Started By
Message

re: ESPNs contract with the NBA

Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:07 pm to
Posted by arwicklu
Houston, TX
Member since Jan 2008
7627 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:07 pm to
quote:

NBA players are 3.5x more likely to be injured on the 2nd night of a back to back.


I don't know if that's true but assuming that it is... pretty damning from a health and safety perspective. It's very daft to force them to play as well because a season long injury to a star doesn't help the league either.

I know people don't care but in my industry people force unsafe behavior for near term money. It rarely works out well as unsafe practices cause bad results eventually.
Posted by JohnnyKilroy
Cajun Navy Vice Admiral
Member since Oct 2012
35558 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:08 pm to
quote:

Teams play different in European soccer when they are in the champions league. You have extra game so you have to use your bench more since the league, UCL, FA cup (or similar) requires more games played.


Uh yea.... By resting players. Many teams will not play their best lineup a few days before a UCL match after the group stage. And many teams will sit most of their star players if they already have first or second in the group locked up.

Major European soccer teams rest players all the time.
Posted by shel311
McKinney, Texas
Member since Aug 2004
111139 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:11 pm to
quote:

I don't know if that's true but assuming that it is... pretty damning from a health and safety perspective. It's very daft to force them to play as well because a season long injury to a star doesn't help the league either.

Yea exactly, good luck enforcing some kind of rule with those numbers.

LINK

Plus, something crazy like that would have to be collectively bargained, something the players would never go for. The league can't just decide to do it, it doesn't work like that, like some have insinuated on the MSB.
Posted by Dr RC
The Money Pit
Member since Aug 2011
58128 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:15 pm to
quote:

No it is not a breach of contract. ESPN overpaid for all their sports rights and are now feeling the effects of that


ESPN was operating like how the Texas Rangers used to with Scott Boras clients.

Scott - "Ok, we don't have a firm offer yet for ARod, and the Mets balked at an ARod merch tent... but it's going to take at least $120 million. What do you have fellas?"

Rangers GM Doug Melvin - "$150 million!"

Scott - "Ok let's start the pap.."

Rangers owner Tom Hicks - "No wait!!! $200 million!!!!"

Scott - "Umm... I didn't counter but ok..."

Melvin - "Tom let me do my"

Hicks - "$250 MILLION!!!!!"

Melvin - "Tom that's more than you paid for the team..."

Scott - "I'm going to stop you there before you realize what you've down and say deal. Now... did you know Chan Ho Park and Kevin Millwood are free agents soon?"

Hicks - "WE GIVE YOU ALL THE MONIES!!!"

Melvin - "shite, I gotta get outta here.."
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 10:17 pm
Posted by arwicklu
Houston, TX
Member since Jan 2008
7627 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:18 pm to
quote:

Yea exactly, good luck enforcing some kind of rule with those numbers.


I don't feel sorry for the guys because they make a fortune. It is still appropriate to make sure the game is safe.

Different sport but I think eventually a player injured in a Thursday night NFL game is going to sue the league and his team for putting them in an unsafe condition and ruining their career. That un-guaranteed will get paid out quick with the right lawyers. Businesses never win with unsafe work conditions.
Posted by AlexLSU
Member since Jan 2005
25341 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:48 pm to
quote:

ESPN could of signed a 1 year deal. Simply put , Disney made a bad investment.


Aside from the fact that you're arguing a 1 year deal was possible (as if there was no competition for the rights), I don't agree that it was a bad investment. It may not be as lucrative as ESPN anticipated, but what's the cost of NOT doing the deal? ESPN kinda needs live sports
Posted by Col Reb is my mascot
Member since Feb 2012
4165 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:50 pm to
I don't know, what does the contract say?
Posted by JabarkusRussell
Member since Jul 2009
15825 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:50 pm to
Players don't want to lower their stats by playing just ten minutes.
Posted by brmark70816
Atlanta, GA
Member since Feb 2011
9827 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 6:50 am to
quote:

Different sport but I think eventually a player injured in a Thursday night NFL game is going to sue the league and his team for putting them in an unsafe condition and ruining their career. That un-guaranteed will get paid out quick with the right lawyers. Businesses never win with unsafe work conditions.


I'll never understand how this has become as issue. The NBA schedule hasn't changed in decades. Teams always played back to back and had overnight travel. Now they use luxury planes and more preventative care, but the guys are getting hurt more? It doesn't make sense.

Also, for some reason college teams can play in these tournaments where they play every day. But professionals can't do it? There were teams that played in conference tournaments (4 games in 4 days) that ended on a Sunday, then had to fly and play a play in game on Tuesday. Nobody complains for the college kids though. They want to play more.
Posted by Mr. Hangover
New Orleans
Member since Sep 2003
34517 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 7:43 am to
Oh look, another entitled douche who thinks he can control when NBA players take the court
Posted by dabigfella
Member since Mar 2016
6687 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 7:59 am to
Great lets go there, but get it through these knucklehead players skulls that they can't make as much money and see how many want 82 games. Lebron doesn't give a frick bc he has crazy endorsement deals, go tell some overpaid schmuck like mike conley who is making like $400k/game that you're going to lop off 16 games costing him $6.4M and see if he's onboard.

again lebron is just a vag, karl malone,john stockton, plenty of other old timers went deep in the playoffs many a time in their career, hell john stockton didn't miss a single game in his 40s!!!!! How many miles were on those legs???

Of course the lebron fanbois are gonna come say well how many titles didn't stockton win? Of course his loyalty to a small market in utah wasn't rewarded like lebron, who gave up on his small market after 7 seasons to build a super team.
This post was edited on 3/22/17 at 8:00 am
Posted by TigerBait1127
Houston
Member since Jun 2005
47336 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 8:36 am to
quote:

Silver created this mess by being so player friendly.




This has occurred long before Silver.
This post was edited on 3/22/17 at 8:38 am
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 9:02 am to
quote:

hell john stockton didn't miss a single game in his 40s!!!!! How many miles were on those legs???


How many rings were on those fingers?
Posted by dabigfella
Member since Mar 2016
6687 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 9:35 am to
so john stockton never won a title bc he didn't sitout 6-7 games a year? If my memory serves me right, the guys who won titles in his era also didn't sit out. I think its bc vagisil wasn't an approved treatment for the primadonnas yet.
Posted by Tiger Prawn
Member since Dec 2016
21967 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 9:40 am to
quote:

It is well known that ESPN regrets the amount they spent on the NBA package as in a few years they are projected to pay more for rights to games than they will take in

ESPN only regrets it because they're bleeding subscribers right now because of all the cord cutting....which can be blamed on the ever increasing cost of cable/satellite TV. And ESPN is the most expensive network per subscriber by a LARGE margin, so they're reaping what they sowed.

quote:

Would the NBA's decision to consistently bench stars during prime time games be considered a breach of their contract and allow them to get out or renegotiate terms?

No. Its not the NBA making decisions to bench players anyway, its the teams/coaches deciding to rest players. In the future, ESPN should pay closer attention to the schedule when picking out their national broadcast games to avoid games where one team may be playing 4 games in 5 days or on the 2nd night of a back-to-back.


Posted by Tiger Prawn
Member since Dec 2016
21967 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 9:45 am to
quote:

It may not be as lucrative as ESPN anticipated, but what's the cost of NOT doing the deal? ESPN kinda needs live sports


Bingo!

ESPN is the most expensive cable network per subscriber, by a wide margin. Without live sports, ESPN has no justification being able to charge those types of subscriber fees because people aren't going to pay that kind of money to watch nothing but Sportscenter and talk shows.
Posted by HurricaneDunc
Houston
Member since Nov 2008
10472 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 9:52 am to
quote:

the Rodeo


What team's schedule is impacted by that?
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 10:51 am to
quote:

What team's schedule is impacted by that?


San Antonio Spurs

Annual Rodeo Road Trip
Posted by Tiger Prawn
Member since Dec 2016
21967 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 10:53 am to
quote:

quote:
the Rodeo


What team's schedule is impacted by that?


Unless there's some other Rodeo, I assume he's talking about the Rockets. But NRG Stadium and the Toyota Center are nowhere near one another and the Rockets are playing 5 home games during the time the Rodeo is going on. So I don't really see how the Rodeo is affecting their schedule.

ETA: Nevermind, saw TbirdSpurs's post about Spurs
This post was edited on 3/22/17 at 10:54 am
Posted by crazycubes
Member since Jan 2016
5256 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 11:00 am to
quote:

Aside from the fact that you're arguing a 1 year deal was possible (as if there was no competition for the rights), I don't agree that it was a bad investment. It may not be as lucrative as ESPN anticipated, but what's the cost of NOT doing the deal? ESPN kinda needs live sports


You and the other poster have a point, I'm sure the NBA would have went with the next 10 year offer. That being said, it seems dump to sign a contract that you know you will lose money on. I guess they thought that they could make it work .
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram