Can Someone Explain Moore's Season to Me?

[djcon57]

Where does it all end? Players are just going to keep raising their prices. Jimmy Butler’s NBA contract gives him $650k per game. That’s insanity money.

Is it?

NBA signs new TV deal: Details on 11-year, $76 billion deal with ESPN, NBC, Amazon as TNT gets left out

 

[kcsu]

Money will come from Athletic proceeds including all sources. Ticket sales, ACC Rev etc...
The part that I'm not sure about is booster money. On the surface booster money should still be funneled through the collectives as that is the only way that there can be an increase to pay players. If it goes to the school i believe it counts towards the 20m cap and won't be accretive.

 

[Fly Rodder]

What gives? Why was his playing time reduced so severely and so quickly? Defense? A bad attitude?

Defense is my guess. He's not much better, if at all, than Bell and can't shoot like Bell. He's got the worst D-rating on the team and the 3rd worst O-rating (Carlos and Cuffe). Of freshman in the ACC, he's the 5th worst behind three Miami players and a guy from Cal. He's got the 2nd worst true shooting percentage of freshmen in the ACC. He's 16th in minutes played though.

He got opportunity, but he wasn't very good outside of a few stretches.

 

[Consigliere]

Money will come from Athletic proceeds including all sources. Ticket sales, ACC Rev etc...
The part that I'm not sure about is booster money. On the surface booster money should still be funneled through the collectives as that is the only way that there can be an increase to pay players. If it goes to the school i believe it counts towards the 20m cap and won't be accretive.

Revenue sources you list are already in place and barely cover the cost of running the department and full portfolio of sports. The $20.5MM has to come from incremental revenue or cost cutting. Donors can continue to give money to the department. Unless it is a specifically earmarked gift it can be used for any purpose at the discretion of the AD. It can certainly be applied to direct payments to athletes, but that is capped at $20.MM minus the first $2.5MM in additional scholarship costs. Money given to collectives, and/or direct NIL transactions between businesses or individuals and student athletes is essentially unrestricted and does not count against the $20.5MM direct payment cap. Proposed House settlement makes these payments subject to review by an independent clearinghouse.

 

[rhcuse]

And who will run this clearing house?
What are their criterion for “fair market value”?
How will they prioritize cases?
Turnaround time?
Transparency?
Wouldn’t this restrict “real” NIL opportunities which was already the impetus for the courts to disallow control of NIL in the first place?

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Is it?

NBA signs new TV deal: Details on 11-year, $76 billion deal with ESPN, NBC, Amazon as TNT gets left out

I don't understand.
Are you saying Butler making $650k per game isn't crazy, because networks/the NBA are in on a $75 billion dollar deal? Because the players deserve the increases as the network contracts increase?

I can grok that to a point. But, my perspective is:
• That money isn't just appearing out of nowhere. All of us are paying for it. Whether we watch the NBA or not, in many cases.
• Every athlete is fungible. If there were no such thing as a Jimmy Butler, the game would exist exactly the same—the players don't create anything.
• If instead of $50 million contracts for top players, just through magic, the very best players made at most $10 million per year, and that was always the ceiling (not talking about a pay cut for already rich guys), who of them would stop playing the game and would do something else? Essentially, i'm saying it's always an overpay for what they're doing.
• The players are employees of various companies, within a broader organization. Just because the organizations make profit x doesn't mean employees are entitled to 1/x share. The fact that the game and media and networks magnifies their roles into 'stardom' doesn't negate the fact that they're still only pistons in a machine, and the pistons get replaced every ten years.

I'm sure there's a lot of chaff in the above. Please contradict me.

I'm just of the belief that we're seeing $850k college centers that probably aren't even good enough to play in the NBA, so how much are we going to have to pay a program-changing center? And that's for 2025. In 2030, what will be the price? It won't be the 2025 price, and who's going to be paying for that? It's already ludicrous that alums are buying a college kid an SUV, so that he can get chicks, dunk in front of formerly-massive crowds, and create a resumé reel for bigger money in real pro leagues. To me, that's not what college sports should be about.

I'm not anti-player, at all. I think there should be stipends, insurance, and standard licensing of names on merchandise, etc. But, you come to college to be a student and to represent a school. Old man views, possibly, but i'll wager the game 'back then' will always be better than the game we have under the current system.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

1. Good question. Money comes from the Athletics Department which breaks even at best. Funding needs to come from additional donations, additional revenue streams like the shared pool from the expanded CFP, reallocation of donor funds from facilities to direct payments to athletes or cost cutting measures.

2. The $2.5MM covers the additional scholarships allowed by House. Football alone goes from 85 to 105, and while this is now a roster cap and not a scholarship limit, the cost of each scholarship over 85 goes against the $20.5MM up to $2.5MM.

3. Donations to collectives can fund additional payments to athletes. Businesses or individuals can still engage in NIL transactions outside either of these channels. Donations to the school’s athletic programs in excess of the $2.5MM cannot be used for direct payments.

4. Proposed settlement is for all third party transactions to be subject to clearinghouse review. The pushback on this proposal has been significant but now coaches groups are coming out in support of it. Will be interesting to see if this survives the April hearings.

5. The Vegas tournament lump sum payment goes to the school’s preferred collective. Collective could conceivably use as they see fit but expectation is that 100% will go to men’s basketball. There will also be one off opportunities for individual players in and around Vegas during the tournament.

Hope this helps. Very dynamic environment and things can change but this is essentially where we are today.

Thanks for this.

 

[djcon57]

I don't understand.
Are you saying Butler making $650k per game isn't crazy, because networks/the NBA are in on a $75 billion dollar deal? Because the players deserve the increases as the network contracts increase?

I can grok that to a point. But, my perspective is:
• That money isn't just appearing out of nowhere. All of us are paying for it. Whether we watch the NBA or not, in many cases.
• Every athlete is fungible. If there were no such thing as a Jimmy Butler, the game would exist exactly the same—the players don't create anything.
• If instead of $50 million contracts for top players, just through magic, the very best players made at most $10 million per year, and that was always the ceiling (not talking about a pay cut for already rich guys), who of them would stop playing the game and would do something else? Essentially, i'm saying it's always an overpay for what they're doing.
• The players are employees of various companies, within a broader organization. Just because the organizations make profit x doesn't mean employees are entitled to 1/x share. The fact that the game and media and networks magnifies their roles into 'stardom' doesn't negate the fact that they're still only pistons in a machine, and the pistons get replaced every ten years.

I'm sure there's a lot of chaff in the above. Please contradict me.

I'm just of the belief that we're seeing $850k college centers that probably aren't even good enough to play in the NBA, so how much are we going to have to pay a program-changing center? And that's for 2025. In 2030, what will be the price? It won't be the 2025 price, and who's going to be paying for that? It's already ludicrous that alums are buying a college kid an SUV, so that he can get chicks, dunk in front of formerly-massive crowds, and create a resumé reel for bigger money in real pro leagues. To me, that's not what college sports should be about.

I'm not anti-player, at all. I think there should be stipends, insurance, and standard licensing of names on merchandise, etc. But, you come to college to be a student and to represent a school. Old man views, possibly, but i'll wager the game 'back then' will always be better than the game we have under the current system.

It’s pretty simple. If they weren’t worth that much, they wouldn’t get paid that much

 

[Zelda Zonk]

It’s pretty simple. If they weren’t worth that much, they wouldn’t get paid that much

I don’t think that’s true. “Worth” is an ambiguity. As is “value.” They’re in a market and the market supports it because the system exploits The People in order to maintain the system. The simple fact that there are now umpteen various streaming platforms from which to view games means there are more revenue streams for the leagues to suck from… and they suck from us. The ‘de-evolution’ from one cable bill to five streaming bills makes us an easier target for exploitation.

Have a look at this:

Value in the NBA: What's the Value of a Win?

In the first chapter of our offseason exploration of the concept of "value", we answer the question: How much is a single win worth to each NBA team?

www.brewhoop.com

I would suggest there’s nothing “simple” about it, and even all this calculus doesn’t reconcile with actual salaries. Nor does it consider the alternative, the ‘magic regression’ scenario I tried to use as an illustration above. Again, if LeBron and Curry would do exactly what they are doing now, but for $20 million instead of $70 million, what is their “worth?”

Closer to home: was Eddie Lampkin worth $850k to us this year? Thats what he got. Getting and value are not (always) equivalents.

 

[djcon57]

I don’t think that’s true. “Worth” is an ambiguity. As is “value.” They’re in a market and the market supports it because the system exploits The People in order to maintain the system. The simple fact that there are now umpteen various streaming platforms from which to view games means there are more revenue streams for the leagues to suck from… and they suck from us. The ‘de-evolution’ from one cable bill to five streaming bills makes us an easier target for exploitation.

Have a look at this:

Value in the NBA: What's the Value of a Win?

In the first chapter of our offseason exploration of the concept of "value", we answer the question: How much is a single win worth to each NBA team?

www.brewhoop.com

I would suggest there’s nothing “simple” about it, and even all this calculus doesn’t reconcile with actual salaries. Nor does it consider the alternative, the ‘magic regression’ scenario I tried to use as an illustration above. Again, if LeBron and Curry would do exactly what they are doing now, but for $20 million instead of $70 million, what is their “worth?”

Closer to home: was Eddie Lampkin worth $850k to us this year? Thats what he got. Getting and value are not (always) equivalents.

Then Syracuse has to decide it’s WORTH it to pay the next player that has Eddie’s skill set, the same way you and I get paid. If someone thinks we have a skill that’s necessary for their company, they can offer me a salary what they think it’s worth.

The rest of this is mumbo jumbo. If the owners said “we’re gonna cut the salary cap by 50 percent”. The players would walk out and start their own league LeBron and his crew is already looking to do this in Europe. The players are worth what the owners will pay them.

Also what you linked as literally nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Then Syracuse has to decide it’s WORTH it to pay the next player that has Eddie’s skill set, the same way you and I get paid. If someone thinks we have a skill that’s necessary for their company, they can offer me a salary what they think it’s worth.

The rest of this is mumbo jumbo. If the owners said “we’re gonna cut the salary cap by 50 percent”. The players would walk out and start their own league LeBron and his crew is already looking to do this in Europe. The players are worth what the owners will pay them.

Also what you linked as literally nothing to do with the discussion.

You used a word—“worth”—that you declared to be a simple matter. Then you ignored all the reasons why it isn’t, and then you accidentally acknowledged in your ‘refutation’ that it is a matter for any one person or entity to decide…. As I said, it’s an ambiguity.

I didn’t even get into the matter of worth being contextual to TIME, figuring I didn’t want to overload the post, but here it is since you’re determined not to consider anything with complexity. When you sign someone to a contract, it’s with the expectation that that player can perform at a level to warrant that price. You analyze to determine a value. Let’s say that’s his worth to YOU in that specific context. Then the season begins. He plays, and either doesn’t perform well or gets injured and plays only half the games. At the end of that season, you determine he wasn’t worth that year’s salary. So, there are two different ‘worth’s’—one of expectation and one in retrospection. Again, not as simple as you want to portray it.

The link: wow. I specifically put forth the topic of Jimmy Butler’s salary and you said he deserves it because he’s worth it. The link specifically discusses how NBA teams determine Win Shares, and how that pertains to salaries in the NBA. If you don’t think that’s relevant to exactly this specific argument, I don’t know what to tell you. It has ”literally” everything to do with the discussion.*

Mumbo jumbo? Which parts did you also not understand?

And lastly, yet another part you didn’t understand although it was spelled out pretty explicitly… I said in a MAGIC SCENARIO, conceptually, where no player had ever earned as much, the salaries were ‘capped’ at 20 million. Specifically said so that this walkout scenario isn’t a part of the concept—what matters is the player’s real world alternative in that scenario. Determining worth—I suggested the players wouod still play for under 20$million, because it’s still a lot of money and they have no better alternatives. Don’t know to put this more simply for you to grok.

You ignore so much and that’s how you arrive at a conclusion that it’s a ‘simple matter.’ Here’s another real world situation. Free Agent Juan Soto. Every team analyzed what he’d be ‘worth’ to them. About 5-6 teams determined they wanted to pursue him at the level they expected the bidding to reach. The contenders stopped once they exceeded their determination of worth. One didn’t. Steve Cohen determined, before the bidding commenced, that he would not be outbid. “Worth” to him was not about actual Win Shares, statistics, or any other metric. He wanted the player and could most easily afford the player, at whatever price it became. So, what is Soto “worth?” What the stats say or what he eventually ‘got,’ because one person was willing to ignore the statistical determination? In your simplified world, Soto is worth $750 million, and you don’t concern yourself with whether or not he performs to ANY level or even if he plays ANY games.


*”…
at its core, value is comparing what you get to what you spent; if you spend less to get something, you got better value than someone else who spent more for the same thing. For this exercise, win shares (WS) are what we're buying, actual wins are what win shares convert to, and salary ($) is what we're spending.

So let's start with the basics. In the 2015-16 NBA season, the thirty NBA teams spent roughly $2.353 billion on salaries for 564 players. As with any regular season, those thirty teams split up 1,230 wins based on, you know, actually playing basketball against each other. League-wide, that can be converted to the statement that each win was roughly "worth" $1.913 million.”

 

[djcon57]

In your simplified world, Soto is worth $750 million, and you don’t concern yourself with whether or not he performs to ANY level or even if he plays ANY games

It's not simplified. It's fact. It's reality. He'll be getting that money.

You are looking at winning as "value". MANY owners look at adding value of their team as what a player is worth. The Brewers owner literally just said that yesterday.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

It's not simplified. It's fact. It's reality. He'll be getting that money.

You are looking at winning as "value". MANY owners look at adding value of their team as what a player is worth. The Brewers owner literally just said that yesterday.

Alright, man. You don't want to answer any of the simple questions that would focus the argument and demonstrate the flaws in your concepts. Not sure how you're not finding a relationship between Value and Worth now—you're the one who declared the player was "worth" the money and your platform now seems to be that whatever they Get is what they are Worth. If that's the definition in the strictest sense, then okay—nothing more to discuss. We'll just disagree, but it's not "fact."

Again, though, with this at home example: Is Eddie Lampkin "worth" the money he's getting? Would you have said the same thing before the season started as when the season will end? Does it matter that the team isn't going anywhere and he didn't lead to us making the tournament? Forget everything else and just concentrate on those simple questions. Or, forget the whole megillah...

 

[Fly Rodder]

Again, if LeBron and Curry would do exactly what they are doing now, but for $20 million instead of $70 million, what is their “worth?”

What if the owners were told that they can still own a team, but they're only going to be able to retain 50% of whatever they sell it for and the rest is held in trust by the league for the players or new stadiums or space travel or whatever. They would still sell it for a few billion, right?

There are a lot of people that make professional sports go. You can't just claim that people aren't worth their compensation.

Chili Peppers are looking for $350m for their catalog. I could care less, but someone is going to give them that. Are they worth it?

 

[djcon57]

What if the owners were told that they can still own a team, but they're only going to be able to retain 50% of whatever they sell it for and the rest is held in trust by the league for the players or new stadiums or space travel or whatever. They would still sell it for a few billion, right?

There are a lot of people that make professional sports go. You can't just claim that people aren't worth their compensation.

Chili Peppers are looking for $350m for their catalog. I could care less, but someone is going to give them that. Are they worth it?

Yep.
I would pay 0 dollars for some rare comic book.
Someone else would pay a million dollars for it.

It’s worth a million dollars.

 

[hoopsupstate]

Part of Kline’s responsibility is to determine the NIL worth of portal players and not to over spend when signing players. Our search for portal players is going to be fascinating. Who do we go after and what do we determine is each player‘s value? It will be interesting to see if we think someone is worth what they want and what we’re willing to pay. Kansas has finally determined they have greatly overpaid for some of their players.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

What if the owners were told that they can still own a team, but they're only going to be able to retain 50% of whatever they sell it for and the rest is held in trust by the league for the players or new stadiums or space travel or whatever. They would still sell it for a few billion, right?

There are a lot of people that make professional sports go. You can't just claim that people aren't worth their compensation.

Chili Peppers are looking for $350m for their catalog. I could care less, but someone is going to give them that. Are they worth it?

I don't understand your owners/50%/space travel scenario. If owners believe they will still make lots of money with small likelihood of loss, then sure, they'd still want to own teams and they'd still sell teams. Not sure how this is leading to a definitive conclusion of anything because part of sports ownership is related to passion and not always analytics.

Chili Peppers. If someone gives them $350m, it's because they've determined—rightly or wrongly—that they can make more than $350m from it. Is it "worth" that? That's the crux of my argument—there is no concrete, simple answer. It depends. It depends on whether it eventually proves out that they recoup that money, or whether the buyer just wants it for whatever other reason (bragging rights, superfandom, whatever). My position is that "worth" is not a simple thing to determine, that it can only be discussed in context, that it fluctuates, that it has a different definition/meaning if you are assessing it prior to acquisition than it does after you've seen the results.

 

[Lukeyloo]

This is pure speculation, but it feels very much like Red plays the players he likes as people. Carlos and Justin Taylor last year are glaring examples. JT is averaging 1.8 ppg in 10 minutes a game at JMU. He played 23 minutes a game here last year.

Red did say in the offseason that he was looking for high character guys. Feels like he over corrected based on how things were last year. Maybe he should prioritize talent this year..