PDA

View Full Version : Sam Amico: "Fairness might not be the answer"



daleja424
10-22-2011, 01:21 PM
In the 1970s, parity was king.

The NBA Finals featured everyone from the Washington Bullets to Golden State Warriors to Milwaukee Bucks to Portland Trail Blazers to Seattle SuperSonics. In fact, each of those teams won a title.

And most of those championship series were viewed by . . . well, nobody. Or more accurately, only those who stayed up late enough to watch the games on tape delay after the 11 o'clock news.

Then came the 1980s, and the arrival of basketball's Holy Trinity of Magic, Michael and Larry.

That was the decade dominated by Magic Johnson's Los Angeles Lakers and Larry Bird's Boston Celtics, with Julius Erving's Philadelphia 76ers and Isiah Thomas' Detroit Pistons each sprinkling in a few Finals appearances of their own. Still, if you were an NBA fan in the mid-1980s, you probably thought the league consisted of three teams LA, Boston and Philadelphia.

Throw in up-and-comers such as Patrick Ewing and the New York Knicks and Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls, and it was clear the NBA had become an exclusive club where only large-market types need apply.

And the league flourished.

After that was the 1990s, when Jordan's Bulls were all the rage. There were a few challengers here and there, but you just knew as long as Jordan was playing and Phil Jackson was his coach, it would take Jordan's unlikely retirement for anybody else to have a chance.

And again, the league was doing just fine, thank you very much.

That gave way to the previous decade. The faces changed but the Finals representatives mostly stayed the same. The league now belonged to Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal and the Lakers, and Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and the Celtics and, of course, Tim Duncan, Gregg Popovich and the small-market Spurs. But San Antonio won four titles, playing a throwback brand of basketball with elbows out and feet on the floor.

Three of the Spurs' championships came against New Jersey, Detroit and Cleveland, and while none of those series exactly has casual fans glued to their television sets (far from it), the NBA still managed to increase its worldwide appeal.

Today, the league is at a standstill, suffering through a nasty work stoppage based largely on the owners' desire for parity, or the type of every-man-has-a-chance model we saw in the '70s. The players aren't against such equality, they just have a different view of how it should be brought about than the league.

Basically, the owners want to revamp the system.

The union, on the other hand, says the system works fine as is provided your team is well-managed. Just look at San Antonio, the players say. Or what about Dallas, they ask? The Mavericks aren't necessarily a small-market franchise, but they aren't a traditional power like the Lakers or Celtics, either.

And what about Oklahoma City and Memphis? Didn't they just meet in the Western Conference semifinals? Doesn't that count for something?

Without getting too far into it, the players and their supporters might actually have a point. Small-market teams already seem to have a chance again, given that the men running them know what they're doing.

But all of that is beside the point.

What's left unsaid here is that the last time parity ruled, the NBA was at an all-time low. No one cared, no one watched, no one fought for the right to pay huge sums of money to have their company logo flashing on the Jumbotron above center court.

Instead, if history tells us anything about the NBA, it's that the league is considerably more fashionable with just a few dominant teams regardless of market size. And the teams that don't do well (again, regardless of market) don't draw well.

A lot of people, especially during this lockout, have started to compare the NBA to the NFL. They like to talk about how cities such as Green Bay and Pittsburgh own two of the most enthusiastic fan bases in all of sports.

But as one NBA general manager said, "That's pro football and this is America. The NFL could stick a team in the middle of Alaska and it would pull in 80,000 (fans). Anyone who thinks the NBA has even one-tenth of that kind of magnetism is kidding themselves."

The GM went further by insisting that if Atlanta and Golden State met in the Finals for two consecutive years, "we'd be right back to watching it on tape-delay."

That's probably an exaggeration but you get the idea.

The bottom line is parity has never really worked for the NBA in the past. And while it's a nice theory, there's no proof forcing the issue would make the league a smash hit today. Or anything, really, even close.

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/10/22/11/For-NBA-fairness-might-not-be-the-answer/landing.html?blockID=587302&feedID=3561

beasted86
10-22-2011, 02:16 PM
I think even the fans of small market teams accept the NBA is more popular when big market teams advance... but their stance seems to be that they feel their teams should have a better chance to contend, and the NBA will 'survive' having a Timberwolves and Bucks finals.

My greatest fear is when the owners eventually get their way... their changes are all a setup for popularity, viewership, and attendance to all fall over the next 6 years, leading to the NBA opting out again and complaining they are losing money. At that point, I'm afraid I will be done with the NBA forever.

daleja424
10-22-2011, 02:19 PM
I think even the fans of small market teams accept the NBA is more popular when big market teams advance... but their stance seems to be that they feel their teams should have a better chance to contend, and the NBA will 'survive' having a Timberwolves and Bucks finals.

My greatest fear is when the owners eventually get their way... their changes are all a setup for popularity, viewership, and attendance to all fall over the next 6 years, leading to the NBA opting out again and complaining they are losing money. At that point, I'm afraid I will be done with the NBA forever.

I think this is what concerns the players as well. If the NBA gets its way the players will take a huge pay cut and then the league still won't make money (B/c they will lose out big time in the next tv deal and such with popularity plateauing at best)... and they will be asked to take another paycut... etc etc etc.

Dade County
10-22-2011, 02:24 PM
Ummm... Go HEAT

I guess I am delusional, because i would like parity in the league, but what that writer said was true... I would NOT watch a Atl Vs Golden state finals (Period)!

ChiSox219
10-22-2011, 02:25 PM
The 70s was a totally different era as far as the league, television, and public interest. I think it's a poor example to prove the point that parity would be bad.

daleja424
10-22-2011, 02:25 PM
Ummm... Go HEAT

I guess I am delusional, because i would like parity in the league, but what that writer said was true... I would NOT watch a Atl Vs Golden state finals (Period)!

That is what is happening in baseball right now... I don't even know which teams are in the World Series TBH.

ChiSox219
10-22-2011, 02:27 PM
Ummm... Go HEAT

I guess I am delusional, because i would like parity in the league, but what that writer said was true... I would NOT watch a Atl Vs Golden state finals (Period)!

Doesn't it depend on who is playing for ATL and Golden State (or any small market team) and what the story lines are?

Let's say Oden comes back healthy and he's 95% of the player he was capable of being. He and the Blazers reach the Finals facing a revamped Orlando team with Dwight Howard battling Oden for a title. I think that series would get a ton of viewers.

Dade County
10-22-2011, 02:32 PM
That is what is happening in baseball right now... I don't even know which teams are in the World Series TBH.

I was thinking about this a couple of days ago. I went to ESPN.com to find out who was in the world series.

They just need to cut ticket prices of all the top four sports in america, cut the players & owners salaries/profit. And just wait until the everyday average normal person starts to love sports again.

And then they can continue with this madness.

Hellcrooner
10-22-2011, 02:37 PM
lol, everybody knows that.

people is very hypocrit, yeah yeah i want parity , i want parity, they scream, but spurs vs cavs, een if lebron was there was a complete disaster in ratings.

Dade County
10-22-2011, 02:39 PM
Doesn't it depend on who is playing for ATL and Golden State (or any small market team) and what the story lines are?

Let's say Oden comes back healthy and he's 95% of the player he was capable of being. He and the Blazers reach the Finals facing a revamped Orlando team with Dwight Howard battling Oden for a title. I think that series would get a ton of viewers.

I disagree to an extent ...

The story lines will make the story, but Oden is not a big enough story line; not after the season that just past. (LBJ going to the HEAT, blah, blah,blah)

You need star wing players in the finals (pg, sg or sf). The story-line of a Portland making it to the finals is not appealing enough ( to the casually basketball fan ). And for the Magic to make it to the finals, that mean they must have traded for Cp3, D will, someone big man "lmao".

daleja424
10-22-2011, 02:42 PM
I love basketball...so I WOULD watch that series... but the point is that the casual fan wouldnt.

ChiSox219
10-22-2011, 02:43 PM
I disagree to an extent ...

The story lines will make the story, but Oden is not a big enough story line; not after the season that just past. (LBJ going to the HEAT, blah, blah,blah)

You need star wing players in the finals (pg, sg or sf). The story-line of a Portland making it to the finals is not appealing enough ( to the casually basketball fan ). And for the Magic to make it to the finals, that mean they must have traded for Cp3, D will, someone big man "lmao".

It was just an example, and just because it's not the story line of this past season doesn't mean people won't watch.

My point is, people watch for their team first, so that's where the big market comes in but after that it's for the players and story lines.


PS you don't need to trade for a superstar to turn your team into a title contender, especially with Dwight to build around. See: Mavericks, Dallas.

ChiSox219
10-22-2011, 02:46 PM
I love basketball...so I WOULD watch that series... but the point is that the casual fan wouldnt.

The casual fan knows all about Greg Oden and if they didn't, his comeback story would be all over ESPN and the internet. To top it off, you'd have the best player in the league finally getting some quality support and it would be billed as the battle of best bigs.

ugafan
10-22-2011, 02:47 PM
That is what is happening in baseball right now... I don't even know which teams are in the World Series TBH.

There's no salary cap in baseball and there's still MUCH more parity in the MLB than the NBA. There's clearly a problem with the NBA.

Knowledge
10-22-2011, 02:49 PM
The 70s was a totally different era as far as the league, television, and public interest. I think it's a poor example to prove the point that parity would be bad.

This. The writes uses a poor example.

I think the owners of small market teams and the fans of those teams, just want a opportunity to build a team that can win and stay together. And I think all teams would should want to have the opportunity to fix the mistakes of their franchises in less time. The knicks had to wait how long to become this relevant again and before the big 3 in Boston how long was Boston out of the championship picture?

Last year, the NBA had a increase in popularity, but that was greatly due to the freshness of the Miami heat and Knicks resurgence. Whether you loved or hated the heat, everything about them was still new and so you watched them to see what they would do. How was Lebron's first trip to Cleveland going to go? What would they do in the playoffs? What would they do in the finals?

Everything played out perfectly for the league to achieve those ratings, including the Mavericks winning the NBA finals against the unstoppable force that was the Miami heat. If you look game one of the NBA finals it drew a 10.7 rating which was up 3% from the previous years ratings. But as the series went on and people saw Dallas had a real chance of winning, the ratings grew. Why? because it was going to be a competitive finals.

So the question to me become, do you want to have a league that is like baseball and is reliant on big markets carrying the finals/playoffs. Or do you want to take a risk and try to build a NFL/NHL type league where surprise finals matchups/champions happen and as a result popularity increases.

beasted86
10-22-2011, 02:49 PM
Doesn't it depend on who is playing for ATL and Golden State (or any small market team) and what the story lines are?

Let's say Oden comes back healthy and he's 95% of the player he was capable of being. He and the Blazers reach the Finals facing a revamped Orlando team with Dwight Howard battling Oden for a title. I think that series would get a ton of viewers.

Well, first, under the owners proposed system Portland would be broken up. They were already in the luxury tax last season, and extending Greg Oden a qualifying offer will put them even further in. Same obviously goes for the Magic, they would have far less talent depth.

Next, although more of the primary core NBA fans want to see what you are talking about, you can't ignore the casual fans and the numbers involved. There will always be 4-5x more casual fans in big cities than small cities. Even though they are nearly equal talented teams, which do you think would have netted more ratings last season... Memphis overachieving their way to the Finals, or the Knicks overachieving their way to the Finals? Nothing that is ever done will change this scenario, the big market will prevail in ratings.

ChiSox219
10-22-2011, 02:54 PM
Well, first, under the owners proposed system Portland would be broken up. They were already in the luxury tax last season, and extending Greg Oden a qualifying offer will put them even further in. Same obviously goes for the Magic, they would have far less talent depth.

Next, although more of the primary core NBA fans want to see what you are talking about, you can't ignore the casual fans and the numbers involved. There will always be 4-5x more casual fans in big cities than small cities. Even though they are nearly equal talented teams, which do you think would have netted more ratings last season... Memphis overachieving their way to the Finals, or the Knicks overachieving their way to the Finals? Nothing that is ever done will change this scenario, the big market will prevail in ratings.

I already conceded that because more people live in a big market, the team that resides there will have more fans. My point is, fans outside the markets involved in the Finals, don't care whether the team is from Alaska or LA, as long as the players are entertaining and story lines are provocative.

Knowledge
10-22-2011, 03:12 PM
Well, first, under the owners proposed system Portland would be broken up. They were already in the luxury tax last season, and extending Greg Oden a qualifying offer will put them even further in. Same obviously goes for the Magic, they would have far less talent depth.

Next, although more of the primary core NBA fans want to see what you are talking about, you can't ignore the casual fans and the numbers involved. There will always be 4-5x more casual fans in big cities than small cities. Even though they are nearly equal talented teams, which do you think would have netted more ratings last season... Memphis overachieving their way to the Finals, or the Knicks overachieving their way to the Finals? Nothing that is ever done will change this scenario, the big market will prevail in ratings.

If this was all there was to it then why is the NFL so popular? It is because people have moved past rooting for big market teams in the NFL and just love the sport. The NBA will always have ebbs and flows in its popularity unless it gets past this whole mindset that big markets make the league.

The reason Memphis and NY would have had different ratings for their finals appearances besides their market differences is because of the the fact that Memphis plays a really conservative less flashy brand of basketball with no real superstar type player. The knicks on the other hand have 2 players in Melo and Amare who play flashy exciting type basketball.

OKC is a pretty good ratings draw even though they dont play in a big market. Why? because they have flashy star players who play an exciting brand of basketball. Markets dont matter if the teams that are playing in a finals/playoff series are exciting and competitive.

Bravo95
10-22-2011, 03:28 PM
Atlanta and Golden State are not small markets. Both are Top 10 in the country. The Hawks are in the group with the Sixers and Wizards of big market teams that don't get much revenue, while the Warriors are doing just fine but don't get a lot of exposure.

There's no salary cap in baseball and there's still MUCH more parity in the MLB than the NBA. There's clearly a problem with the NBA.
Yep.

Tom Stone
10-22-2011, 03:50 PM
I think even the fans of small market teams accept the NBA is more popular when big market teams advance... but their stance seems to be that they feel their teams should have a better chance to contend, and the NBA will 'survive' having a Timberwolves and Bucks finals.

My greatest fear is when the owners eventually get their way... their changes are all a setup for popularity, viewership, and attendance to all fall over the next 6 years, leading to the NBA opting out again and complaining they are losing money. At that point, I'm afraid I will be done with the NBA forever.

Then be done with the NBA......it's of my opinion, your view is insane.....the nba will do just fine with out fans like yourself.

Tom Stone
10-22-2011, 03:58 PM
I personally have a problem they way the world is run, and the way a huge majority of people think..... I have listend to a lot of these opinions, and I find myself feeling bad for a lot of you.....Hard Cap = Basketball Saved

Kevj77
10-22-2011, 03:59 PM
If this was all there was to it then why is the NFL so popular? It is because people have moved past rooting for big market teams in the NFL and just love the sport. The NBA will always have ebbs and flows in its popularity unless it gets past this whole mindset that big markets make the league.The NFL will always be more popular no matter what. Every game matters in the NFL unlike any other sport. Losing one regular season game can be the difference between making or missing the playoffs. The NFL playoffs are single elimination games in a seven game series 95% of the time the best team wins, but in a single elimination playoff system upsets are much more likely. That fact alone adds to the parity.

Plus the biggest reason is that it is a much more violent sport people love the big hits, it's like Nascar fans that love to see a big car crash. Add in big plays like kick returns, 80 yard TD passes and long TD runs that the NBA has nothing that can equal it not even a huge dunk. The popularity of fantasy football, which does a lot to increase interest in the entire NFL, honestly I never cared about the entire NFL until I started playing fantasy. All my friends play fantasy football, not a single one plays fantasy basketball.

Nothing can make the NBA even close to as popular as the NFL ever. No matter what the NFL is a bad comparison.

Bravo95
10-22-2011, 04:15 PM
Based on the ratings, you can tell most people who watch the NBA aren't really die-hard fans of the sport at all, just fairweather... and the league hasn't helped itself because they couldn't care less about promoting 3/4s of the teams.

Knowledge
10-22-2011, 04:19 PM
The NFL will always be more popular no matter what. Every game matters in the NFL unlike any other sport. Losing one regular season game can be the difference between making or missing the playoffs. The NFL playoffs are single elimination games in a seven game series 95% of the time the best team wins, but in a single elimination playoff system upsets are much more likely. That fact alone adds to the parity.

Plus the biggest reason is that it is a much more violent sport people love the big hits, it's like Nascar fans that love to see a big car crash. Add in big plays like kick returns, 80 yard TD passes and long TD runs that the NBA has nothing that can equal it not even a huge dunk. The popularity of fantasy football, which does a lot to increase interest in the entire NFL, honestly I never cared about the entire NFL until I started playing fantasy. All my friends play fantasy football, not a single one plays fantasy basketball.

Nothing can make the NBA even close to as popular as the NFL ever. No matter what the NFL is a bad comparison.

This is why you should never just take a section of someone's post and break it down. My post as a whole made the point I was trying to argue. You took one section and turned it into the focus of my point which isnt even the same point I was trying to make.

The fact that every game counts doesnt change the fact that the Superbowl can draw huge ratings without a major market playing for the title. And Im not saying that upsets need to happen every year in the nba, but what I am saying is that if upsets occurred more frequently interest would also increase. Not an 8 seed like my sixers beating the heat, but what we saw this year with Dallas winning like they did instead of the heat, lakers, or Celtics winning like it was predicted in the beginning of the season. Most years the favorite wins which makes the product more stale, this year they didn't.

Also if you read my whole post in its context, instead of picking on section you would see that my point was not that the NBA needs to eclipse the NFL in popularity or even try to look to become the NFL in terms on popularity, but that it could learn a lesson from the NFL. That lesson being that big markets dont have to be your only source of huge ratings, exciting play and competitive teams draw the just as much if not more ratings. You want people to love your product as whole, not just certain teams or players or aspects of your product.

Dade County
10-22-2011, 04:31 PM
PS you don't need to trade for a superstar to turn your team into a title contender, especially with Dwight to build around. See: Mavericks, Dallas.

Very big difference, both frequently go to the line... Dirk will capitalize while Howard will cause his team to loss. Howard can not win you games in the final minutes, teams will just send him to the line.


The casual fan knows all about Greg Oden and if they didn't, his comeback story would be all over ESPN and the internet. To top it off, you'd have the best player in the league finally getting some quality support and it would be billed as the battle of best bigs.

Just stop it! ...

And Wade is the best player in the league.

NYKalltheway
10-22-2011, 04:33 PM
The writer indeed gives a poor example, but the message is the sub-context.

Unpopular sports, or at least sports that are not the #1 sport in a country, REQUIRE RIVALRIES in order to attract the masses.

Give me a playoff series of Detroit Vs Chicago and NYK vs Miami and NBA finals of Lakers Vs Celtics any day of the week rather than Memphis vs Oklahoma. I didn't even bother watching that besides the highlights of a few series. This is what the NBA is all about.

Fortune favores the bold, they used to say. It applies everywhere. And the bold happen to be the big markets.

GodsSon
10-22-2011, 04:38 PM
Ummm... Go HEAT

I guess I am delusional, because i would like parity in the league, but what that writer said was true... I would NOT watch a Atl Vs Golden state finals (Period)!

That's some pretty ignorant **** to say. So you wouldn't watch that final based on the teams/cities? What if one of them had Jordan 2.0 on the team?

I guess you wouldn't watch a finals if OKC was in it either.

beasted86
10-22-2011, 04:41 PM
If this was all there was to it then why is the NFL so popular? It is because people have moved past rooting for big market teams in the NFL and just love the sport. The NBA will always have ebbs and flows in its popularity unless it gets past this whole mindset that big markets make the league.

The reason Memphis and NY would have had different ratings for their finals appearances besides their market differences is because of the the fact that Memphis plays a really conservative less flashy brand of basketball with no real superstar type player. The knicks on the other hand have 2 players in Melo and Amare who play flashy exciting type basketball.

OKC is a pretty good ratings draw even though they dont play in a big market. Why? because they have flashy star players who play an exciting brand of basketball. Markets dont matter if the teams that are playing in a finals/playoff series are exciting and competitive.

You can basically stop at the fact that the NBA is not the NFL.

The NBA makes about $4 Billion a year, while the NFL makes over $9 Billion a year. Essentially every city in the US that has a football team is a football town. The Chicago Bulls can rack off another 6 titles, and it won't mean as much to the city of Chicago if the Bears won one. Fans would trade at least 5 of those for 1 Superbowl win. Same trend follows pretty much everywhere. You have the big 3 in Miami which will contend for the next how many years, but the day the Canes win another BCS National Championship is the day that brings tears to so many fans eyes who've never even attended UM for 1 semester.... same goes for the Dolphins.

Kevj77
10-22-2011, 04:44 PM
It is apple and oranges believe it or not a lot of people watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. NFL is a bad comparison there is more to it than small vs big markets in the NFL.

I did read your whole post and I agree that style of play matters. You asked why the NFL was so popular and implied it was mainly because market doesn't matter. I just think there is so much more to it than that although it is one reason.

Dade County
10-22-2011, 04:46 PM
Nothing can make the NBA even close to as popular as the NFL ever. No matter what the NFL is a bad comparison.

Wrong... Basketball can, by branching out globally (more then it is right now).

The day will come when are basketball teams are playing international games over seas, that actually counts towards team records. Bringing in new fans, more eyeballs on the tv (world wide) it will be like a new league, just world wide.

Countries vs Countries on a yearly basses. NFL can never compete with that.


That's some pretty ignorant **** to say. So you wouldn't watch that final based on the teams/cities? What if one of them had Jordan 2.0 on the team?

I guess you wouldn't watch a finals if OKC was in it either.

Wrong! I would love a finals with OKC in it... HEAT vs OKC, sounds pretty nice right? :)

It's not about the city, it's about the talent. And I am not interested in those teams talent as of right now, but if in the future (way in the future) they have very good players, why not. I'll give them 15yrs lol... lmao!

ink
10-22-2011, 04:48 PM
Articles like this perpetuate the misunderstanding: the CBA negotiations aren't just about the end result, they are about the mechanics of talent acquisition and retention. All markets need these tools for the league to be competitive across the board.

Unfortunately some in the media just keep missing the point of the conflict.

beasted86
10-22-2011, 04:48 PM
Wrong... Basketball can and is branching out globally.

The day will come when are basketball teams are playing international games over seas, that actually counts towards team records. Bringing in new fans, more eyeballs on t he tv (world wide) it will be like a new league, just world wide.

Countries vs Countries on a yearly basses. NFL can never compete with that.

I don't know about globally... but as far as the US goes... the day the NBA is more popular than the NFL, is the day the NFL is no longer playing.

Hellcrooner
10-22-2011, 04:50 PM
Articles like this perpetuate the misunderstanding: the CBA negotiations aren't just about the end result, they are about the mechanics of talent acquisition and retention.

Unfortunately some in the media just keep missing the point of the conflict.

AND that is the exact point where Players shouldnt cave in.

Ok you have ****ed us once on draft day forcing us to where YOU want.

i have fullfilled my whole contract.

Now go to **** and let me go where i WANT because i have EARNED it.

ink
10-22-2011, 04:54 PM
AND that is the exact point where Players shouldnt cave in.

Ok you have ****ed us once on draft day forcing us to where YOU want.

i have fullfilled my whole contract.

Now go to **** and let me go where i WANT because i have EARNED it.

Let's not do the "slave" thread again.

Wade>You
10-22-2011, 04:55 PM
Before Pat Riley, no player wanted to play for Miami (small market, btw).

A good GM and basketball program takes care of all the recruiting. Players want to play for winners, period.

GodsSon
10-22-2011, 05:03 PM
Let's not do the "slave" thread again.

Didn't slaves make 20 million a year in the South 200 years ago?

Dade County
10-22-2011, 05:03 PM
I don't know about globally... but as far as the US goes... the day the NBA is more popular than the NFL, is the day the NFL is no longer playing.

Correct... Thats why I said Globally, thats the only way the NBA can be ahead of football.

Kevj77
10-22-2011, 05:03 PM
I don't know about globally... but as far as the US goes... the day the NBA is more popular than the NFL, is the day the NFL is no longer playing.Yup. People here use one example to support their view like the popularity in the NFL is because market doesn't matter then turn around a shoot down an arguement like baseball has more parity without a salary cap than the NBA with one because it doesn't fit their point of view. They just use the example that fits their arguement best.

I think all these arguements are moot because you can't compare football to basketball or baseball to basketball. It's all apples and oranges.

Hellcrooner
10-22-2011, 05:07 PM
Correct... Thats why I said Globally, thats the only way the NBA can be ahead of football.
mmm i wonder if theres a correlation bout the number of foreigners and how much the sport is followed.

Bravo95
10-22-2011, 05:11 PM
mmm i wonder if theres a correlation bout the number of foreigners and how much the sport is followed.
I believe there is, much like how things have changed in boxing, but I won't start that debate in here.

beasted86
10-22-2011, 05:12 PM
mmm i wonder if theres a correlation bout the number of foreigners and how much the sport is followed.

I don't think the Rockets were more popular because of Yao Ming

sixer04fan
10-22-2011, 05:15 PM
AND that is the exact point where Players shouldnt cave in.

Ok you have ****ed us once on draft day forcing us to where YOU want.

i have fullfilled my whole contract.

Now go to **** and let me go where i WANT because i have EARNED it.

Oh my god, really? Here we go again...

Hellcrooner
10-22-2011, 05:16 PM
I don't think the Rockets were more popular because of Yao Ming

nope i mean, Baseball used to be americas sport, at the same time Nhl has always been the least popular ( has been always filled with Canadias/Russians/Swedish/chec player etc)

Now Nfl seems to have overthrown Mlb as the most popular, curiosly when the number of americans in baseball teams rosters has gone down greatly.


Maybe nfl is easier for Usa viewers to relate to because 99% of the players are american?.

sixer04fan
10-22-2011, 05:18 PM
nope i mean, Baseball used to be americas sport, at the same time Nhl has always been the least popular ( has been always filled with Canadias/Russians/Swedish/chec player etc)

Now Nfl seems to have overthrown Mlb as the most popular, curiosly when the number of americans in baseball teams rosters has gone down greatly.


Maybe nfl is easier for Usa viewers to relate to because 99% of the players are american?.

Or maybe because it's a more exciting sport, and because there is PARITY.

Hellcrooner
10-22-2011, 05:19 PM
Or maybe because it's a more exciting sport, and because there is PARITY.

there is? how many superbowls for COwboys and Steelers?

Lord Leoshes
10-22-2011, 05:20 PM
I disagree to an extent ...

The story lines will make the story, but Oden is not a big enough story line; not after the season that just past. (LBJ going to the HEAT, blah, blah,blah)

You need star wing players in the finals (pg, sg or sf). The story-line of a Portland making it to the finals is not appealing enough ( to the casually basketball fan ). And for the Magic to make it to the finals, that mean they must have traded for Cp3, D will, someone big man "lmao".


Agreed.
It would remind me of the Knicks/Rockets finally that was a snoozer. :sleep:

Hellcrooner
10-22-2011, 05:22 PM
not to mention that if nba regular season was 16 games , and then the "playoffs" were One defeat you are done style there would be the same supposed "parity" than in nfl

Wade>You
10-22-2011, 05:25 PM
not to mention that if nba regular season was 16 games , and then the "playoffs" were One defeat you are done style there would be the same supposed "parity" than in nfllol I love the "NFL has parity" argument. The truth is tough for some people to swallow. Great, concise post.

Don't forget that a team like the Dolphins haven't done crap in nearly 20 years. So much for "parity."

NYKalltheway
10-22-2011, 05:27 PM
mmm i wonder if theres a correlation bout the number of foreigners and how much the sport is followed.

or how nobody likes the other sport? :shrug:

Dade County
10-22-2011, 05:28 PM
lol I love the "NFL has parity" argument. The truth is tough for some people to swallow. Great, concise post.

Don't forget that a team like the Dolphins haven't done crap in nearly 20 years. So much for "parity."

Shut up :cry::cry::cry: lol

Knowledge
10-22-2011, 05:32 PM
You can basically stop at the fact that the NBA is not the NFL.

The NBA makes about $4 Billion a year, while the NFL makes over $9 Billion a year. Essentially every city in the US that has a football team is a football town. The Chicago Bulls can rack off another 6 titles, and it won't mean as much to the city of Chicago if the Bears won one. Fans would trade at least 5 of those for 1 Superbowl win. Same trend follows pretty much everywhere. You have the big 3 in Miami which will contend for the next how many years, but the day the Canes win another BCS National Championship is the day that brings tears to so many fans eyes who've never even attended UM for 1 semester.... same goes for the Dolphins.

I didnt compare the popularity of the NFL to the NBA, I didnt compare what it means to win a championship in one sport to the other, and I didnt compare the amount of money one sport generates to the other. Once again, this has nothing to do with my post.

But thanks for arguing or responding about something that I didnt even talk about. . . . . . I guess

Wade>You
10-22-2011, 05:34 PM
Shut up :cry::cry::cry: lolI'm a fins fan, too, I feel your pain.

SteBO
10-22-2011, 05:35 PM
I just love the parity arguments.

Sorry, but if you have 30 teams in the NBA, you aren't getting parity. And using the NFL is a poor comparison considering NFL teams are structured completely different. All you need in that sport is a solid defense, and an elite QB to be superbowl contenders. In the NBA, you need "stars" hence why it's a star driven league. Are we seriously at a point where we want to watch star players waste their prime years with teams who's management is piss poor to say the least? The NBA is at it's best with these "super teams" whether you like it or not. The ratings last year especially says that's the case.

Bottom line is, whether a star is on a small market team or a big market team, if they can trust their FO can put a winner around you consistently then there wouldn't be reason to leave. Stop putting sole blame on the system guys.....it's a narrow minded way of thinking.

Wade>You
10-22-2011, 05:47 PM
I just love the parity arguments.

Sorry, but if you have 30 teams in the NBA, you aren't getting parity. And using the NFL is a poor comparison considering NFL teams are structured completely different. All you need in that sport is a solid defense, and an elite QB to be superbowl contenders. In the NBA, you need "stars" hence why it's a star driven league. Are we seriously at a point where we want to watch star players waste their prime years with teams who's management is piss poor to say the least? The NBA is at it's best with these "super teams" whether you like it or not. The ratings last year especially says that's the case.

Bottom line is, whether a star is on a small market team or a big market team, if they can trust their FO can put a winner around you consistently then there wouldn't be reason to leave. Stop putting sole blame on the system guys.....it's a narrow minded way of thinking.A few whiney fans say yes, but the success this league has enjoyed in the past 30 years says no.

Bravo95
10-22-2011, 05:49 PM
This is why you should never just take a section of someone's post and break it down. My post as a whole made the point I was trying to argue. You took one section and turned it into the focus of my point which isnt even the same point I was trying to make.

The fact that every game counts doesnt change the fact that the Superbowl can draw huge ratings without a major market playing for the title. And Im not saying that upsets need to happen every year in the nba, but what I am saying is that if upsets occurred more frequently interest would also increase. Not an 8 seed like my sixers beating the heat, but what we saw this year with Dallas winning like they did instead of the heat, lakers, or Celtics winning like it was predicted in the beginning of the season. Most years the favorite wins which makes the product more stale, this year they didn't.

Also if you read my whole post in its context, instead of picking on section you would see that my point was not that the NBA needs to eclipse the NFL in popularity or even try to look to become the NFL in terms on popularity, but that it could learn a lesson from the NFL. That lesson being that big markets dont have to be your only source of huge ratings, exciting play and competitive teams draw the just as much if not more ratings. You want people to love your product as whole, not just certain teams or players or aspects of your product.

Agree with all of this.

I'm somewhat surprised at how many fans don't get the importance of the last sentence, in particular.

SteBO
10-22-2011, 05:50 PM
A few whiney fans say yes, but the success this league has enjoyed in the past 30 years says no.
Exactly. I'm a guy who really feels for KG to this day because he lost a few years of his prime on a team who didn't make any effort to put good group of player around to compete. He has a 1 ring now, but I felt he could've had a few more had things not played out the way they did. That's my point.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-22-2011, 06:02 PM
Small market fans will ignore this post because they feel the owners want parity. They ignore the facts with hope that their teams will be revelant. A good GM and Good management will build a good team.


I just love the parity arguments.

Sorry, but if you have 30 teams in the NBA, you aren't getting parity. And using the NFL is a poor comparison considering NFL teams are structured completely different. All you need in that sport is a solid defense, and an elite QB to be superbowl contenders. In the NBA, you need "stars" hence why it's a star driven league. Are we seriously at a point where we want to watch star players waste their prime years with teams who's management is piss poor to say the least? The NBA is at it's best with these "super teams" whether you like it or not. The ratings last year especially says that's the case.

Bottom line is, whether a star is on a small market team or a big market team, if they can trust their FO can put a winner around you consistently then there wouldn't be reason to leave. Stop putting sole blame on the system guys.....it's a narrow minded way of thinking.

SwatTeam
10-22-2011, 06:05 PM
{I apologize for the long rant, but skip it until the last paragraph to get the gist of my argument}

Is there parity in the NFL? sure. The NFL also has only 16 regular season games played on either Sunday or Monday for a majority of them. They also have 53 players on teams with 22 on the field at the same time. 1 guy (except for maybe the QB) is not going to carry your team. The teams with good QB's are the teams on top every year.

In the NBA, there are only 5 players per team w/ 10 on the court at the same time. There are higher odds of seeing 1 player dominate the court. Simple math. It doesn't matter how well you build a team w/ parts in the NBA. If you don't have a superstar you aren't going to win. Dirty secret: there aren't many superstars in the league for every team. What the owners and some fans want they can't achieve unless you make drastic rule changes that don't favor superstars. This is NOT whats being discussed in the CBA. The Lebrons of the world are taking LESS money to play in bigger markets, what does that tell you? They can make up the difference in paychecks through endorsement deals via larger exposure because lets face it, America doesn't care as much for basketball as it does for football in smaller markets (where any city can build marketable stars because football is HUGE everywhere unlike basketball)

"Teams" don't win in NBA basketball, its sad but true. Its been proven year after year. You need more than 1 superstar to bring home a ring. If you want to watch fundamental team basketball, watch college basketball where the schools and NCAA leach off them and make billions but the game is "pure" (if you think universities and the NCAA leaching off amateur players and making billions by offering "free education" to dimwits "pure"). Regardless, the major programs in the NCAA still win the title each year. The George Masons of the world and Butler's (although, great stories) aren't winning as many titles against Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, etc. who have superior programs. Hmmm, this looks like a similar format seen in the NBA. March madness fools people into believing their teams have a chance, when really they still don't have chance against the Duke's of the world.

In conclusion, there is no parity anywhere! Its a term thrown out there to fool the simple minded into believing there is some sort of equality between teams in sports. When really, every sports always has a team that dominates for prolonged periods before a new team dethrones them.

Jamiecballer
10-22-2011, 06:10 PM
A good GM and Good management will build a good team.

that, and only that, should be the reason that teams fail or succeed. you can't say with a straight face that is the way it works right now.

SwatTeam
10-22-2011, 06:24 PM
that, and only that, should be the reason that teams fail or succeed. you can't say with a straight face that is the way it works right now.

ummmm that is the way it works right now [straight face]. What team w/ a crappy GM and crappy management is winning? Better yet, what team with a good GM and good management isn't winning or consistently in the playoffs?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point. Clear me up if i'm wrong.

SportsAndrew25
10-22-2011, 06:27 PM
The basic fact of sports is that big market teams attract all the attention in the world. Look at the World Series right now. If I am not mistaken, Game 1 had the second lowest rating for a World Series Opener since 1987. Sports fans just love winning big market teams, whether you like it or not.

Knowledge
10-22-2011, 06:28 PM
that, and only that, should be the reason that teams fail or succeed. you can't say with a straight face that is the way it works right now.

This. Having a good FO and team isnt the only thing that matters anymore.


Agree with all of this.

I'm somewhat surprised at how many fans don't get the importance of the last sentence, in particular.

Thank you. You are the first person in here who has responded to my post and didnt automatically go "He said NBA and NFL in the same sentence, he must be comparing them Derka Durr"

All I was saying was that teams like OKC have proven small market teams can draw if they have exciting players. And that the NFL still draws even if a small market plays in the superbowl. Not to compare the sports or the popularity, just emphasizing the notion that obviously watching big markets compete isnt the only reason people watch sports.

Once again the ratings for last years NBA finals only saw a 3% increase in game 1 of the finals compared to the game 1 before. The ratings picked up when it become clear the heat were in series where they might lose. Why? because people pay to see sporting events where the winner and loser isnt that easy to pre-determine. If someone picks the Lakers to win in the preseason and they win just as easily as advertised, it isnt as good for TV.

SwatTeam
10-22-2011, 06:32 PM
This. Having a good FO and team isnt the only thing that matters anymore.



Thank you. You are the first person in here who has responded to my post and didnt automatically go "He said NBA and NFL in the same sentence, he must be comparing them Derka Durr"

All I was saying was that teams like OKC have proven small market teams can draw if they have exciting players. And that the NFL still draws even if a small market plays in the superbowl. Not to compare the sports or the popularity, just emphasizing the notion that obviously watching big markets compete isnt the only reason people watch sports.

Once again the ratings for last years NBA finals only saw a 3% increase in game 1 of the finals compared to the game 1 before. The ratings picked up when it become clear the heat were in series where they might lose. Why? because people pay to see sporting events where the winner and loser isnt that easy to pre-determine. If someone picks the Lakers to win in the preseason and they win just as easily as advertised, it isnt as good for TV.


That's a subjective viewpoint. TV ratings show that it is good TV because more people are watching regardless of whether the game is competitive or not. This is where money is made, by the number of eyeballs watching but not by the quality of the game being played. Sad but true, blame capitalism.

Knowledge
10-22-2011, 06:35 PM
The basic fact of sports is that big market teams attract all the attention in the world. Look at the World Series right now. If I am not mistaken, Game 1 had the second lowest rating for a World Series Opener since 1987. Sports fans just love winning big market teams, whether you like it or not.

Baseball is driven more by market than the NBA because that is how they set up their system. Now if they go 6-7 games, I think the ratings would see a huge spike.

People like watching star players and competitive games.If you took the Tim Duncan led spurs that were winning championships and put those teams in NY and you took the Miami heat of today and put that team in Minnesota (with all of the same circumstances), I bet the heat would still draw better ratings.

They would still be much more exciting to watch, no offense to Timmy.

edit: Im not saying big markets being competitive is unnecessary or a bad thing, just that small markets can draw too if you they have stars. And it is up to the NBA to give these small market teams a system where they can keep their teams together after they do all the right things to build them.

Kevj77
10-22-2011, 07:36 PM
edit: Im not saying big markets being competitive is unnecessary or a bad thing, just that small markets can draw too if you they have stars. And it is up to the NBA to give these small market teams a system where they can keep their teams together after they do all the right things to build them.Can you give me an example of a team that did all the right things and wasn't able to keep their team together? I can't think of an example where a small market team that made all the right moves was forced to break apart their team.

sixer04fan
10-22-2011, 07:44 PM
Has anyone else noticed a general trend that most of the posters that want to keep everything the way it is are Heat fans or Lakers fans? I sure have...

Bravo95
10-22-2011, 07:47 PM
Thank you. You are the first person in here who has responded to my post and didnt automatically go "He said NBA and NFL in the same sentence, he must be comparing them Derka Durr"

All I was saying was that teams like OKC have proven small market teams can draw if they have exciting players. And that the NFL still draws even if a small market plays in the superbowl. Not to compare the sports or the popularity, just emphasizing the notion that obviously watching big markets compete isnt the only reason people watch sports.

Once again the ratings for last years NBA finals only saw a 3% increase in game 1 of the finals compared to the game 1 before. The ratings picked up when it become clear the heat were in series where they might lose. Why? because people pay to see sporting events where the winner and loser isnt that easy to pre-determine. If someone picks the Lakers to win in the preseason and they win just as easily as advertised, it isnt as good for TV.
Yep. Posters can't see the important of having a strong brand even though it's right under their noses.

Beyond sports, let's take a company such as Apple. People will buy anything with that logo because Jobs spent decades building and strengthening his brand. So now, anytime a new i-whatever comes out, the world pays attention and eats it up. Now, look at the NBA. That brand isn't strong because for decades the league has done a terrible, half-assed job of building credibility and promoting itself in all corners of this country and most of the public simply does not care to even turn on the biggest matchups unless there's a sexy name on the marquee. I don't get how anyone can say that's a good thing in the long run.

Fans of baseball and hockey know they can attribute many of those sports' issues to Bud Selig and Gary Bettman being terrible commissioners who have no clue how to bring in new audiences. But instead of wanting the game of basketball to grow even more in the U.S., too many NBA "fans" are only looking out for themselves, rather than the brand itself, and trying to convince everyone that we should just be happier when the rich get richer. Brilliant. Can't wait to see Mark Cuban roll out a "9-9-9" plan next.

THE MTL
10-22-2011, 08:01 PM
All im going to say is that if there is an NBA Finals that features lets say: Minnesota T-Wolves and the Atlanta Hawks it will have perhaps the poorest ratings ever. Spurs vs. Cavs was PATHETIC.

The NBA has a resurgence of popularity takes to Knicks being relevant, Miami heat trio, Celtics being relevant (pre-big 3 they werent), and even the Bulls looking like true contenders.

Im not saying that the league should only cater to big markets but the certain owners want complete COMMUNISM of the league. Dan Gilbert spent up a storm back when he had Lebron James now all of a sudden small markets cant compete? NO the fact is the Cavs couldnt compete.

Only teams where I saw a true disadvantage in spending was Phoenix (actually got rid of good players to save money), New Orleans (bought by the league).

But seriously, Hawks threw 120 mil at Joe Johnson. Cavs got everyone from Antwan Jamison to Ben Wallace (old horrible contracts). Bobcats gave Tyrus Thomas 8 million per season to do what? Utah wasnt exactly complaining about money either AK-47, Boozer, and Williams getting paid.

And dont get me started about Minnesota. Its not the fact that they cant compete, it is the fact that the ownership is ********. They always have top 5 picks and got lucky once in Kevin Love. They team has passed on seriously talent.

Hellcrooner
10-22-2011, 09:09 PM
Has anyone else noticed a general trend that most of the posters that want to keep everything the way it is are Heat fans or Lakers fans? I sure have...

Has anyone noticed a general trend tha tmost of the posters that want to change the way things are are fans of bad teams that have been offering the moon to elton brands, arenas drafting araujos in the lottery or signing turkoglus to superstar money?-:rolleyes:

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-22-2011, 09:32 PM
Has anyone noticed a general trend tha tmost of the posters that want to change the way things are are fans of bad teams that have been offering the moon to elton brands, arenas drafting araujos in the lottery or signing turkoglus to superstar money?-:rolleyes:

Preach!!!!!:clap:

Knowledge
10-22-2011, 09:45 PM
Has anyone noticed a general trend tha tmost of the posters that want to change the way things are are fans of bad teams that have been offering the moon to elton brands, arenas drafting araujos in the lottery or signing turkoglus to superstar money?-


Didn't you come into our forum last year asking if we would be willing to sign Marc Gasol via FA since we had such a good young team and he would be a good fit for us. Now your bashing us? Funny how things change. Though I will take my young talented 76ers over most of the teams in the league since half of them dont have enough talent and some of the immediate contenders are old as dirt and about to become irrelevant.



Can you give me an example of a team that did all the right things and wasn't able to keep their team together? I can't think of an example where a small market team that made all the right moves was forced to break apart their team.

Urgh, I really dont feel like going back and looking at teams that had to break up for financial concerns. I hope one of the posters here who had to go through that will post about it.

Off the top of my head: I know that their has been talk that OKC may have to break up eventually (under the current system). I know that NO has made some moves in the recent past and have been unable to add to their team effectively because of financial concerns as has Utah (not the Williams trade, before that). Phoneix had to break up starting with thier loss of Joe Johnson. Im sure their are many others, but I just dont feel like looking that up.

These teams were willing to spend up to or a little over the luxury tax for a short time, but they can't sustain that type of spending long enough to keep their teams together and add to them.

But here is a stat that shows you where the NBA has been and why things need to change. Since 1984, their have been 8 different NBA champions. 27 years, 8 different champs. That doesnt even happen in baseball.

SteBO
10-22-2011, 09:52 PM
Has anyone else noticed a general trend that most of the posters that want to keep everything the way it is are Heat fans or Lakers fans? I sure have...
That goes both ways though.....

Kevj77
10-22-2011, 10:21 PM
Yeah the Suns are a good one, but the move that really did them in was a bad trade for Shaq. I remember the Joe Johnson free agency. NO looked like a real contender that's another good one.

As for the 8 teams winning in 27 years it could be looked at that way, but I feel that dynasties are more likely to happen in the NBA because it is a stars league. The teams that won were the teams that got lucky enough to draft superstars. MJ, Magic, Kobe, Hakeem, Isiah, Bird, Duncan and Wade all won titles with the teams that drafted them. Those players have won 28 combined titles since 1980. The exceptions are Shaq and KG. Lebron will probably be an exception too. Those teams were also manage by great people. The Celtics in the 80s by possibly the greatest GM of all time Red Auerbach, the 80s Lakers and the Shaq/Kobe Lakers by one of the greatest GMs Jerry West, the Spurs by Pop, the Bulls did a great job of surrounding MJ with talent and Miami had Pat Riley. Also if you have a chance at the title you can get players at a discount in free agency. I don't think a new system can change any of those factors.

Hellcrooner
10-22-2011, 10:39 PM
Didn't you come into our forum last year asking if we would be willing to sign Marc Gasol via FA since we had such a good young team and he would be a good fit for us. Now your bashing us? Funny how things change. Though I will take my young talented 76ers over most of the teams in the league since half of them dont have enough talent and some of the immediate contenders are old as dirt and about to become irrelevant.




Urgh, I really dont feel like going back and looking at teams that had to break up for financial concerns. I hope one of the posters here who had to go through that will post about it.

Off the top of my head: I know that their has been talk that OKC may have to break up eventually (under the current system). I know that NO has made some moves in the recent past and have been unable to add to their team effectively because of financial concerns as has Utah (not the Williams trade, before that). Phoneix had to break up starting with thier loss of Joe Johnson. Im sure their are many others, but I just dont feel like looking that up.

These teams were willing to spend up to or a little over the luxury tax for a short time, but they can't sustain that type of spending long enough to keep their teams together and add to them.

But here is a stat that shows you where the NBA has been and why things need to change. Since 1984, their have been 8 different NBA champions. 27 years, 8 different champs. That doesnt even happen in baseball.

I woudl ABSOLUTELY love Marc Gasol joining the sixers via sign and trade, its one of my favourite teams, a classic.

Oh go figure, if owners get their way with their ********, he will be DOomed to Memphis forever, Signs and trades will be eliminated.

how do you feel bout that?

sixer04fan
10-22-2011, 10:46 PM
That goes both ways though.....

If by "goes both ways" you mean it's like 3 teams and then everyone else... And that's basically what this lockout is all about.

Knowledge
10-22-2011, 11:05 PM
I woudl ABSOLUTELY love Marc Gasol joining the sixers via sign and trade, its one of my favourite teams, a classic.

Oh go figure, if owners get their way with their ********, he will be DOomed to Memphis forever, Signs and trades will be eliminated.

how do you feel bout that?

I dont agree with everything the owners are trying to do and I have said so. I have said that the players have a point when they say that the owners are trying to force them to take a bad deal. My whole point in this argument is that the league would be better if they could make a system where bad/average teams can get better faster. And if they could help the smaller markets keep their players if they are building good teams and making good decisions.

Im not for eliminating sign and trades or trying to force players to stay in one place forever. I just want to the league to be better for all parties involved.

Dade County
10-22-2011, 11:50 PM
I just don't understand how the owners are going to try to force star players, to stay in situations that they don't want to be in.

And I understand what the small market/no super star fans are saying, but they have to understand that this sport is dominated by Super Stars.

And if you build a contending team around them, they will think twice about leaving ... Thats all you can hope for. Only thing you can do is limit how much money they can make, if they leave.


So if Cp3 leaves N.O when his contract is up, he's a bad guy now?

Kevj77
10-23-2011, 12:47 AM
I feel the same way it's a superstar league, which will never be good for parity. Draft a superstar and put a good team around him and you got multiple titles that has been proven over and over. Fact there aren't enough of these players for every team to have one and when a team gets more than one it drives people crazy if their team doesn't have one.

Unfortunately these players want to win they are scared to death of not getting a ring and a trend of wanting to team up is happening.

This lockout might be more about the recent trend of superstars trying to leave the teams that drafted them than anything else.