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

[Donoghus]

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

It'd be a good way of him getting out of playing in the series clincher rather than putting up a hollow 16/7 in a 20 point loss.

[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?

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).

Wait... so the salary cap is going down 1 million dollars or more because of the shorter playoffs and you are now calling this peanuts?

[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?

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).

Wait... so the salary cap is going down 1 million dollars or more because of the shorter playoffs and you are now calling this peanuts? the fact of this matter is that this debate started about because you claimed there were no financial impacts for the league based on playoffs going longer. This has now been 100% proven false. It is just a matter of exactly what mechanisms impact these numbers. Maybe 20% is from the TV and some is from the gates. Maybe it is different. Without seeing the TV contracts and going through them with a lawyer we have no way of knowing. Even our resident cap expert has chimed in on this.

So you could be a big boy here and admit that your initial assertion that there is no financial reason for the league to want longer series was false and we can all move on.

[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).

Wait... so the salary cap is going down 1 million dollars or more because of the shorter playoffs and you are now calling this peanuts? the fact of this matter is that this debate started about because you claimed there were no financial impacts for the league based on playoffs going longer. This has now been 100% proven false. It is just a matter of exactly what mechanisms impact these numbers. Maybe 20% is from the TV and some is from the gates. Maybe it is different. Without seeing the TV contracts and going through them with a lawyer we have no way of knowing. Even our resident cap expert has chimed in on this.

So you could be a big boy here and admit that your initial assertion that there is no financial reason for the league to want longer series was false and we can all move on.

Actually this is what I said "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"

You then incorrectly stated that the television dollars could change and we went back and forth.  The BRI or "basketball related income" accounts for dollars from all sorts of sources, however pretty much only the television dollars actually get paid to the NBA, which then distributes it accordingly.  Ticket sales, which are the largest component of non-tv dollars in the BRI, don't go to the NBA (the team and arena get those), however they are a component of the BRI and thus affect the cap, but not the actual money the NBA has. 

[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?

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).

Wait... so the salary cap is going down 1 million dollars or more because of the shorter playoffs and you are now calling this peanuts? the fact of this matter is that this debate started about because you claimed there were no financial impacts for the league based on playoffs going longer. This has now been 100% proven false. It is just a matter of exactly what mechanisms impact these numbers. Maybe 20% is from the TV and some is from the gates. Maybe it is different. Without seeing the TV contracts and going through them with a lawyer we have no way of knowing. Even our resident cap expert has chimed in on this.

So you could be a big boy here and admit that your initial assertion that there is no financial reason for the league to want longer series was false and we can all move on.

Actually this is what I said "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"

You then incorrectly stated that the television dollars could change and we went back and forth.  The BRI or "basketball related income" accounts for dollars from all sorts of sources, however pretty much only the television dollars actually get paid to the NBA, which then distributes it accordingly.  Ticket sales, which are the largest component of non-tv dollars in the BRI, don't go to the NBA (the team and arena get those), however they are a component of the BRI and thus affect the cap, but not the actual money the NBA has.

But this isn't even true... you have just refused to believe what other posters and cap experts have said on the matter.

[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).

Wait... so the salary cap is going down 1 million dollars or more because of the shorter playoffs and you are now calling this peanuts? the fact of this matter is that this debate started about because you claimed there were no financial impacts for the league based on playoffs going longer. This has now been 100% proven false. It is just a matter of exactly what mechanisms impact these numbers. Maybe 20% is from the TV and some is from the gates. Maybe it is different. Without seeing the TV contracts and going through them with a lawyer we have no way of knowing. Even our resident cap expert has chimed in on this.

So you could be a big boy here and admit that your initial assertion that there is no financial reason for the league to want longer series was false and we can all move on.

Actually this is what I said "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"

You then incorrectly stated that the television dollars could change and we went back and forth.  The BRI or "basketball related income" accounts for dollars from all sorts of sources, however pretty much only the television dollars actually get paid to the NBA, which then distributes it accordingly.  Ticket sales, which are the largest component of non-tv dollars in the BRI, don't go to the NBA (the team and arena get those), however they are a component of the BRI and thus affect the cap, but not the actual money the NBA has.

But this isn't even true... you have just refused to believe what other posters and cap experts have said on the matter.

You clearly don't understand these issues.  I mean the article you posted in support of you alleged position, actually supported and confirmed everything I said. 

Let me try this again.

Not every dollar that affects the cap, goes to the NBA.  In other words, certain dollars that affect the cap get paid directly to the teams.  Thus, from the NBA's perspective those dollars make no actual difference to the NBA itself.  They affect the cap, but not the money the NBA makes, thus the NBA doesn't care if the series is 4 or 7 games as it relates to the current year (if the Finals are always boring sweeps it will affect future contracts).  The teams however make a lot of money for every single playoff game and as the length of a series increases or the amount of teams dwindle (i.e. rounds advance) the teams make a lot more money.  The teams have to share that extra money with the players as it is a part of the BRI, which is what sets the cap. 

[Vox_Populi]

The Cavs deserved to win tonight.

The Warriors had shot more free-throws with six minutes left, I think. Draymond escaped an ejection and later a flagrant. Zaza escaped a flagrant.

And yet, I come away from that game thinking the horrible officiating ultimately favored the Cavaliers.

[tarheelsxxiii]

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).

Wait... so the salary cap is going down 1 million dollars or more because of the shorter playoffs and you are now calling this peanuts? the fact of this matter is that this debate started about because you claimed there were no financial impacts for the league based on playoffs going longer. This has now been 100% proven false. It is just a matter of exactly what mechanisms impact these numbers. Maybe 20% is from the TV and some is from the gates. Maybe it is different. Without seeing the TV contracts and going through them with a lawyer we have no way of knowing. Even our resident cap expert has chimed in on this.

So you could be a big boy here and admit that your initial assertion that there is no financial reason for the league to want longer series was false and we can all move on.

Actually this is what I said "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"

You then incorrectly stated that the television dollars could change and we went back and forth.  The BRI or "basketball related income" accounts for dollars from all sorts of sources, however pretty much only the television dollars actually get paid to the NBA, which then distributes it accordingly.  Ticket sales, which are the largest component of non-tv dollars in the BRI, don't go to the NBA (the team and arena get those), however they are a component of the BRI and thus affect the cap, but not the actual money the NBA has.

But this isn't even true... you have just refused to believe what other posters and cap experts have said on the matter.

You clearly don't understand these issues.  I mean the article you posted in support of you alleged position, actually supported and confirmed everything I said. 

Let me try this again.

Not every dollar that affects the cap, goes to the NBA.  In other words, certain dollars that affect the cap get paid directly to the teams.  Thus, from the NBA's perspective those dollars make no actual difference to the NBA itself.  They affect the cap, but not the money the NBA makes, thus the NBA doesn't care if the series is 4 or 7 games as it relates to the current year (if the Finals are always boring sweeps it will affect future contracts).  The teams however make a lot of money for every single playoff game and as the length of a series increases or the amount of teams dwindle (i.e. rounds advance) the teams make a lot more money.  The teams have to share that extra money with the players as it is a part of the BRI, which is what sets the cap.

If CLE loses in 5, will you stop beating this drum for a while?  I'll give you TPs just to stop talking about CLE and/or PHI.  Or, just own it rather than pretend you aren't constantly feeding a biased and annoying agenda.  Your hero is bloated with PEDs and nonetheless screwed for the next 4-5 years. 

[Somebody]

If the Cavs somehow make a miraculous comeback, will Durant be the greatest choker of all time?

[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.

So in an extend the series situation which is what tonagy talked about they called 11 fouls leading to 22 first quarter free throws for the cavs. It was the highest I have ever seen without intentional fouling. Curry, thompson and iggy were all playing with foul trouble in the second quarter when the festivus was over. Once the rhythem of the game was established and the cavs had a significant lead things evened out and there were some awful calls in the warriors favor including the techs and flagrant. Was it random incompetence? Or were the refs coming out with initial directive to call warriors really tight?

[Celtics4ever]

The Cavs deserved to win tonight.

22 Free throws in a quarter will do that for a team.  It gave them a 16 point lead which they were able to hold.

[hpantazo]

We aren't the only ones who think the game was fixed last night:


"CJ McCollum: Lol . NBA want 7 games just like us. Send out the suspensions again 😂😂😂 – via Twitter"

"Patrick Patterson: At least don’t make it obvious! #NBAFinals – via Twitter"

[Jvalin]

People don't really believe this stuff do they?

They do and they have plenty of evidence to back it up too.

Conspiracy theories go all the way back to 1984 (first year of Stern as the commissioner). We had just lost game 6 of the Finals against the Lakers when Larry Legend made the following statement :

"Stern told a fan that the NBA needed a seven-game series, that the league needed the money. When the commissioner makes a statement like that to a fan, you know it's going to be tough. When Stern makes a statement like that, things are going to happen. You just don't make statements like that and not expect anything out of it. He's the commissioner and he shouldn't be saying anything like that. The NBA wanted a seventh game because they wanted to make more money and they got their wish. There is no reason for me to lie. He said it. He's a man and he'll live up to it. He may say he said it in jest. But I'm out there trying to make a living and win a championship."