View Single Post
Old
09-14-2012, 05:41 PM
  #14
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,367
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by lush View Post
Contraction would do the trick but the PA wouldn't like it.
Not under the present CBA it wouldn't be.
Remember (if you believe Forbes), you have 18 ish teams at very slight profits, around even and losing money.

What you fail to realize, is that those two bottom teams are providing a revenue drag for the league and holding the cap at where it is.

You contract those teams, you remove the drag, and whatever the new revenue total is now only divided 28 teams instead of 30... Result: cap goes up.

All those mid-level teams hovering around even would be forced increase spending as required with increased cap, despite no personal revenue growth, putting them in the red.

The present mid-level teams would shift towards the negative.

The problem isn't the bottom revenue teams... the problem is the high end teams pulling the cap out of the range of the rest of the league.... i.e. the problem is the system...

The answer - reduce player cost and/or increase revenue sharing. There you have your CBA battle.



* that's why you don't hear peep out of either side about contraction, or even relocation. It's simply not the answer to this problem.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote