Knicks · Player League versus Basketball lague (page 1)

Todays NBA is a Player League.
Stars running the show because the winning and bbal game itself is not the goal but the mean to make money, big money.
Will teams like GS and Spurs turn the tide back to basketball or they will fail and Big-3 league will prevail for the years to come?

MLB is a players league. Guys like Lebron, Melo, Durant, Curry.... they are paid a fraction of what their market value is. NBA is in the middle. The players wield more power because there are so few stars, but their value is capped.

13 MLB players have contracts valued at over $200mm. The highest NBA contract ever is Anthony Davis's $145mm. 35 other athletes have bigger deals. 31 are MLB players. Letting a player (like Lebron) run your team is a choice, not a must.

Probably NBA is second but it is not about what it is but about the trend.
MLB is traditional sport league... like Soccer in Latin America.
NBA having world wide inspiration and tried to grow the fan bases beyond minorities and bbal junkies.
I am not sure which way is best to go.
To grow the game or the entertainment, or some reasonable balance can be reached.
The bbal I personally enjoyed is when ball and players are moving and playing together versus couple of stars doing their high flying tricks or shoot million shots to get their points total up.

You can make a case that the NBA is as much platform for players to do their branding and make money outside their paychecks, as it is a league made of teams competing for a title...probably more so, since so few teams win titles.

Also have to look at the sneaker money for NBA stars...does the MLB or NFL have anything similar?

They all sell shirts, uniforms, hats, sports drinks, etc, but my gut feeling is that the sneaker is a form of currency unique to the NBA. (Am I wrong on this...I assume that I'm overlooking something obvious.)

Some stars do seem to have immense power within this or that franchise...but I think it varies franchise to franchise.

I also believe that some teams don't have much choice other than to please a certain star (like Lebron or Kobe). Further complicating the issue is that an owner might step over a GM to establish a relationship with a star.

It becomes annoying when I see certain players clearly winning power plays when they are in conflict with their coach, but I've come to accept this with an "it is what it is" sense of resignation.

WaltLongmire wrote:You can make a case that the NBA is as much platform for players to do their branding and make money outside their paychecks, as it is a league made of teams competing for a title...probably more so, since so few teams win titles.

Also have to look at the sneaker money for NBA stars...does the MLB or NFL have anything similar?

They all sell shirts, uniforms, hats, sports drinks, etc, but my gut feeling is that the sneaker is a form of currency unique to the NBA. (Am I wrong on this...I assume that I'm overlooking something obvious.)

Some stars do seem to have immense power within this or that franchise...but I think it varies franchise to franchise.

I also believe that some teams don't have much choice other than to please a certain star (like Lebron or Kobe). Further complicating the issue is that an owner might step over a GM to establish a relationship with a star.

It becomes annoying when I see certain players clearly winning power plays when they are in conflict with their coach, but I've come to accept this with an "it is what it is" sense of resignation.

At the end of the day NBA is what we fans created.
It reflects what we want to pay money for.
It reflects culture of the society, the focus on all shiny stuff, not on a substance.
It is not good or bad debate, its just what it is.