Just seams to have a clauses to pretty much have teams spend what ever they want, if they pay the luxury tax. In the NHL what if Tampa kept their team together could they have kept winning the cup?
so you don't see planned mediocrity like you do with a hard cap. see: NHL
People have got to learn to draft better. Scouting is a problem in North American sports, soccer players don't bust nearly as often.But you do see wide-spread terribleness.
It's difficult (hard?) to say the hard cap isn't better when the Sharks were a laughingstock to open the season and they have nine wins now at almost the halfway point, while the NBA has FIVE teams in single-digit wins, including the 3-win Pistons.
Since 2006, Minnesota has had more NBA seasons with under 20 wins than the NHL has had "teams under 50 points per 82 games."
I'd rather be mediocre than have a .244 win percentage.
People have got to learn to draft better. Scouting is a problem in North American sports, soccer players don't bust nearly as often.
Also, accept your limits as a franchise. Some places will not get the biggest athletes; in many cases, you're on an NTC. Find a way to work around that. The reality is many teams in the big 4 are terrible because they are not prime free-agent destinations...which means we have too many teams, to begin with (that's a conversation for another day, though).
The cap also does nothing to stop tanking. The cap is about the owners pocketing extra money, not fairness.