NBA Finals: Only question left is whether NBA will extend series

[MattyIce]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

correct, it affects the income, therefore also affects next years cap, which could also help us..so i was torn wanting the sweep but knowing that a 5 or 6 game series may ultimately help us (although a sweep helps confirm the west is a harder path)...so maybe a 5 game would be my compromise?

[celticsclay]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

The cap could drop up to $1 million next year if the series only goes four games, per a Tweet I saw from Bobby Marks.

Curry should tank a couple of his games so his max contract is worth more!

Presumably this would be because the TV contracts are set up how I suggest and are NOT already all paid for regardless of total games?

[Moranis]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

ABC gets that ad revenue though not the league.  That is why ABC pays such big dollars for the playoffs.  So they can make the money selling ad space. 

You may be right that there is some sort of pro-rated dollars, but I really don't see why the league would agree to that because it just reduces their share for less games.  I would think they would put that risk on the networks, who clearly don't give the league more money if they sell the ad space for more (or pay less if they don't make as much ad revenue as they anticipated). 

now if there are uncompetitive series for awhile that don't draw ratings, that will certainly affect the next round of negotiations, but I'd be surprised if the tv revenue changed based on length of the finals.

[saltlover]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

The cap could drop up to $1 million next year if the series only goes four games, per a Tweet I saw from Bobby Marks.

Curry should tank a couple of his games so his max contract is worth more!

Presumably this would be because the TV contracts are set up how I suggest and are NOT already all paid for regardless of total games?

I haven't seen the contracts (I would LOVE to), but it is very likely a key component of why the cap would drop so much, as 2-3 days worth of box office sales would need to be worth about $60 million to have such an impact on the cap.

[celticsclay]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

ABC gets that ad revenue though not the league.  That is why ABC pays such big dollars for the playoffs.  So they can make the money selling ad space. 

You may be right that there is some sort of pro-rated dollars, but I really don't see why the league would agree to that because it just reduces their share for less games.  I would think they would put that risk on the networks, who clearly don't give the league more money if they sell the ad space for more (or pay less if they don't make as much ad revenue as they anticipated). 

now if there are uncompetitive series for awhile that don't draw ratings, that will certainly affect the next round of negotiations, but I'd be surprised if the tv revenue changed based on length of the finals.

What do you propose is the reasoning behind the cap going down 1 million or more purely based on the shorter playoffs then? Obviously they are not redrawing contracts before next season. The only way it makes sense is if there is a pro-rated system set up to protect involved parties.

[chilidawg]

If they were going to "extend" the series, wouldn't it have made more sense to do that in game 3, in order to increase interest in game 4?

Conspiracy theories always seem to miss the more obvious solutions.

[tonydelk]

this is a sweep in the making. There is no way the Cavs can stay with GSW. There really is not a team that can in the present NBA.

So will the league office go to work and ensure that the series is extended through some timely home cooking calls for Cavs? That alone should cause the ardent fan to watch the next game.

So what do you think? Does the NBA step in to extend series, or just let it take its natural course to a sweep?

More games = More Revenue

[celticsclay]

If they were going to "extend" the series, wouldn't it have made more sense to do that in game 3, in order to increase interest in game 4?

Conspiracy theories always seem to miss the more obvious solutions.

I think there is a lot of misconceptions here. Some people do believe that there is some hardcore fix in and the league somehow intervenes to force Cleveland to win a game. Very people that I know or have talked to actually believe this. This would actually qualify as a conspiracy theory.

What a lot more people believe is that there is some bias in the officiating in certain situations. How a former referee described his involvement in this was that the NBA gave refs notes before each game on things to watch out for. In these playoffs they are giving them notes like "hey you missed two reach in fouls on Draymond Green and one over the back call. Watch what he does with his arms in the paint cause he committed these uncalled fouls there. Sometimes, whether through a desire to have a longer series, or perhaps just through chance, this guidance provided to the Refs ended up favoring one team in the game. This could be little more than what is traditionally thought of as "home court advantage." This is absolutely not a conspiracy. It is a fact of what happens and some of it is even publicly reported with the 2 minute reports.

Now you have people that think this has a really big influence on games. You have people that think it impacts it a little and you have people that think there is no influence at all. It is a matter of opinion, the eye test and other factors.

However, people got to stop being so lazy with it and dismissing people as crazy because they fall somewhere on this spectrum of how much they think refereeing impacts games overall. It is obnoxious and shows a lack of understanding of what people are talking about. This isn't like something with the lottery where people think there is a large scale rigging with lots of involved actors. This is a judgement, based on fact, with varying opinions on how much it could impact outcomes.

[Moranis]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

ABC gets that ad revenue though not the league.  That is why ABC pays such big dollars for the playoffs.  So they can make the money selling ad space. 

You may be right that there is some sort of pro-rated dollars, but I really don't see why the league would agree to that because it just reduces their share for less games.  I would think they would put that risk on the networks, who clearly don't give the league more money if they sell the ad space for more (or pay less if they don't make as much ad revenue as they anticipated). 

now if there are uncompetitive series for awhile that don't draw ratings, that will certainly affect the next round of negotiations, but I'd be surprised if the tv revenue changed based on length of the finals.

What do you propose is the reasoning behind the cap going down 1 million or more purely based on the shorter playoffs then? Obviously they are not redrawing contracts before next season. The only way it makes sense is if there is a pro-rated system set up to protect involved parties.

I don't think he is right.  I mean think about this, why would this year's finals have anything to do with next year's cap?  This year's finals bring in revenue for this year, not next year.  And all of the stories on the television deals list it at a firm annual price.  They don't talk about ranges or this is the minimum and this is the maximum.  They don't talk about how more games means more money.  Or anything along those lines.  I just don't think it changes from year to year because it would be a nightmare for the league to plan without having a set dollar known.  Certain things that affect the cap do change year to year, but I just don't see the tv dollars as being one of them.  The Networks take the risk on a short series, or a series with a terrible draw, and on the flip side the Networks also reap the rewards if the Finals are the Lakers vs. Celtics in a closely fought 7 game series. 

Now I could be wrong, but it just doesn't logically make sense, so unless I see a real source that has actual knowledge, I'm going to tend to believe that the league sees no additional dollars based on the length of a playoff series (the network does, the teams do, and the players do).

[celticsclay]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

ABC gets that ad revenue though not the league.  That is why ABC pays such big dollars for the playoffs.  So they can make the money selling ad space. 

You may be right that there is some sort of pro-rated dollars, but I really don't see why the league would agree to that because it just reduces their share for less games.  I would think they would put that risk on the networks, who clearly don't give the league more money if they sell the ad space for more (or pay less if they don't make as much ad revenue as they anticipated). 

now if there are uncompetitive series for awhile that don't draw ratings, that will certainly affect the next round of negotiations, but I'd be surprised if the tv revenue changed based on length of the finals.

What do you propose is the reasoning behind the cap going down 1 million or more purely based on the shorter playoffs then? Obviously they are not redrawing contracts before next season. The only way it makes sense is if there is a pro-rated system set up to protect involved parties.

I don't think he is right.  I mean think about this, why would this year's finals have anything to do with next year's cap?  This year's finals bring in revenue for this year, not next year.  And all of the stories on the television deals list it at a firm annual price.  They don't talk about ranges or this is the minimum and this is the maximum.  They don't talk about how more games means more money.  Or anything along those lines.  I just don't think it changes from year to year because it would be a nightmare for the league to plan without having a set dollar known.  Certain things that affect the cap do change year to year, but I just don't see the tv dollars as being one of them.  The Networks take the risk on a short series, or a series with a terrible draw, and on the flip side the Networks also reap the rewards if the Finals are the Lakers vs. Celtics in a closely fought 7 game series. 

Now I could be wrong, but it just doesn't logically make sense, so unless I see a real source that has actual knowledge, I'm going to tend to believe that the league sees no additional dollars based on the length of a playoff series (the network does, the teams do, and the players do).

I am pretty sure you were just flat out wrong on this one.

This is old, but I have found multiple people that have no reason to lie about it or be wrong saying the same for this year.

NBA Commissioner David Stern projected in April that the League’s ’10-11 salary cap would be roughly $56.1 million. An exact number isn’t expected until July 7.

Coon wrote in a late May post that a shorter playoff season translates into less basketball-related income (BRI), which would lower each team’s salary cap figure versus the $56.1 million projection. Here is how that would work.

According to a league executive Coon spoke with, each playoff game can generate $500,000-$2.5 million per game. The precise figure is difficult to find, but there are a couple variables as to how much revenue comes in: the number of playoff games played and which teams are playing.

Let’s start with the number of games played. Assuming Stern based his salary cap projection with the average number of playoff games  (85) in mind, and revenue is lost for each game short of the average, three fewer games this past postseason would mean $7.5 million less revenue than what Stern might have expected.

Take that $7.5 million figure, carve out 51 percent of it (that’s the percentage of BRI that determines the salary cap) and then divide that by 30 teams. That could mean, in a worst-case scenario, that the salary cap could be $127,500 less than the $56.1 million projection. Yet it could have been worse had the Lakers and Celtics not stretched their series to legendary proportions.

Read more at http://www.slamonline.com/nba/nba-playoffs-affect-free-agency/#5W0OxmeTkSBfcZ5l.99

So your point a few posts back that the league has all its money through TV contracts so a longer series is completely wrong. Right?

[saltlover]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

ABC gets that ad revenue though not the league.  That is why ABC pays such big dollars for the playoffs.  So they can make the money selling ad space. 

You may be right that there is some sort of pro-rated dollars, but I really don't see why the league would agree to that because it just reduces their share for less games.  I would think they would put that risk on the networks, who clearly don't give the league more money if they sell the ad space for more (or pay less if they don't make as much ad revenue as they anticipated). 

now if there are uncompetitive series for awhile that don't draw ratings, that will certainly affect the next round of negotiations, but I'd be surprised if the tv revenue changed based on length of the finals.

What do you propose is the reasoning behind the cap going down 1 million or more purely based on the shorter playoffs then? Obviously they are not redrawing contracts before next season. The only way it makes sense is if there is a pro-rated system set up to protect involved parties.

I don't think he is right.  I mean think about this, why would this year's finals have anything to do with next year's cap?  This year's finals bring in revenue for this year, not next year.  And all of the stories on the television deals list it at a firm annual price.  They don't talk about ranges or this is the minimum and this is the maximum.  They don't talk about how more games means more money.  Or anything along those lines.  I just don't think it changes from year to year because it would be a nightmare for the league to plan without having a set dollar known.  Certain things that affect the cap do change year to year, but I just don't see the tv dollars as being one of them.  The Networks take the risk on a short series, or a series with a terrible draw, and on the flip side the Networks also reap the rewards if the Finals are the Lakers vs. Celtics in a closely fought 7 game series. 

Now I could be wrong, but it just doesn't logically make sense, so unless I see a real source that has actual knowledge, I'm going to tend to believe that the league sees no additional dollars based on the length of a playoff series (the network does, the teams do, and the players do).

That's because of how the cap is structured.  Essentially the reason there has been a cap spike the last few seasons is partly because of the revenue jump, but also because the pre-existing salaries were so low that the NBA players did not get enough in salaries per the 50-50 revenue split.  That excess was added into the following year's cap.

When we've seen cap forecasts from the NBA for next season, they've taken into account that the player's weren't going to get their revenue share.  But if the revenues are off, that's less rollover for the following year.  So getting less this year absolutely affects the cap next year, because there is less rollover cap money.

As for your other point -- in a prior job, I used to look at a lot of contracts between stations, networks, and advertisers.  If shows didn't pick up enough viewers, advertisers were given either a discount on future ads or a refund on ads that had aired.  While I have not seen a contract with a major professional sport, it would not remotely surprise me to see some mechanism that either reduces future payment or creates a refund in the event of fewer broadcasts or lower ratings.  The industry is very used to making such agreements.

[liam]

Will LeBron be suspended for that last minute kick in Iguodala's nuts? No 'cause it's Bron, Bron...

[Moranis]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Yes, people believe it... because it's more than likely to be true.

NBA already has their money. It makes no difference if it is 4 games or 7 games as the tv dollars are already paid for

I am actually not sure this is true. I have read in a few places, but not from reliable sources I am 100% confident in, that the contracts are set up for x amount of games and there is a percentage paid to the NBA based on the number of total NBA games per season.

There have been 77 playoff games this season (probably will end with 78 or 79 max)
There was 86 playoff games last year.

It would be a bit insane for these TV contracts to be set up where they get 12% less product of the highest rated games in the season and get nothing back for it. Several TP's to anyone can confirm that it is structured this way.

Additionally, the company I work for pays massive amount of money to run their steph curry ad during the finals. It is run much less during a 4 game series then it would be during a 7 game series and their are serious financial ramifications.

Then obviously the NBA estimated the Warriors alone make 22 million dollars less from 2 less home games than there were in last years finals.

So presenting the narrative that there is not tons of money at play here from many different is the biggest conspiracy of all.

ABC gets that ad revenue though not the league.  That is why ABC pays such big dollars for the playoffs.  So they can make the money selling ad space. 

You may be right that there is some sort of pro-rated dollars, but I really don't see why the league would agree to that because it just reduces their share for less games.  I would think they would put that risk on the networks, who clearly don't give the league more money if they sell the ad space for more (or pay less if they don't make as much ad revenue as they anticipated). 

now if there are uncompetitive series for awhile that don't draw ratings, that will certainly affect the next round of negotiations, but I'd be surprised if the tv revenue changed based on length of the finals.

What do you propose is the reasoning behind the cap going down 1 million or more purely based on the shorter playoffs then? Obviously they are not redrawing contracts before next season. The only way it makes sense is if there is a pro-rated system set up to protect involved parties.

I don't think he is right.  I mean think about this, why would this year's finals have anything to do with next year's cap?  This year's finals bring in revenue for this year, not next year.  And all of the stories on the television deals list it at a firm annual price.  They don't talk about ranges or this is the minimum and this is the maximum.  They don't talk about how more games means more money.  Or anything along those lines.  I just don't think it changes from year to year because it would be a nightmare for the league to plan without having a set dollar known.  Certain things that affect the cap do change year to year, but I just don't see the tv dollars as being one of them.  The Networks take the risk on a short series, or a series with a terrible draw, and on the flip side the Networks also reap the rewards if the Finals are the Lakers vs. Celtics in a closely fought 7 game series. 

Now I could be wrong, but it just doesn't logically make sense, so unless I see a real source that has actual knowledge, I'm going to tend to believe that the league sees no additional dollars based on the length of a playoff series (the network does, the teams do, and the players do).

I am pretty sure you were just flat out wrong on this one.

This is old, but I have found multiple people that have no reason to lie about it or be wrong saying the same for this year.

NBA Commissioner David Stern projected in April that the League’s ’10-11 salary cap would be roughly $56.1 million. An exact number isn’t expected until July 7.

Coon wrote in a late May post that a shorter playoff season translates into less basketball-related income (BRI), which would lower each team’s salary cap figure versus the $56.1 million projection. Here is how that would work.

According to a league executive Coon spoke with, each playoff game can generate $500,000-$2.5 million per game. The precise figure is difficult to find, but there are a couple variables as to how much revenue comes in: the number of playoff games played and which teams are playing.

Let’s start with the number of games played. Assuming Stern based his salary cap projection with the average number of playoff games  (85) in mind, and revenue is lost for each game short of the average, three fewer games this past postseason would mean $7.5 million less revenue than what Stern might have expected.

Take that $7.5 million figure, carve out 51 percent of it (that’s the percentage of BRI that determines the salary cap) and then divide that by 30 teams. That could mean, in a worst-case scenario, that the salary cap could be $127,500 less than the $56.1 million projection. Yet it could have been worse had the Lakers and Celtics not stretched their series to legendary proportions.

Read more at http://www.slamonline.com/nba/nba-playoffs-affect-free-agency/#5W0OxmeTkSBfcZ5l.99

So your point a few posts back that the league has all its money through TV contracts so a longer series is completely wrong. Right?

apparently you have completely stopped reading things you post

"One more thing. A chunk of BRI that doesn’t change based on the number of playoff games or which teams are playing is TV revenue. It’s a hefty percentage of BRI and it’s one guaranteed form of revenue no matter what happens."

The BRI goes up because teams sell more tickets (which the longer a series is the more they cost), they sell more merchandise, they sell more concessions, etc.  The television dollars don't change and the league itself sees almost nothing of the ticket sales, concessions, merchandising, etc. as that almost entirely goes to the team, the arena owner (if not the team), and the players. 

That is the point I've been making.  The television dollars, which are by far the largest chunk of the revenue, just don't change no matter the length of the series.  The only slight changes are ticket sales and the other stuff that goes along with a game, but that is peanuts in the scheme of things (though admittedly might slightly alter the cap because it could affect the BRI enough to do so).

[liam]

Should the NBA suspend LeBron James for kicking Andre Iguodala in the groin? The internet thinks so:

http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2017/06/should_the_nba_suspend_lebron.html

[CelticsElite]

Nba uses magnets in the balls and hoops to rig game? https://youtu.be/bV3B4X6eXz0