I like how Stern and Silver try to spin this, saying that the league has given concessions? What concessions? Unless they mean not taking more from the status quo. The only concession that have been reported thus far have been from the players going from 57 to 53% BRI. The owners haven't given anything. What do they give up for the players to come down? More increases to contracts? An extra year on contracts? Raising base year salaries on contracts? The owners haven't "conceded" anything. They've only offered to give the players something they already had. The idea of a 50-50 split in BRI is stupid in a historical context. When Stern and the owners originally wanted to implement a hard cap, the players told the league to screw off. As a trade off for the players accepting the hard cap, the league let the players share in the league's revenue. To have the player's come down to 50% or now 47%, is ridiculous. It's obvious the owners were never serious about negotiating when their initial offer was so laughable and they waited this long to finally try to really get a deal done. The players already have offered to help the owners with their increasing costs of operation, but it shouldn't be the players' responsibility to give up more to cover the owner's stupidity in running a franchise. No one forced them to buy a team way above market value when teams are claiming they're losing money. Players should just go nuclear and decertify. Lets see if the owners blink at the idea of no hard cap, no limits on salaries, no limits on roster spots, no age limit, no drafts. Lets see how owners like Gilbert and Sarver and Jordan like it when the Knicks, Blazers, Mavericks, Heat, Lakers, Celtics, and Nets go out have 12 man rosters filled with all-stars because they have the owners to spend that much. This system the owners claim is so broken has seen San Antonio win 4 rings, while New York has been a laughing stock.