With the Sonics leaving lo those many years ago, I think it is safe to say that Seattle's NBA fans have fallen into two camps: Those that still follow the league and those that wish David Stern would choke to death while in mid-scoff.
That in mind, I'm curious how most folks around here regard the impending lockout. For many of us, the thought of not having pro basketball on television for a prolonged period is a horrifying prospect. For others, the idea of seeing owners, players, fans, and everyone else be forced to endure what we have endured - even if for only a year - is a schadenfreude-filled joy.
So, in which ring do you cast your hat? Are you rejoicing at NBA armageddon, or are you biting your fingernails with anxiety at an NBA-free winter?
That in mind, I'm curious how most folks around here regard the impending lockout. For many of us, the thought of not having pro basketball on television for a prolonged period is a horrifying prospect. For others, the idea of seeing owners, players, fans, and everyone else be forced to endure what we have endured - even if for only a year - is a schadenfreude-filled joy.
So, in which ring do you cast your hat? Are you rejoicing at NBA armageddon, or are you biting your fingernails with anxiety at an NBA-free winter?
11 comments:
Put me in the "May D-Stern's scoff gland inflame and cut off his air supply" camp. A big, ugly lockout that alienates the fans means decreased demand for the product when it returns... which means cheaper franchise values, owners in the red and desperate to sell... to certain bald, hoops-loving software billionaires. It could happen.
I think Chunk's fantasy scenario only works if the lockout takes a long time AND when it ends the players get what they want. If the owners get their way, I'm guessing 1) franchises will skyrocket in value and 2) hardly anyone will want to sell, because the Charlotte's of the world will no longer be losing money. Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but that's how I'm seeing it.
Oh, and I wish the final meeting between the NBAPA and the owners takes place in Harlem at the PA's offices, and then Stern takes a wrong turn out of the building and winds up having to explain to 8 angry black guys that the reason why they can't watch the NBA this year is because his Jewish friends aren't rich enough.
Let it burn, piss on the ashes, salt the earth so nothing grows again.
I'm risking getting a trampling from everyone else, but I'm hoping they come to a resolution soon. I know the Sonics are gone, but I just can't enjoy college hoops the way I do the NBA. Yeah, the regular season can drag on and on, but isn't that true in NCAA too? Sure, the big games are exciting, but who's excited to watch WSU vs OSU in late February when they're both 3-9 in league play?
My head says I should be elated that the league will be on recess this year (Stern is a failure and this would be the moment in which the world finally got to see the facade that is his tenure as Commish) But my heart is gonna miss the hoops and all the Seattlelites that populate the NBA's courts these days. J-Craw contributing to a potential Eastern Conference contender; IT battling it out for roster spot in SacTown; JT defending his ring. I want the league to look itself in the mirror but what am I going to do from Oct-Apr?!
I'm gonna miss the league for sure this year (if there out anyways). Best-case scenario is the NBA gets an agreement and David Stern retires with the agreement as his last hurrah. That way we get basketball and NO MORE STERN. Winners are all around, right?
Winners? Our team is still gone. Your logic is broken. No team no league!
If seattle can't have the NBA, then no one else deserves to have the NBA. 3 year lockout please!!!
I think I should have done a better job at explaining myself there. My point is that if Stern is gone, the chances of Seattle getting a team go WAAAAAAAAY up. For one thing, the local population is much more likely to support any political efforts if Stern is out of the way. The man just burned too many bridges here.
See, logic fixed!
I wouldn't mind a break....if a whole year off means both sides lose, I'd be happy with that.
There are few compelling reasons for the layman to side with either of the parties.
I do think that the NBA is spoiled with the guaranteed contracts, and something has to change.
I honestly don't get the Guaranteed Contracts = Bad Business logic (and I'm not picking on haizman; this seems to be what 90% of the dialogue is these days).
It seems pretty simple basketball has the same problem baseball or hockey does - that television revenues are not split equally among all teams. Yes, national revenue is fairly divided, but local revenue isn't. So, you've got the Lakers getting $200 mill a year and the Kings getting $20 mill or whatever. THAT'S what f$$$ing over the league and THAT'S what needs to change. If you took half of the Lakers/Knicks/Celtics/Bulls/Mavs deals and split it equally among all the teams, you'd still have a situation where the Lakers/et al would have an advantage, but it wouldn't be an obscene advantage, and the lower-revenue clubs would have a better shot at competing equally. The Lakers/etc SHOULD have an advantage, and their owners paid a pretty good penny to have that advantage, but they shouldn't be able to reap 10x the revenue other clubs do. It's just not good for the long-term health of the league.
If the Lakers don't like it, they can stuff it, unless they just want to hold intra-squad scrimmages all season, they need the other teams just like the other teams need them. The sooner the small-market clubs realize they have more bargaining power than the big-market clubs, the sooner this thing gets fixed, and without even have to mess with guaranteed contracts.
Post a Comment