Minor/Independent

[South Atlantic]

I have read the IBL posts for sometime regarding players, coaches, venues, etc. There have been some good posts, good points, bad posts and of course bad points.

I work with and train basketball players who seek a professional contract in the states and overseas. My personal opinion (notice the word personal, which means it's mine) is not to let my guys play in the states unless it is the NBA. As several brought up, there are good minor league coaches, but that doesnt make the league strong. There are okay leagues (I will throw IBL into this category) but coaching and development arent strong.

The NBDL obviously is trying to close the gap as a feeder system which means the players are a step away from the league. So coaches place focus on teaching the players the pro game (pick n roll, assignments, two-man game, etc.). Not worrying about wins or losses at this point.

ABA, CBA, IBL, WBA (do they really exist or are these releases they send for humor only?), or USBL need butts in seats to come back the following year. One way is to provide such great off-court entertainment that people enjoy themselves and will continue to spend $6-$12 per person to come out. Another way is for the team to win, thinking that a successful team will fill seats. And if you are really good, then you can combine both.

Unfortunately, teams will forget to teach the players how to play the pro game if that means a few more losses (sounds similar to college coaches who sacrifice player development for job security). Sometimes, people are awarded teams who can't afford them and then fold mid-season which puts any potential new franchise in that area into a bind to even get started.

I don't know, maybe the minor/independent league scene needs a makeover. Quit having so many crappy leagues and try to stabilize into one-two solid leagues. I am all for regional leagues myself. It increases probablility of not folding with low end travel costs. Who know but this is my opinion.

[Pounder]

There's a very unrelated column I ran across today that, if I dare say so, actually relates in a way.

The column touches on the Seattle situation with the Sonics, with Art Thiel essentially reminding people that this is still about basketball.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/314911_thiel09.html

Independent of his travail in Seattle, which could include the prospect of an unpleasant, expensive and futile attempt to get out early from his KeyArena lease, he has to know that moving a team to the 47th largest market in Oklahoma City, or even the No. 30 market in Kansas City, where a new arena sits empty, is perilous in the long term as long as NBA economics are manageable for only top-end teams and markets.

His best long-term chance to make money remains in Seattle. But it's going to require more up-front cash, energy and brains than he ever imagined.

Among the business and political people he has talked to locally, a consensus confession has emerged: He allows as to how he didn't know what he didn't know.

While that summary may suggest to sports fans that Bennett was naïve bordering on the foolish, I counter with this observation: At one time or another, the sentiment is almost exactly what every sports owner in this town has said. And its echo is heard across the sporting nation.

From Sam Schulman, the Sonics first owner, to Howard Schultz, from the Nordstroms to Paul Allen, from Danny Kaye to Howard Lincoln, they all arrived at a similar conclusion: Never did they imagine the problems of scrutiny and money, and never did they anticipate that every follower of the team, including their own spouses and children, is certain they can do a better job than him.

For the ultra-successful men who have the wealth to own teams, it's a humbling experience. Not to mention annoying as hell. Which is part of the reason teams tend to turn over more often these days (there's also the expiration of the tax advantage of player-contract depreciation, but that's a column for the business section).

Ego is a funny thing, and the bolded part of this quote speaks right to that.

However, I include the rest of this quote because it does speak to how economics matters... and especially the tax advantage of player-contract depreciation.