I really am on half of both sides.
I am for owners like Cuban, Dolan, and Buss who are willing to pay to put out a good product. I respect them for building up winning teams and building a successful franchise that they can market and make money off of. I don't think it is far to ask them to honestly give two handouts to owners like Jordan, Sterling, Sarver, and Holt (now that the Spurs window closed he jumped sides as he was against a lockout when they had the best record early last year) who don't care about winning. It is bad enough that they get money from the luxury tax, so they can make a profit while cutting costs and selling picks and talent over trying to win. I hate though that they want revenue sharing. They saw LA get a $3B TV deal and want a piece, they saw Dallas make up all their losses and turn a profit after their title run and want a piece, and they saw Melo and Amare make the Knicks merch movers and get ESPN clearances and want a piece. That doesn't sit right with me. Why not give LA their share for selling out your arena when then come to your town, when you have no history of selling out? I am especially pissed with Jordan as I remember him in the 99 lockout going to the media and bragging that he told the Wizards owner, "If you can't pay to put a winning product out and be competitive, sell your team instead of wanting a handout".
Then we get to the players. We can say the lockout doesn't hurt the big names, but the CBA also does nothing to help them. If it was a free market system the likes of Kobe, LeBron, and so on would command way more than they already do. I despise the thought of a franchise tag because you already have restricted free agency in place which allows you to either match any offer sheet (see Corey Maggette and Elton Brand years ago) or force a player to extend for 3-4 more years like Wade, Bosh, LeBron, and Melo all did. If you can't put together a winning environment after 6-7 years, chances are it ain't happening. The fact is Rashard Lewis shouldn't be making $20M a year, but Otis shouldn't have offered it to a non-max player either whose play and name value can't generate the pay back plus more. The owners had chances to not guarantee deals fully in the old CBA but a lot didn't explore in the form of incentives, like the Mavs used on Dampier. As for the BRI mess, I feel the players should get more than 50/50 and not because they got 57 last year. Operating costs come off the top of the BRI and in cases where you have a guy like Dan Gilbert paying his own company in Quickens Loans for their arena fee, you get double dipping and screw the players out of a fair cut. To me 51.5/49.5 is fair because it offsets the owners who double dip.
Half the owners don't deserve to turn a profit or get a handout for purposely losing. Half the players don't deserve their salaries. The other half of owners deserve every penny they make for the product they put out and how they invest on the team and franchise. Half the players deserve more of what they are getting as they generate enormous revenue and ratings, but can't make money off their own likeness without endorsements since the league doesn't give them a cut
I just want the season to start, for 2K12 to update itself, and to be able to order League Pass.