PDA

View Full Version : Entertainment vs Winning.



Hellcrooner
08-01-2013, 01:18 PM
Entertainment, the show seems to be heaivly seeked by the league.

But does this translate to fanbases?


I mean, would you pay your anual tickets for your team if they played completely unflashy, everything bout team play, all bout defense.

If they win say 55 games but they average 75 points a game ( and their rivales average 69 against them).

Would you pay for that.?

Dade County
08-01-2013, 01:35 PM
Well fans seem to like it when the HEAT/Lbj don't show up for every-other playoff game ( forcing game 7 )... So I think most people sadly just like to be entertained.

I mean, if the HEAT actually beat the Pacers & Spurs in 5 games, their would be noting for those fans to look forward too, next upcoming season ( looking at you Pacers fan :))

NBA = Entertainment

2-ONE-5
08-01-2013, 02:07 PM
not entirely true. I mean look at the Grizz they went down in 5 but all but 1 game came down to the final minute.

JerseyPalahniuk
08-01-2013, 02:15 PM
Really depends on what kind of fan you are. The more casual fan likes scoring and flash (blocks/dunks) while a more experienced one might appreciate ball movement and a great offensive/defensive SYSTEM.

For me, I wouldn't mind watching that defensive battles like that as long as the low scoring wasn't due to sloppy play but more so great defense. There's a difference between that. 75 ppg and 55 is very unrealistic though. 88-93 could be more reasonable.

rocket
08-01-2013, 02:26 PM
I don't get how the score indicates if it was entertaining or not

TheMightyHumph
08-01-2013, 02:29 PM
Depends on what your idea of 'entertaining' is.

Max.This
08-01-2013, 04:17 PM
If the team i'm rooting for wins, then yes its entertaining for me. How they win and by how much is just icing on the cake. If you're a fan of your team it shouldn't matter how flashy they are. I love watching the Spurs because they play with teamwork, not that flashy crap like alley oops. Theres a youtube channel called teamflightbrothers is you crave for that stuff

NYKalltheway
08-01-2013, 04:31 PM
Winning over flashiness ;)

TheNumber37
08-01-2013, 04:34 PM
The Most entertaining team won't win this year.
Everyone is getting rugged.

Spanklin
08-01-2013, 05:04 PM
I'm entertained by more league parity, which David Stern and many of the owners clearly aren't interested in. Parity has worked very well for the NFL, let's hope the NBA takes a hint before MLB surpasses them in annual revenue as well.

Cut out four teams, nobody wants to watch that garbage. Yet Stern thinks expanding into Europe will be a good thing?

MonroeFAN
08-01-2013, 05:19 PM
I don't get how the score indicates if it was entertaining or not

People with small attention spans.

DreamShaker
08-01-2013, 08:28 PM
I honestly prefer to go to a game to see my team win. If not, then at least compete and play hard. I enjoy rooting for a team that has pride. I have stuck with my team through the Steve Francis era, where there was a lot of flash and little winning, and it stunk.

DreamShaker
08-01-2013, 08:30 PM
I don't get how the score indicates if it was entertaining or not

Very true. But I guess a close game is always better than a blowout. So theres that.

RiceOnTheRun
08-01-2013, 11:01 PM
Depends on the teams playing.

If it's the Knicks, sure they could average 80 ppg but as long as they win, I'm fine.

If it's another team, I'd probably enjoy entertainment more, but I think close games are the best. The Bulls/Nets triple OT was probably the most entertaining game of the playoffs, besides the closing quarter of Game 6 in the Finals.

lol, please
08-01-2013, 11:40 PM
Entertainment, the show seems to be heaivly seeked by the league.

But does this translate to fanbases?


I mean, would you pay your anual tickets for your team if they played completely unflashy, everything bout team play, all bout defense.

If they win say 55 games but they average 75 points a game ( and their rivales average 69 against them).

Would you pay for that.?

I can only speak for myself, but in all sports I watch, winning> entertainment.

2-ONE-5
08-02-2013, 09:56 AM
winning=entertainment

PhillyFaninLA
08-02-2013, 12:11 PM
Get us a ring and you can score 1 point a game

JasonJohnHorn
08-02-2013, 12:32 PM
Carter sold tickets in Toronto.... McGrady sold tickets in Orlando.


If a team is going to lose, they might as well be entertaining. Getting an athletic wing to entertain is a great option for a team that is struggling to sell tickets and is losing. So long as it doesn't coast you in the long run. Having a guy like Carter or Nique or McGrady or Kobe fill the highlight reel in a losing effort makes losing more entertaining.

but the team still need to be building toward a contender. Like Detroit with Jerry Stackhouse... he helped sell tickets I'm sure... but when it was time to get better, you move him.

ManningToTyree
08-02-2013, 01:11 PM
Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Big Zo
08-02-2013, 02:37 PM
I pay to see wins. If my team doesn't win, I wasted my money.

ThuglifeJ
08-02-2013, 02:40 PM
If season was less games winning would matter more than entertainment.

bearadonisdna
08-02-2013, 02:58 PM
If you want entertainment go see Two and a half Men.