revenue from the food and drink stalls that they wouldnt have got if there was nobody sat in those seats, or alternatively give a load of free tickets to schoolkids (with some teachers there obviously) and to college students on campus etc in order to fill the crowd and get some extra revenues from merchandise at the arena

Okay, so apparently sports fans aren’t also economists. Aside from contraction (which is a colossal admission that your league is a desperate failure), the very suggestions you’re making that you think would make NBA basketball more appealing are exactly what would cause the NBA to lose even more money. There’s a reason why there are 82 games in a season. Each franchise wants to play as many games as possible to maximize the amount of revenue that comes in. You think that reducing the season down to 70 games is supposed to sell so many more tickets for those 70 games that franchises normally with half empty arenas are actually going to recoup the cost of empty seats AND 12 fewer games? Not to mention how much direct revenue you’re throwing away from teams like the Lakers, Knicks, Cavs, Blazers, Celtics, etc. that normally sell out all their games anyway. And there is no way the league will agree to reduce the number of teams and games in the playoffs. Those games make the most money out of the entire season! There’s a reason why they changed the first round from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven series. More games = more money. Then you all talking about how less prominent teams need more exposure while also saying the playoffs need to be contracted to six teams. That would steal the absolutely most profitable games away from many franchises that are desperate for them to prosper (i.e. Atlanta, Golden State, etc.). Despite all that, the ideas for televising less prominent teams are probably still the most ridiculous. Hey, I get sick of seeing 25 Lakers and 25 Cavs games every season, too. I would love to see more of Al Jefferson owning the post in Minnesota, Danny Granger lighting it up in Indiana, or Brandon Jennings running the break in Milwaukee. Problem is, the majority of TV watchers who tune into the NBA games don’t. 25 times out of 25, the Lakers will draw more viewers than the Timberwolves, Pacers, or Bucks. That TV revenue goes to the league and is shared amongst the teams, so no one is going to suggest pushing the less popular teams just to get them exposure. That exposure won’t lead to higher profits. Doyouwantmore makes the best point. This is not the time to panic and restructure your entire business model. These are forecasts that project ticket revenues will go down 10% next year. Do you know how accurate financial forecasts are? In 2000, financial forecasts were projecting hundreds and thousands percent returns on dot-com companies. Then 2001 happened. The best they can do is predict what may happen based on what’s happening right now. In other words, they can’t tell you jack. There are many theories on how to run the NBA more efficiently and successfully, and the promising ones should be at least explored if not implemented. But we are not in a crisis that requires drastic cost-cutting measures, especially ones that are severely revenue-cutting as well.

and as for 7 game first round series – i think we’ve all realised how bad that move was from both a sporting and tv ratings point of view

A while ago I talked in detail how the expansion had hurt the NBA. Make sure you site the source before you go off pontifercating on economic analysis without a degree in economics. Given the current recession it only makes sense that the NBA would soon get hit in the pocket. In the 80′s Stern was credited with single-handedly saving the league. I wonder who the media will blame for its current problems? Don’t answer that . . . it’s a rhetorical question.

Maybe the NBA is overxtended, but there is no way you can arbitrarily “scrap” franchises once they are established. Even teams which are blleding money still are a property of considerable (potential) value. I would really like to see the reactions if Stern just decided “We’re scrapping teams x,y and z. Sorry Guys, it’s best for everyone else.” In reality this would at least be a difficult process with uncertain results…

This garbage is all gamesmanship for the upcoming labor negotiations. The League in NOT in trouble. Half these teams only exist to provide content to related cable channels that turn vast profits. Did you guys see that line about “basketball-related revenue” at the end of the piece? That implies that there are whole other streams of revenue that are not directly related to the gate. It is very likely that these forms of income (which Stern is implying should not be counted toward team profits) put these fat cats in the black.

Does the NBA (Sternbot) have a list of standard regulations that each team must maintain to keep in the NBA? Turnover, attendance, total population of city, seating availability…etc???
It would be interesting to see how many teams in the league are being “carried” each year…

“As if purchasing your own business to make profits is everyone else’s cost of living.” Should rephrase that, or clarify. Basically, like Dave Zirin’s Terrordome book tells us, its a major cost those new stadiums and it directly takes away from public funds for dilapidated schools, housing, and broken health care among other things. And your taxes going to fund a stadium just for the right to buy tickets to see games there? You’re not the owner nor do you get in free, but you had to pay in full beforehand and for years to come, really. Such a racket. And I read on here before, someone mentioned that the owners are truly wealthy and that to many being owners of teams, is just like a hobby to them among their many other day to day stuff. Some stuff to think about for those angry-run off to calculate Stephon’s career salary totals (ignoring like 30% goes bye bye to taxes and how his compared to his peers) people.