Who will blink first?

Tell me if this sounds familiar. A couple is having marital problems goes to see a marriage counselor and it looks hopeful. Then suddenly, things fall apart. They tried but it just didn't work out.

As an optimist by nature, it was a blow to hear that after three straight days and more than 30 hours, the NBA and the National Basketball Player's Association have once again stopped talking and do not have a new collective bargaining agreement. It sure looked like they were on the road to a deal but then things abruptly fall apart.

There was true optimism as mediator George Cohen seemed to be leading both sides toward a compromise. But even with a competent "middle man" both sides still seem to have a sliding scale regarding issues on which they are willing to make concessions based on the opposing side's proposals. And similar to sessions with a marriage counsellor, when things go bad after intervention, it makes for an even longer road, (if ever), before getting back to happily ever after.

Thursday's negotiations breaking down surely means there will be more games canceled and it's coming to light just how ensconced each side has become in its views.

The players claim the owners are not telling the truth and have proposed anything from a bandwith of sharing in the split of basketball related income (BRI) from 50-50 to 53-47 while the owners seem to not want to go above a 50-50 split. There is talk that the owners may be willing to embrace the idea of a bandwith of sharing but their parameters would be no higher than a 51-49 division. Complicating matters is the issue of the system that will be used to split the revenues.

The owners continue to say that to ensure competitive balance and strive for parity, the system needs to be set so that any team can see itself as a contender regardless of how much money is spent a la the NFL or NHL. And while the owners see the issue of BRI and revenue system used as separate entities, the players see the two irrevocably linked together.

Who's to blame? Each side needs the other. The players need to realize they are privileged and unlike Byant Gumbel's slavery reference, some people would love to have the opportunity to earn that type of a living.

The common person and fan working hard to maintain a living will not show them any sympathy. Players can never win a public relations war. They are easily identifiable and their salaries become public knowledge while owners are generally faceless. I'm not sure I would have used the slavery metaphor but the owners do have the upper hand. The owners should also realize that parity and competitiveness within the league comes from astute decision-making and using the idea of obtaining competitive balance as a smoke screen to guarantee profits will not go over well with players or fans.

So around and around we go and it becomes a matter of which side will blink first. My sense is that it with the owners having the power and deeper resources that it will have to be the players. The players might be the show but it's the owners' league and they locked the players out.

Compromise will eventually be reached but not after acrimony has led to much damage being done. The question seems to be when do we get allowances being made on either side?

Paul Jones is the voice of the Raptors on the FAN 590 and writes regularly for Sportsnet.ca.