The only rational argument that supports the plan to pay the Indiana Pacers $10 million a year to stay in Indianapolis and operate Conseco Fieldhouse is that it's a wise investment in second-level economic development. The primary level – the Pacers organization itself – will never generate enough revenue for the city to break even.

The tangible economic activity surrounding the team and the less-tangible status of having a National Basketball Association team are supposed to tip the payback scale.

A key assumption of that argument is that the NBA gives the city valuable status. City leaders making that argument discount the estimate made last winter by Commissioner David Stern that NBA teams collectively would lose $400 million this year. They also assume that a new NBA collective bargaining agreement will fix both the money drain and the lack of team identification that seems to allow players (see Chris Paul) to announce aspirations to play for some other outfit.

Perhaps most threatening is the devaluation of teams such as the Pacers by the talent-stacking move made last week by LeBron James and Chris Bosh in joining Dwayne Wade in Miami. For the next couple of years, who will pay for tickets at Conseco unless the Heat is coming to town? If the same holds true in cities such as Charlotte and Oklahoma City, what will be the value of the NBA? The league could become a dozen or so versions of the Washington Generals, waiting for Globetrotter-style trouncings at the hands of the Heat or the Lakers or a few other teams to sell tickets.

The NBA made a calculated decision to market individual stars rather than teams. That decision may destroy the league, or at least make the decision-makers in Indianapolis wish they'd decided to subsidize players rather than owners. That, of course, would be silly.