NBA Lockout: Which side are you on?

Intro: The Duck Nuts next topic is the current labor dispute between NBA owners and the players. Recently, players like Deron Williams have opted to "take their talents" overseas in order to assure a paycheck. This work stoppage appears as if it will last a long time. In this debate, Alex will take the side of the owners with Chris representing the players. Enjoy…

Alex: It is perfectly clear to me that the owners have the upper hand in this lockout, and for good reason. Recently 22 teams reported losses of over $300 million in net profit, and many others barely gaining any money. Even with the increased viewership and popularity for the league this past season, teams and owners are losing massive amounts of money. Why Chris do you believe that the players have any right to be demanding more money when teams are losing this much?

Chris: Alex as a matter of fact the players aren't demanding more money. They are willing to make concessions including a $500 million pay cut over the next five years, which would result in the players basketball related income being reduced from 57 percent to 54.7 percent. Also, the owners are the greedy ones here, not the players. The max salary the players can make starts out at about 17 million while the owners can make an unlimited sum and can come out way more nicely than the players.

Alex: Only $17 million? I think I just shed a tear. One of the biggest issues and one of the main reasons for this lockout is the ridiculous max salary. Too many players earn max salary or near max salary contracts. You can put that blame on the owners or players, but either way it's hurting the league.

The problem is teams are losing money, a lot of money. Over the past few decades’ player salaries have sky rocketed, while owners are losing millions and millions more each season. Asking simply to break even isn't a huge request. Until the players realize they have no authority in handling where the money goes, this lockout will not end.

Chris: 17 million seems like a large amount of money but is overshadowed by the billions of dollars the NBA makes overall. Who exactly is giving players these large contracts? That’s right, the owners who dig themselves into a hole.

The owners aren't even giving the players close to a fair deal with their proposed offer of 2 billion dollars. At a glance, this seems fair, but as the NBA's revenue rises and grows over the next five years the player’s deal will be outdated and unfair.

The players should propose an elastic cap to quell the owners concerns of losing money. This would mean when the owners make money, so do the players. However when the owners make less money, so do the players. Potentially this is a risky situation for the players, but if it works out, it would be fair for both the players and the owners. Alex, what do you think of this plan?

Alex: I agree with you completely. Having some sort of a loose, non-binding cap is the only solution. A hard cap would not work. Period.

A lot of experts are suggesting a cap at $45 million. But look at the Miami Heat. The "Big 3" alone will make close to $48 million next season, with that number rising for the remainder of their contracts. A hard cap will not work.

Both sides will need to be flexible, but the players have a lot more to lose with the loss of games. I feel like a broken record, but the majority of owners are losing hundreds of millions of dollars. They have little reason to budge. The players are doing just fine and don't need anymore.

Chris: The players are in the right when it comes to the lockout for multiple reasons. Basically, the players are willing to give up 500 million. While the owners may be losing money, the players are the only ones that seem to be making concessions for the good of the league.

Alex: We agree to disagree. But one thing I think we both can agree that a deal needs to get done ASAP. Join us again for another debate. Feel free to leave a comment below.

One and Done rule: Is it fair?

ALEX: College basketball is fading away due to the issue of the “one-and-done”. In a perfect world, the rule should state that a player must either enter the draft directly after high school or be two years removed. But this will likely never happen.

The NBA is more than happy with the current system. The rule amendment was made generate hype before a player reached the league. Players coming straight from high school (excluding LeBron James) typically garnered little recognition and were unknowns. A perfect example would be John Wall: last season he had the forth most jersey sales. The NBA is greatly benefiting from the one-and-dones.

NCAA basketball is not doing as well however. A steady decline in attendance, television ratings and popularity has occurred over the past few seasons. Besides “March Madness”, most basketball fans don’t bother to closely follow the game. Traditional powerhouses North Carolina, Kansas and UCLA have failed in the post season because of needing to rebuild year in and year out. In order to save the sport’s popularity, the one and done must be amended.

It seems counterintuitive, but the letting in of would be star players is hurting the strength of the powerhouse programs. Many would argue against this claiming schools like Kentucky reload and succeed every year. And while this is true, few programs are as good at reloading as Kentucky. With teams replacing large portions of their roster each offseason, schools like Butler, George Mason and the likes have been able to sneak their way into the title game.

As much as people love a Cinderella story, fans want to see premiere programs play on the national stage. The NBA is stealing away college basketball fans with the expansion of the league, while college basketball is dwindling away. Allowing players to either play right out of high school or be required to play a minimum of two years, college basketball would see a quick rise in popularity. But unfortunately, this will probably never happen.

Chris: Like my colleague outlines in his piece, the one and done rule should be changed to make players declare straight out of high school or wait two years in college until they are allowed to declare for the draft.

A big reason for this stance is the less recognized academic side of this issue. Derrick Rose didn't even do his own schoolwork in high school so why would he in college; why would the lightbulb switch. Case in point, he had someone else take his SAT to get into Memphis. Rose was a 5 star recruit and likely would have come straight out of high school if it wasn't for the one and done rule. Was it really necessary for him to go to college if he knew he was going to the NBA after one year. And it's not Rose's fault, any regular person would do the same thing. I'm in college and if I knew that one year from now I would be making millions of dollars what would be the purpose of going to an class if I could get 'help' from the University I was 'studying' at. College athletes are supposed to be “Student Athletes” with the word student in the front. But is it really that way? We value the athlete part much more than the student part.

In the one year Kevin Love was at UCLA, he was on the honor roll and maintained a 3.0 GPA. Sounds legit enough but when asked what his favorite class at UCLA was, he answered Sports and Masculinity. Here's a shocker: Sports and Masculinity isn't an actual class at UCLA, he just made it up. Although Love had a good family basis and comes from the upscale Lake Oswego neighborhood in Oregon, he didn't take his academics seriously. If he won't take his academics seriously, why would Derrick Rose, who grew up in the rough south side of Chicago.

Blake Griffin was in the McDonald's All-American Game and went to Oklahoma because of the one and done rule. However, Griffin stayed 2 years at Oklahoma and improved his game until he became the number one pick. If there was no age rule in the NBA, there is a possibility Griffin would have declared for the draft right out of high school and been completely unready for the tough NBA game.

With a talent like Lebron James, who only comes once a generation if that, it would be in his best interest to go straight to the NBA after high school. But for the majority of other players the NBA they aren't ready for the NBA lifestyle. Two years in college would not only mature their games physically but they would also mature mentally and grow up into a productive adult capable of making their own decisions and living the NBA lifestyle.