NBA fans anyone?

[Jabo]

I'm for the owners TBH. I think the players make way too much money. I think the owners take far more risk in owning a team than a player playing a sport. What is their earning potential outside athletics? A business owner can probably do something similar with those skills and still make an impact....what about a basketball player? Is throwing a ball inside a hoop going to earn them money in the business world or whatever field they probably aren't qualified for? No. Am I saying they should be making $20 an hour...no.....But I think its reasonable to say they can make a little less off the high end salaries. Does Lebron James really need to make 18 million per year? Is he going to be cheated by making 12 million a year? Let them make the difference up in endorsements and personal appearances. Make them more accessible to the average fan....

[Njtobknets]

Yeah I'm on the owners' side as well. The players don't seem to realize that they are the employees. The employee never makes as much as the employer. Plus, they get to play with a ball for a living. Some players arguing that a lot of non-star players are living check to check...If I got payed what the worst player in the league got payed I would be set for awhile.

[smartAXE]

this was probably my favorite thing about the lock out so far:


im still happy that the mav's took out the heat and their "dynasty".

[TheFNK]

A tough question. i'm really not on either side. Both are responsible for killing a golden goose after one of the most popular seasons on record.

The owners are clearly guilty of not negotiating in good faith from the start, treating the players as ignorant boobs, and flip-flopping around the revenue split issue in a fashion that kills a whole day of negotiations just to continue to try to play hardball. They also fail to provide a united stance and a clear message to the players.

The players are guilty of ignoring basics about the leagues finances. They don't want to address issue such as league contraction of 2-4 teams, an exception on deals (whether 4 year or 2) for perennially overpaid mid-tier players (Thabeet, Rashard Lewis, Brendan Heywood, etc), and a slightly harder cap. And in some cases trying to be outright ignorant bullies (Garnett/Wade).

And it is fixing to get worse. With the push for de-certification coming you can be sure that owners such as Gilbert and Sarver will be pushing their agenda. Namely, to keep asking for crazy concessions from the players they will never get in order to bog down the negotiations and pressure Billy Hunter and the Players Association to cave on either the revenue split issue or the guaranteed contract issue (since the issue over league contraction seems to be settled for now even though a smaller league by 2-4 teams would make the league MUCH better overall for all).

Not to mention the clear hubris shown by NBA players during the negotiations. They want to be the NFL SO HARD. But what they fail to realize is that on average an NFL player spends between 3-4 years in college. The average NBA player plays maybe 2 and the average NBA STAR (like the ones involving themselves in every step of this process) likely played a single season of NCAA ball if they didn't just come right out of High School. The few (re: VERY FEW) NFL players allowed near the lockout table were people with great business acumen/smarts (like Drew Brees). Can we say anything like that about the NBA players? Is de-certification the best idea?

Short-cut answer to the problem: 51/49 or 52/48 split, 4 year max deals, and a slightly harder cap. Play some f'ing ball now.