Saturday, October 8, 2011

Basketball Related Income (BRI)

Definition: Basketball Related Income - BRI, for short - is a term used to describe most of the revenue generated by NBA teams. BRI includes revenue generated by:
  • Ticket Sales (regular season, exhibition and playoffs)
  • Television Contracts (ESPN, TNT, etc.)
  • Concessions
  • Parking
  • "Temporary" Stadium advertising
BRI also includes a portion of the revenues generated by stadium naming rights deals, luxury suites and "fixed" advertising signage.

BRI, the Salary Cap and the CBA

The BRI number is important because it is used, under the current NBA collective bargaining agreement, to set the league's annual salary cap. Under the deal set to expire on June 30, 2011, the players receive 57 percent of BRI as their salaries.

The owners object to that split, partly because BRI does is based on gross revenue. Expenses are not factored in. A team can increase attendance by spending more on marketing and promotions; the players get the benefit from the increased attendance, but don't have to share in the investment that generated that revenue.

The NBA's initial proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement reportedly included a 61-39 split of BRI in favor of the owners.

Examples:

One of the biggest issues to be settled in the NBA's next collective bargaining agreement: how will the league and players decide to split basketball related income?

View the original article here

NBA Lockout

At its heart, this dispute is about money. (Shocking, right? Hope you were sitting down for that revelation.) The owners think the players are getting too much of it. The players are pretty happy with their share of the pie, and aren't about to give any back.

The amount of money the players receive in salary is set, in the existing collective bargaining agreement, at 51 percent of "basketball related income" or BRI. BRI includes just about every revenue stream, from tickets to parking to broadcast rights to concessions, though revenue-sharing payments and expansion fees are excluded. (For a complete rundown, check out Larry Coon's invaluable Salary Cap FAQ site.)

Owners are quick to point out that the BRI formula is based on gross revenue; when they spend additional money to promote ticket sales, etc., they eat into their own share of the pie but the players don't take the same hit.

That's one of the reasons -- according to league accounting -- that NBA teams lost a combined $370 million last season.

The players aren't buying that story, essentially accusing the league of using Enron-esque accounting to generate those figures. They may have a point; after all, if NBA teams are such money pits, why did the Warriors sell for a record $450 million last summer?

The battle over these numbers figures to be one of the biggest and hardest-fought. After all, the owners and players can't decide how to divide the revenue pie until they determine how big a pie they're sharing.


View the original article here

Basketball Related Income (BRI)

Definition: Basketball Related Income - BRI, for short - is a term used to describe most of the revenue generated by NBA teams. BRI includes revenue generated by:
  • Ticket Sales (regular season, exhibition and playoffs)
  • Television Contracts (ESPN, TNT, etc.)
  • Concessions
  • Parking
  • "Temporary" Stadium advertising
BRI also includes a portion of the revenues generated by stadium naming rights deals, luxury suites and "fixed" advertising signage.

BRI, the Salary Cap and the CBA

The BRI number is important because it is used, under the current NBA collective bargaining agreement, to set the league's annual salary cap. Under the deal set to expire on June 30, 2011, the players receive 57 percent of BRI as their salaries.

The owners object to that split, partly because BRI does is based on gross revenue. Expenses are not factored in. A team can increase attendance by spending more on marketing and promotions; the players get the benefit from the increased attendance, but don't have to share in the investment that generated that revenue.

The NBA's initial proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement reportedly included a 61-39 split of BRI in favor of the owners.

Examples:

One of the biggest issues to be settled in the NBA's next collective bargaining agreement: how will the league and players decide to split basketball related income?

View the original article here

NBA Lockout: Are NBA Teams Really Losing Money?

Jul 5 2011

According to the NBA, 22 of 30 franchises are losing money. According to the NBPA, that assertion is... well, "baloney" would be a polite way of summarizing.

Who's right?

There's an increasingly-large pile of evidence to suggest that the league is guilty of... at the very least... creative accounting.

Exhibit A: Deadspin takes on the New Jersey Nets

Deadspin.com obtained three years' worth of financial data from the New Jersey Nets. It's not hard to imagine why such a team might be losing money; it can be difficult to generate fan interest when everyone knows you're moving. Still, Tommy Craggs' breakdown does a good job of showing how tax lawyers and aggressive accounting can take a slight profit and turn it into a substantial loss.

Exhibit B: Larry Coon Balances the Books

Writing for ESPN.com, noted NBA salary cap-ologist Larry Coon explains how expenses totally unrelated to the day-to-day operations of a team figure into profits and losses. For example:

$41.5 million of the Nets' $49 million operating loss in 2005, and $40.2 million of its $57.4 million in 2006, is there simply to make the books balance. It is part of the purchase price of the team, being expensed each year. This doesn't mean they cooked their books, or that they tried to pull a fast one on the players. It is part of the generally accepted accounting practice to transfer expenses from the acquisition to the profit and loss over a certain time period. However, it's an argument that doesn't hold water in a discussion with (Billy) Hunter and the players association, who would claim that the Nets didn't really "lose" a combined $106.4 million in those two years, but rather that they lost $7.5 million and $17.2 million, respectively.

Exhibit C: Nate Silver's Skepticism

Another respected number-cruncher, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, also raised a skeptical eyebrow at the league's claims of financial woe. Using data from Forbes magazine and other financial publications, Silver estimates that the league as a whole is still profitable - but that high-revenue teams like the Lakers, Knicks and Bulls might be making enough to cover losses elsewhere.

Interestingly, Silver compares the NBA's current financial situation to that of Major League Baseball, just before the 1994 strike. According to Forbes, about one-third of the league was in the red in 1993, and half the league's profits came from just four teams. But instead of implementing a salary cap, baseball came out of that negotiation with an enhanced revenue-sharing structure that seems to be serving the league very well.

I suspect the players union - and quite a few of the owners - would sign up for a similar system right now.


View the original article here

Friday, October 7, 2011

NBA Lockout Update

Imagine a bridge that reaches 90 percent of the way across a deep chasm. You can walk most of the way across - so close, you can almost feel the earth on the other side. But you just can't get there. Ninety percent of a bridge is about as helpful as no bridge at all.

The same could be said for the NBA and NBPA's lockout negotiations. The sides are closer to an agreement than they've been at any point - but their difference of opinion is still wide enough that the league is set to cancel the remainder of the preseason. And the first two-week portion of the regular season is next on the chopping block.

The sides have reportedly made substantial progress on many issues. The union appears willing to accept a new payroll structure that replaces the current soft salary cap with an escalating luxury tax intended to curb payroll growth, and has been offered an "out" in any new CBA after seven years - which would give the players the opportunity to renegotiate at a time when the league should be enjoying the benefits of a new and potentially-lucrative television deal.

The stumbling block is money - specifically, the portion of basketball related income (BRI) that the players will receive in the new deal. Under the terms of the CBA that expired in June, the players received 57 percent of BRI. The owners' initial proposal sought to reduce that share to something in the neighborhood of 45 percent. As things stand, the owners are offering 47 percent, and the players are demanding 53.

The owners have characterized their offer as a 50-50 split of revenue, but that proposal includes a major re-working of the BRI formula to include expenses. Under the last deal, BRI included a wide range of revenue streams but did not deduct any expenses. The fact that players enjoy the benefits of increasing revenue without sharing in the risk - increased marketing expenses needed to fill seats and generate that revenue, for example - has long been a contentious issue in these negotiations.

With talks breaking down, powerful player agents are expected to renew their push to decertify the NBPA and take the league to court. But they do not seem to have enough support from union the rank-and-file to go that route. Not yet, anyway. Decertification would give the players more options in a court fight with the league; some believe that would mean additional leverage in the ongoing negotiations. But lawsuits could take months - even years - to resolve. NBPA leadership has said they'll consider that option, but Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher remain committed to reaching a new deal at the bargaining table.

League commissioner David Stern has announced that the league will cancel the first two weeks of the regular season if a deal is not reached by Monday, October 10.


View the original article here

Sunday, October 2, 2011

The NBA's Worst Player Contracts

Aug 2 2011

The NBA's latest CBA proposal reportedly includes an "amnesty clause" - a one-time opportunity for teams to remove their worst contracts from the books.

NBA teams have had this opportunity once before. In 2005, teams were given the chance to waive a single player contract. Teams were still bound to pay the players' salary, and the salaries continued to count against the cap, but teams were freed from any obligation to pay luxury tax on those salaries.

That rule came to be known as the "Allan Houston Rule" - based on the general assumption that New York would jump at the opportunity to waive their oft-injured, high-priced guard. (In an ironic twist, Houston was not waived under the rule that bears his name - the Knicks gambled that Houston's injuries would prove to be career-ending, and that they'd get cap - and insurance - relief as a result. That turned out to be the team's savviest personnel move of the decade.)

The provision in the owners' CBA proposal may be similar, though it seems reasonable to assume that this amnesty clause would remove contracts from the salary cap number as well, especially if accompanied by a substantial reduction in the cap number or the elimination of cap "exceptions."

That's interesting for a couple of reasons. A big wave of amnesty-clause free agents would make the 2011 free-agent class a lot deeper -- and if we assume that the waived players would still collect money owed under their existing contracts, those new free agents might be willing to work for very little. It would also give teams that are struggling under the weight of some bad decisions to add some talent over the summer.

Which players would be impacted? A quick look at each team's payroll offers quite a few clues. (All salary figures are from the invaluable team payroll listings at HoopsHype.com.

The NBA's Worst Contracts: 2011-on

Atlanta: Joe Johnson's mammoth contract (which will pay him nearly $25 million in 2015-16) is generally regarded as the league's worst. But can the Hawks afford to part ways with their best player? Kirk Hinrich ($8 million in 2011-12) might be another candidate, given Jeff Teague's emergence in the playoffs.

Boston: The Celtics still have Rasheed Wallace on the books for over $6.7 million in 2011-12. He's the obvious choice.

Charlotte: Their draft-day trade with Milwaukee cleared Charlotte's ugliest contract - Stephen Jackson's - off the books. Corey Maggette is significantly overpaid, but at least his deal expires after the 2012-13 season.

Chicago: The Bulls are in excellent shape, payroll-wise; their core is locked up through 2012-13, and no player is making a really outrageous sum.

Cleveland: The Cavs would happily part ways with Antawn Jamison (owed over $15 million in 2011-12) or Baron Davis (owed nearly $29 million over the next two seasons).

Dallas: I suspect the Mavs would rather not have Brendan Haywood on the books for $42 million through the 2015-16 season, especially if it means losing their flexibility to re-sign Tyson Chandler and replace an aging Jason Kidd when the time comes.

Denver: The Nuggets only real contract extravagance is Al Harrington's deal, which runs through the 2014-15 season at an average of over $7 million per year.

Detroit: Joe Dumars has been trying to part ways with Rip Hamilton for the better part of a year - this could be his chance.

Golden State: A lot depends on what sort of team the Warriors want to be. If they decide to get away from their offense-first philosophy, they could re-think their long-term commitment to David Lee. Andris Biedrins could lose playing time to 2010-11 rookie Ekpe Udoh, and ($9 million/year through 2013-14) would also make a lot of sense.

Houston: Unloading Brad Miller on draft night cleared the Rockets' worst liability off the books. Hasheem Thabeet doesn't give the team much, but he's still on a rookie deal and could be gone after this season.

Indiana: Danny Granger is the only Pacer signed beyond next season (if you ignore a variety of player/team options). Indiana could clear a little space for 2011-12 by cutting ties with James Posey ($6.9 million) a year early.


View the original article here

NCAA Champions

Here they are: the immortal teams of college hoops, from the 1939 Oregon Ducks -- with a starting five of Howard Hobson, John Dick, Urgel ‘Slim’ Wintermute, Laddie Gale, and Bobby Anet -- to the 2011 Connecticut Huskies.

For each year since the NCAA Tournament's inception in 1939, we've listed the teams that reached the Final Four and the tournament runner-up. The champion is listed in bold.

The first batch includes all teams since 1985 -- the year the tournament expanded to include 64 teams and the year Rollie Massimino's Villanova Wildcats pulled one of the biggest upsets in the history of March Madness, knocking off Patrick Ewing and the Georgetown Hoyas to win the title.

NCAA Champions and Final Four Teams, 1985 - present

YearFinal FourFinal FourOpponentChampion
2011Virginia CommonwealthKentuckyButlerConnecticut
2010Michigan StateWest VirginiaButlerDuke
2009ConnecticutVillanovaMichigan StateNorth Carolina
2008UCLANorth CarolinaMemphisKansas
2007UCLAGeorgetownOhio StateFlorida
2006George MasonLSUUCLAFlorida
2005Michigan StateLouisvilleIllinoisNorth Carolina
2004DukeOklahoma StateGeorgia TechConnecticut
2003TexasMarquetteKansasSyracuse
2002KansasOklahomaIndianaMaryland
2001MarylandMichigan StateArizonaDuke
2000WisconsinNorth CarolinaFloridaMichigan State
1999Ohio StateMichigan StateDukeConnecticut
1998StanfordNorth CarolinaUtahKentucky
1997North CarolinaMinnesotaKentuckyArizona
1996MassachusettsMississippi StateSyracuseKentucky
1995Oklahoma StateNorth CarolinaArkansasUCLA
1994ArizonaFloridaDukeArkansas
1993KansasKentuckyMichiganNorth Carolina
1992IndianaCincinnatiMichiganDuke
1991UNLVNorth CarolinaKansasDuke
1990Georgia TechArkansasDukeUNLV
1989IllinoisDukeSeton HallMichigan
1988DukeArizonaOklahomaKansas
1987UNLVProvidenceSyracuseIndiana
1986LSUKansasDukeLouisville
1985Memphis StateSt. John'sGeorgetownVillanova

View the original article here