Bill Simmons' comment about difference between NBA and NFL.
by AK1984 on Jul 9, 2011 6:34 AM PDT
Email
Print"We ARE a league of Haves and Have-Nots. Look at every great season we've ever had — when we're top-heavy and bottom-heavy, that's when we have the best teams and the best playoff games.
Here's a newsflash: We're not the NFL. They have revenue sharing because it doesn't matter who plays in the Super Bowl, or where Peyton Manning spends his career. All that matters is parity and television money. Our success hinges on star power and big-market teams; we could never survive one year without a team in Los Angeles, much less two decades and counting like the NFL just did. Our attendance numbers these past few years have told us — pretty convincingly — that small-market fans aren't forking over money for professional basketball anymore unless their local team is good or great. And even then, they might not show up."
I 100% agree with Simmons.
What say you?
----------------------------------------------------------
ed. Bumped to front page. --Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
170 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This may be true, but...
I prefer to look at underlying causes. WHY are fans more universally affiliated with the NFL than they are the NBA? Why has that league managed to capture the imagination and excitement in ways that the NBA has not? Some of my initial thoughts:
- It is not intrinsic to the sport. I look no further than the NCAA tournament, which is regarded as the most successful and universally appealing sport other than perhaps the Olympics. Just as the NFL is (in some ways) as successful as NCAA basketball, the NBA should be as successful (in those same ways) as the NCAA basketball.
- Lesser athletes? No way… I think most would agree that the NBA has some of the best athletes in the world.
- Boorish behavior by the athletes? I don’t think so. I look no further than Ben Roethlisberger, Brett Favre, Michael Vick, and a host of other pseudo-NFL stars in trouble with the law.
- Number of teams? No. Check the math.
- Infrastructure of the league. Ah… now we’re on to something. The NFL has a season of 16 games where every game matters and those games occur in a compressed period of time. This resembles NCAA football and the NCAA basketball tournament. In contrast, the NBA has an absurd number of games strung across 7 month period of time. The games are irregularly spaced and unpredictable in time. In this, the NBA resembles MLB more than NFL and suffers the same consequences.
- Playoff duration. Another key difference. The NBA has the longest, most mind-numbing playoff sequence this side of the NHL. In contrast, the NFL has games ready-made for a do-or-die scenario.
To me, compressing the NBA schedule and playoffs would greatly increase interest in the game immediately and organically. This is a tough sell. If the owners know that they can (say) make $5M per game over 40 games ($200M) or $3M per game over 100 games ($300M) what are they going to do? Why, the latter of course, even though fan interest has reduced by 40% and Bill Simmons and his friends are left outraged at the diminished interest in the sport. Until the sport reaches that magic point where the revenue-per-game stops drops below the notional increase in games, the owners will continue to lengthen the season.
I’m interested in seeing other thoughts in this thread because I’m sure there are some deeply philosophical issues that people will bring. But my first thought is that sometimes the simplest answers are the most accurate: a 40 game season played regularly on Tu, Th, and Sun over 13 weeks with a 3-game playoff series played over 4 weeks would dramatically increase fan interest.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
by Phizbin on Jul 9, 2011 7:55 AM PDT reply actions 7 recs
I agree with Phizbin, that these issues are not intrinsic issues....
The NBA could be just as appealing to fans as the NFL or NCAA.
I believe more parity would also help the NBA. If any team could get on a hot streak and win the playoffs, many fans would stay more interested. If all anyone see’s is the same 10 or so team in the playoffs, then fans of other teams become disinterested. I think a shorter playoff would help this, but I also think more player movement would also help this.
This is probably blasphemy, but what if player couldn’t sign consecutive contracts with the same team, or some other way to encourage stars to play for several different teams (and not just large market teams)? Fans identify with players, maybe not as much as with their team, but I am more likely to watch another teams playoff run if I really like a player on that team.
I can’t help but feel the more dynamic the sport (maybe not TOO dynamic – that would turn fans off), but enough that 2011 doesn’t feel like a repeat of 2010 to some teams (namely lottery and small market teams), would help increase interest. Wondering if your team will, and knowing that they CAN, go on a miracle run, would make everybody happier.
Also, fans need to feel like the reffing doesn’t affect the game. I believe ref’s do a good job, but a lot of people feel they fix the games with obviously blown calls. Being able to review plays would help everybody, though it would slow the game slightly (worth it IMO).
I stopped watching the NFL BECAUSE of the parity
When any team can win, when the difference between winning and losing is wafer thin because of parity and if often determined by a bad bounce or an official’s mistake then winning or losing is reduced to a fairly random event, in which case they might as well meet out at midfield and flips coins to determine who wins.
I find the story line much more exciting when there is either a mighty team marching through the competition, or far better, when there is a mighty team brought down by an underdog. There are no true underdogs with parity and for me, there is no true drama.
The NFL is boring.
Yeah, and America loves American Idol and realty TV
which means America doesn’t necessarily have good taste, just big numbers.
right
how much longer is that show going to be on tv…..
Thus far this summer, Voice, America's Got Talent, and The Bachelorette are some ...
of the highest rated shows on TV.
So, even though I agree with you that the NFL is completely and utterly awesome, there’s no doubt that countless Americans enjoy some god-awful television programming.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
It's because they're basically the only "new" things on TV.
Everything else is a rerun (or baseball, which is equally as awful).
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
True, but they're all still terrible television.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
And just for the record
I used to live and die by what the Vikings and the 49’ers did as I spent my Sunday’s monitoring two TVs and I was recruited to play college ball.
the NFL is boring because american football is mainly a boring sport
by YoniRap on Jul 9, 2011 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Depending on who you ask, every sport is boring...
every movie is a waste of time,
every song is just noise,
every book is nonsense,
every painting is ugly,
and every person is a jerk.
Who's that tromping across my bedge?
Soccer is awesome,
but nothing can touch the NFL. That is a perfect TV show.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 10, 2011 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I have nothing against soccer
I played it myself. It’s just funny the on going battle of football vs soccer.
I agree,
and approve of you stirring up soccer vs. football controversy;)
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 10, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
It sucks as a TV show. The mindless chatter of the commentators lowers one’s IQ. And the constant interruption of the commercials makes it impossible to watch without muting the sound and putting Jeff Beck or Chick Corea on the stereo.
If you are wondering where the junk drawer went, look in at http://pinwheelempire.com
by 22baylor on Jul 11, 2011 8:55 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
The commercials are great!
They give you a chance to take a leak. There’s never too many if you drink enough beer.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 12, 2011 3:04 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
your right, I'd much rather watch a sport where a 2-1 final score is considered a barn burner
No one in the world can beat me at RBI baseball 3(nes).
Soccer should really make their goals worth more points, say 7 for instance
then a 2-1 game would be 14-7 and everyone would think it was an amazing game.
Say it ain't Cho
by Sean in Vancouver on Jul 10, 2011 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
except why would one score be worth so much
with no PAT or conversion option? There isn’t a way to score less points then a goal, so why would a score be worth more then 1? There is no three point line, no free throw, no field goal, no touch down…..only one way to score points.
Why is a score in football worth 6? Why are scores in basketball worth 2 and 3?
The point is, a majority of football teams don’t score more than 2 or 3 times per game, which isn’t too much more than high level soccer teams, American Football’s scores just count as more points.
And I probably like football more than soccer, just get tired of that particular argument of superiority.
Say it ain't Cho
by Sean in Vancouver on Jul 10, 2011 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions
A touch down is worth 6 because it is worth 2x as much as a field goal
Then you have a PAT that is worth 1 point and a conversion that is worth 2 points. In basketball you have your free throw that is worth 1 point, a higher percentage shot worth 2, and a lower percentage shot worth 3. It all makes sense. Soccer is boring because there isn’t much to the game. There is one way to score…it takes for ever to score that one way…and between those goals you have guys falling down every 3 minutes acting like there knee just blew up. I actually don’t mind soccer. But it is one of the more boring sports to watch/play.
I've been a football fan my whole, and I've never actually heard an explanation like that before
But more to the point, lets say hypothetically, that a Penalty Kick was worth 1 pt, a shot from inside the big (18 yard?) box was worth 2 points, and a shot from beyond that was worth 3 points. Would you enjoy the sport more if it was more complex like that, and somewhat higher scoring?
Say it ain't Cho
by Sean in Vancouver on Jul 10, 2011 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know why you're in this argument
when somebody says “there isn’t much to the game” that’s the #1 sport for a billion people, that kind of ends the debate.
i keep dancing on my own.
There doesn't have to be much to a game for
it to be popular. I understand to play it there is a lot more to it, but to understand how the game works…its pretty simple. And honestly if there was a 1-3 point shot in soccer the game might be a little more interesting. It’s not like I hate soccer or anything….just simply changing a goal from worth 1 to 7 doesn’t make football and soccer any more alike.
yeah, the general goal of the game is pretty simple… that doesn’t make the strategy or “games within a game” any less intriguing.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/04/22/is-the-sweeper-set-for-a-return-to-prominence/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/13/the-question-why-is-offside-law-genius
i keep dancing on my own.
I was going to comment about how the NBA and NFL have similar amounts of parity
but…….. the NBA has almost no parity at all.
But still, Parity in the NFL is somewhat overstated. Sure, its not the same champion every year, but by no means does every team have a chance to win. Since 2000, The Patriots have 3 Titles (1 SB loss), the Steelers have 2 Titles (1 SB loss), in that time the Colts, Rams, and Giants have all won 1 Superbowl and lost another.
The NFL definitely has more parity then the NBA, but you still have a handful of the same teams in the title hunt every year, and a bunch of other teams that don’t have a chance, and probably won’t for a long time.
Say it ain't Cho
by Sean in Vancouver on Jul 10, 2011 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions
but it's about the reasons
all NFL teams are essentially on an (much more) equal playing field financially. the reasons those particular teams have been more successful than others is mostly due to good scouting, management and coaching. In the NBA, local revenue availability and geographical location combine to give certain teams extreme advantages which cannot regularly be overcome by good scouting, management, and coaching.
"Well, you can always sell your team."
Coaching
has a MUCH larger impact on NFL then NBA.
absolutely
"Well, you can always sell your team."
I really don't think length of schedule has a lot to do with it.
Take the Brooklyn Dodgers. They were successful despite being a bad team with a schedule that never ended. The bigger problem has been how to get fans to love a team. And sure, winning has something to do with it. But there have historically been teams that have been wildly popular even when they were at the bottom of the barrel. Because people loved them.
I think we saw that with the Blazers in 1977. There has to be some magic that accompanies a team. Some cinderella story, some wildly absurd thing that happens. And then the people can’t quit. And while I disagree with length of season, length of playoffs may be spot on. A seven game series almost always determines who the better team is. And it’s the same few successful teams each time. There are no surprises, no cinderella stories by the time you get to the NBA finals.
Seven game series worked in baseball, because one hot streak can last seven games. One magical moment can span a playoff series. Baseball works that way. Football does not, basketball does not. One and done manufactures the magic. One and done lets Cinderella have a chance to go to the ball.
"Anybody might guess beforehand that there would be blunders of the ignorant. What nobody could have guessed, what nobody could have dreamed of in a nightmare, what no morbid mortal imagination could ever have dared to imagine, was the mistakes of the well-informed." - G. K. Chesterton, The Common Man
Blazersedge.com || New to Blazersedge?
Actions -> Rec and Flag. Blazersedge works right when you use these two things.
Oh how quickly we forget
There are no surprises, no cinderella stories by the time you get to the NBA finals.
Dallas Mavericks lose Caron Butler and enter the playoffs at 3rd seed, then continue to torch every team in the playoffs including a 4-0 rout of the defending champs. That is a Cinderella story my friend. The Memphis Grizzlies also had their own mini-run, and the Chicago Bulls came into their own this year.
encrypted to prevent harvest by spam bots.
by JuwanMVPHoward on Jul 9, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Idk about Memphis
They have had good talent for a while. While the Grizz played well, I think the real story in that series was how bad SA played. Chicago was a bit special, but the East is a pretty weak conference with just a few powerhouses.
Which is why the NBA has gotten more popular this year.
But the general belief is still that Cinderella never makes it to the ball. And so teams like Atlanta can’t draw a crowd, despite how well they’ve done. No one cares. There aren’t good stories. Just “Hey, we’re a pro team, care about us!”
Part of it is that teams don’t realize that civic pride is dead. Teams no longer represent communities, so why do communities bother?
"Anybody might guess beforehand that there would be blunders of the ignorant. What nobody could have guessed, what nobody could have dreamed of in a nightmare, what no morbid mortal imagination could ever have dared to imagine, was the mistakes of the well-informed." - G. K. Chesterton, The Common Man
Blazersedge.com || New to Blazersedge?
Actions -> Rec and Flag. Blazersedge works right when you use these two things.
that's why the blazers are still successful
portland has a civic pride that has kept our sports teams going. I personally follow the blazers because I just love portland.
Atlanta is a poor example here, as it's just a piss-poor professional sports town in general.
Even when the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta Braves are doing well, those teams can’t draw squat.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Dallas being a Cinderella is one way to look at them
another way is to remember they they were only the 3rd seed in the west because they lost a tiebreaker with the Lakers for the 2nd seed, and because Dirk missed 9 games. If Dirk doesn’t get hurt that team likely wins 60 games. That sounds like the profile for a pretty awesome team and not so much a “Cinderella” in my book.
by tingeyga on Jul 9, 2011 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It astonished me that numerous folks -- including national talking heads -- underestimated ...
the Dallas Mavericks heading into this year’s playoffs. In the end, those who sold them short had to eat crow.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
I don't think many of them or us for that matter
had any idea how great Dirk was going to be in these playoffs.
#52
Yeah, not even I saw that coming.
I expected him to have a great postseason, but not a legendary one.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Not even YOU?
If you are wondering where the junk drawer went, look in at http://pinwheelempire.com
by 22baylor on Jul 11, 2011 9:03 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
i underestimated the living crap out of them and i'm not afraid to admit it.
they’ve fallen short so many times, it seemed like a natural upset pick.
dirk was incredimazing!
The problem
is that this theory ignores that the league has never been more popular. There are young superstars littered across the landscape, successful teams in big markets, and the level of play is fantastic. The problem lies in what Simmons finally notes at the end, is that its tough to convince regular fans to shell out a couple hundred bucks to go to a game when they can pay that for League Pass for every team in the NBA on their HDTV. I just honestly don’t think that hosting 20 home games a year will suddenly increase demand and more importantly revenue. Having staggered dates also helps fans pick and choose games to attend if they aren’t season ticket holders. Some people can’t ever attend on a Tuesday, while some can only attend on a Tuesday.
Agree and other thoughts on that
I definitely agree that the length of NBA season and playoffs has something to do with fan interest levels on the whole. When the games mean more, they often tend to be more entertaining to the casual fan and fans without a hometown team. From personal experience, I know that as much as I’d like to watch more college basketball during the year, I never really make the committment until championship week. The reason, the games mean more. Also, for the first time in my life, I watched the majority of every Stanley Cup finals game this year. I’ve never been a hockey fan in the past nor am I from a city which has an NHL team, but I was looking forward to the games because of their importance. Perhaps it’s somewhat akin to having to tune in to the “season finale” of your favorite show even though you’re fine with missing a few episodes throughout the season.
We would also be remiss in trying to understand why more fans are universally affliated with the NFL without acknowledging the influence of fantasy football. I believe the evolution of this alone has taken many an average NFL fan and turned them into “I’ve got to watch Buffalo/Cleveland because Lee Evans is on my fantasy team” guys. As a kid growing up I watched football, followed the LA Rams and St. Louis Cardinals, but could give a rip about most of the rest of the league outside of Bo Jackson.
Finally, from a fan interest perspective, I’m also much more likely to sit down and watch an NBA game if each team has a “star” player and the games are competitive. I’m NOT interested in Miami v. Golden State. That said, I truly believe a hard cap is an important element fo r the league to flourish. I completely understand why the players don’t like, nor would I like to know that my salary potential was tied to what every other player on the team was making. However, having the forethrought to see the benefit of making a lesser team more competitive, which makes the league as a whole more competitive would (in my opinion) make the NBA a more interesting product, attract more casual fans, and be more profitable. I believe this is closer to the NFL model. I can easily say that the the philosophy of “the whole being greater than the sum of its parts” is one that makes sense to me…but I’m not an NBA player.
I’ve been preaching shorter season and playoffs for years. I think you need to add some other money maker type thing for the owners to consider it. My best idea is a single elimination tournament about half of the way into the season with some prestige. So, we go to a 40 game season, and at around game 20 instead of there being an all-star weekend we take a couple weeks off for an NCAA-style tournament. You win a cup of some sort. Then you finish up the season and do the playoffs.
by danielfarrell on Jul 9, 2011 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Crappy teams shouldn't be rewarded with a shot to participate in a single-elimination tournament ...
that ends with a rinky-dink cup handed out to the winner. To me, your idea of a complete overhaul would trash the long and storied history of the NBA that goes back over 60 years.
This is the NBA and not FIFA.
If anything, the playoffs should have just the top-six teams from each conference make the postseason. Yet, because the playoffs has had eight teams from each conference make the postseason since 1984, I realize that changing it is an impractical, unrealistic option—especially since scaling back would cost a ton of revenue.
And yeah, revenue matters. It matters more than anything.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
I like the idea of shortening the series
not to just one and done, but maybe a 3 or 5 game series.
I'm fine with the first-round series returning to a five-game set, sure.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
I like this idea a lot
The regular season is too long. I think if they cut down the number of games you would see fewer injuries (thus more teams playing at full strength, rather than limping to the finish) and more fan interest.
Also like doing away with the All Star weekend in favor of a tourney of some kind. Perhaps giving the winner an automatic playoff berth just to make it interesting for the lower seeds. A break in the middle of the season might also be cool for allowing mid season acquisitions the chance to gel with the team before resuming the reg. season.
I am completely in favor of all three majOr sports shortening their seasons but I think there is absolutely no hoPE of it ever happening.
If you are wondering where the junk drawer went, look in at http://pinwheelempire.com
by 22baylor on Jul 11, 2011 9:07 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Boorish Behavior
Off the field lots of trouble for both.
On the field, the NBA is much worse imo. The players are closer to the fans and do not where helmets. In the NFL the players simple do not have time to continually go over to the Refs and cry there little eyes out. No flops in the NFL either.
Compressing the schedule would lose revenue for both sides, so that isn't a viable solution whatsoever.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Depends how they did it
If they cut the regular season, but installed a mid season tourney, then they might not actually be losing many games or revenue, but the games themselves would be more meaningful. Would the NBA give up the regular season revenue for say 20 games if it meant having some sort of tourney that generated a buzz like the NCAAs? Perhaps, if they felt they could recoup the revenue through other means.
A mid-season tourney might also be a way of taking the game more international. Most of panned the idea of establishing NBA teams in European/Asian cities, but what if the mid season tourney invited teams from foreign leagues to participate as well?
The scenario you've just suggested is too convoluted and not pragmatic in the least bit.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Because he says so.
If you are wondering where the junk drawer went, look in at http://pinwheelempire.com
by 22baylor on Jul 11, 2011 9:08 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
What is said tourney for?
Does your team have to win certain w/l requirements? I kind of see what your trying to do, I just don’t see why any would care about some random mid season tourney?
It works something like this....
The regular season is cut to 60 games with a 2 week mid season break. During that 2 weeks, you have a field of, say, 64 (30 NBA teams plus 34 good Euro/Asia clubs). You have a single elimination tourney.
I think this would be far more entertaining for fans than 20 more games of the same ole NBA. Plus, you’re now able to get more international exposure and also market on a more global basis. Can you imagine the TV deal you could arrange in places like China for something like this? Plus, if successful, you could change the venue every couple of years. This, to me, sounds far better than All-Star weekend or a few more regular season games.
You also give NBA fans the chance to check out people like Ricky Rubio or Victor Claver playing against NBA level competition.
My main point is that there are ways to reduce the NBA regular season without necessarily making it a huge financial hit for teams.
I just dont get
why NBA players would want to play in this tourney? Whats to stop them from losing game 1 so they can get the rest instead of playing in a tourney that means nothing?
I'm sure you could
build in some financial incentive. However, I think pride might be a more motivating factor. Do you really think the Lakers want to lose in the first round to a non-NBA team? I’m sure they would hear about it from their peers for the next 12 months.
Not only that, but I think the single elimination format makes it interesting for the 25 teams who don’t have a real shot at winning the championship in a 7 game series. This way you might have a shot at beating a heavy weight in a single game and advancing. I also think it’s going to be much more exciting for the fans of many of those 25 teams to feel like their guys have a realistic chance of winning something.
I guess it comes down to whether you believe guys like LMA and GW would intentionally tank. I tend to think not.
Not only that,
but the they would, in essence, be trading 20 regular season games for a max of 6 tourney games. I think most players would see that as a good deal.
I think it would have to
be not every NBA team. Only the teams not in playoff position. It could be some type of wildcard system…of course that is really early in the year to do any type of playoff wildcard.
I agree wholeheartedly!
(and rec). Too many games are meaningless, and too many games are perceived as unfair because one team is fatigued from playing the night before. Of course, baseball is even more absurd. I have a dim memory of Chuck Finley, the old flamboyant owner of the Oakland A’s, saying the baseball season should be shortened to 50 games. I think that was one of his better ideas. Ditto on the playoffs. When I really think about it, it’s absurd that so many coaches can say that a series doesn’t really start until a team loses a home game. Too long, man.
A team loses a game after
the first game is played? I think they say it doesn’t start until the higher seed loses a game?
No, the saying is that a playoff series doesn't start until the home team loses
Pat Riley used to use the quote a lot. It was a way of firing up your team to either defend home court, or try to steal a road game.
Thanks for fixing that.
I knew I had the meaning right but it seemed kind of mangled.
eh, that simmons piece was like a manual on how to confuse separate but related topics
Revenue sharing and a salary cap aren’t the same thing. Baseball has extensive revenue sharing, which keeps most teams profitable, but allows the Yankees and Red Sox to spend tons of money and always stay ahead of the pack.
Additionally, he appears to confuse “compelling and marketable teams and players” with “big market success.” If it were all about how big the markets of successful teams were, then the NBA could never have a successful playoffs without significant contributions from New York and L.A. like happened last year. New York is twice the size of Chicago, 3x the size of DFW, 4.5x the size of Boston and 3.5x the size of Miami. In terms of market size, Miami is much closer to Minneapolis than it is to New York.
Really what people want to see are (1) marketable stars regardless of which market they play in—think Kevin Durant (and the NBA has a huge role in this), (2) a pleasing style of play (2007 Finals weren’t very popular amirite?) and (3) unpredictability (this years playoffs were good because none of the series was a foregone conclusion).
i keep dancing on my own.
Exactly
Really what people want to see are (1) marketable stars regardless of which market they play in—think Kevin Durant (and the NBA has a huge role in this)
When LeBron played for the Cavs, people watched them, and they were relevant, despite being a small market.
Personally, I believe that if more teams decide to “do the miami” and concentrate all the superstars to a handful of teams, then sure, Simmons is right.
But really, people are going to watch James, Durant, Wade, Rose, ect no matter where they play. Its this hoarding of stars that is hurtful to the league.
do people who live in small towns like the l*kers or something?
I couldn’t disagree more with Simmons’ pretense here. The league cannot survive without a team in LA? The only thing LA brings to the table is a huge media market, but since there is no revenue sharing they keep all that money. I’m sure there are plenty of misguided youth in Kobe jerseys scattered all over but for the most part basketball fans root for their home team. If the small market teams can’t make a profit no matter how savvy their business models are, while the Dolans and Sterlings of the world make piles of cash then the system doesn’t work. An NBA with 3 LA teams, 2 NY teams, 2 Chicago teams, and a few Florida teams would be about as popular as hockey. The NBA should aspire to be like the NFL, where every kid has the opportunity to root for their home team, and where its entirely possible that any kids team could capture a title every now and then.
"She fell in love with the drummer, another and another"
by Cap'n Crash on Jul 9, 2011 12:31 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
You'd be surprised how many people in small cities and big cities are fair weather Laker fans.
Not only the Lakers, but Celtics and the Bulls. NBA needs as many fans as possible which is why Simmons says they need LA
Needs LA...because they have won so many championships? Because some of the best players go there...
BECAUSE they have won so many championships….chicken or egg?
A hard cap would IMO, help all teams in the NBA have more of a chance to win a Championship.
If revenue is more media than gate based, it seems more would be interested if it wasn’t a foregone conclusion…LA? NYC? Boston? Chicago? Miami? maybe even Dallas? If not…then they will not win….so why bother to watch..
by Natsthecat on Jul 9, 2011 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
fair weather laker fans
can easily drift to fairweather thunder fans, or bulls fans, or even blazers fans. If they are fairweather fans, then their allegiances can and should change easily. The NBA should be more worried about dedicated one team fans who will stop caring if their team has no chance at contending.
by YoniRap on Jul 9, 2011 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Casual fans will tune out and quit buying merchandise if there are no big-time teams and stars.
Did the NBA League Office care this past season that the Minnesota Timberwolves and Sacramento Kings were failures? Nope, ’cause the few hardcore fans in those places make up a tiny grain in the enormous sandbox of casual fans across the country who cared about LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant, et al.
In the grand scheme of things, James sells, Bryant sells, Rose sells, and Durant sells. On the other hand, though, LaMarcus Aldridge doesn’t sell. That’s just the way it is and there’s no use fighting it.
http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201104/lebron-reclaims-top-spot-nba-jersey-sales
During the late-’70s, the NBA saw what happens when casual fans tune out to spend their time and money on other products. The ’80s also taught the NBA how to fix that issue, as Magic Johnson and Larry Bird — who were transcendent superstars in major markets — came on the scene and saved the day.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
so where is the small/big market divide?
The numbers show that the difference between New York and Boston dwarfs the difference between Boston and Seattle or Minneapolis.
i keep dancing on my own.
big teams and big players don't have to come in big markets.
the thunder have been drawing a lot of casual fairweather fans even while they’re in one of the smallest markets in the NBA.
also, the fact that LaMarcus Aldridge doesn’t sell has a lot more to do with the league’s hype machine approach to star building. if the NBA gave LMA the attention that they gave Durant, I believe Lamarcus would be just as popular. In fact, Durant is, in my opinion, a much more boring player than LMA.
That dunk he threw down in the playoffs
where is elbow was well above the rim was utterly boring. He should have gone in for a layin to show what a great technician around the hoop he is. Also, his form from the line would be more efficient if he shot ‘granny’ style.
(/s)
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 10, 2011 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I said in my opinion, which is pretty biased because i really enjoy watching post move and have something against athletes who just run into the paint and draw fouls, like rose and durant.
Durant does everything in God's name.
Who's that tromping across my bedge?
by Troll Blazer on Jul 12, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Even if LaMarcus Aldridge was in a big city like Houston, he still wouldn't be marketable.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
If the NBA can make Kevin Love marketable, than LaMarcus Aldridge should be a piece of cake.
alley-oops, post moves, and jump shots are much more highlight-worthy than rebounds, putbacks, and three pointers. period.
or maybe it’s just that Love’s uncle was a Beach Boy
Even when he entered the NBA as a rookie, Kevin Love did a wonderful job in ads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tMuVjTayo8
Now, it probably helped Love that he came from successful college team with a large fan base — as UCLA gets tremendous national attention — which softened the blow of him being drafted to the NBA’s hinterland in Minnesota.
Not sure where the best place will be for Love to play during his prime years, but I can safely bet the NBA brass wants him to bolt out of Minnesota sooner rather than later.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Americans like seeing a white guy do well.
They can relate.
Call it racist, I call it reality.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
I call it an ignorant statement
I was unaware all Americans were white.
by AR-15 on Jul 11, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, casual fans love big-market teams and big-market stars.
That’s partly why the late-‘70s was a financial disaster for the NBA. Even while you guys in Portland and the folks up here in Seattle got to enjoy a championship apiece, most folks across the rest of the country didn’t give a crap.
The last thing the NBA needs is league-wide parity, since it’ll inevitably lead to a return of the dark years.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
I recall finals games in that period
being shown on tape delay, starting at about 11pm.
That is really not a fair statement by Simmons
The difference is only that those cities have more people. There are a certain number of fans in every small market that always show up, in bigger cities that number is understandably large. He phrases it like big cities have better fans when in many cases that isn’t the case.
And yes I think we could survive years without the Lakers being good. We survived years without the Knicks being good. We survived many years of the Celtics being mediocre at best. The Bulls were in a similar boat as the Celtics.
I don’t think we could survive if NONE of them were good, but in any given year at least 2-4 of the big market teams are good so it doesn’t really matter which ones are good and which ones are bad.
Simmons didn't say anything about the Lakers being good
he talked about there not being a franchise in LA at all. Even during the post-Magic, pre-Shaq/Kobe era of the Lakers when they weren’t very good (best season was 43 wins) they still drew crowds on the road and people watched when they were on TV. This what the NBA needs.
His idea for increasing salaries
for superstars and stars is ridiculous though. The All-NBA team is voted on by media members who have biases. The All-Star game is a cross between fans, coaches and players. Imagine the uproar from Aldridge or Randolph’s agent last year if their client didn’t get to the next level of salary range because Tim Duncan got put on the team as a career achievement award. I like Simmons, but he thinks that the stuff he cares about is what everyone should care about. What if a sabermetrics guy wrote a similar article talking about some salary system using Hollinger’s PER rating? It would suffer from the same short-sightedness.
My point was more
about player’s salaries being determined by voting. Even by peers.
Exactly, it's a terrible idea on the whole.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Shoot, even the players don't always know who's the best among them.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Yeah, that was an asinine proposal by Bill Simmons.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
I find it fascinating how stating the obvious enables a writer to get a little
play in the media.
So what Bill? The NBA we have today is the result of what has transpired between owners and players under Stern. There is nothing written in stone that says it can’t be different, and have a different outcome, so that in 10 years the obvious statement would be very different from the one you stated today.
You said that the fans for small market teams aren’t likely to show up unless they have a good team.
Really. I’m so impressed. Isn’t that what we’ve been saying for some time, that the advantage the NFL, NHL, and Baseball have is that they have changed their systems to ensure that they routinely turnover the championship year in and year out, which, in turn, ensures that many more fans are supportive and involved than is the case in the NBA where in the last 20 years, we’ve had what? Seven?
Is it really rocket science to understand that if fans in smaller markets no longer believe that they have a shot, that they begin to lose interest?
About all Simmons did in stating the obvious is point out the fact that the disease the NBA has is precisely the fact that a handful of cities can buy the stars necessary to compete, and the rest, in general, can’t.
And so, it’s a poor league with a worse structure. Thank You Stern and owners, and yes, even players. Brilliant job of bungling a perfectly good league.
Level the playing field to a much greater degree, and ensure that good management everywhere has a shot at the title, and the fans will begin to come back becuase they can dream again.
Right now, they don’t. And they shouldn’t.
Did you click on the link?
He says a lot more, and some of it is pretty radical. Enough so that I disagree with most of it, but it’s definitely not a piece that just restates conventional wisdom.
Woah...
Baseball is structured to turn over champions? They’re the most lopsided league by far.
The only reason they don’t have as many dynasties as the NBA is because a few players landing on one team don’t guarantee that team being in contention for the next decade (e.g. Albert Pujols mught be the best baseball player ever but doesn’t improve the Cardinals chances of winning it all 1/10 as much as Tim Duncan did for the Spurs). Just being the Yankees does however guarantee being in contention for the next century. Meanwhile, the Royals look like they may never sniff the World Series. The NBA is nowhere near that bad.
Right.
Baseball guarantees regular season successes for the most part for the haves. Occasionally a have-not can have a good regular season, and then the nature of baseball is such that the playoffs are a crapshoot. But there’s a reason that the Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals are always in contention.
Yeah, a major difference in baseball versus basketball is the different level of impact by superstars.
In a given season, the best player in baseball is worth around 10 wins out of 162 for his team. In a given season, the best player in basketball is worth around 30 wins out of 82 for his team.
For example, Jose Bautista can’t make the Toronto Blue Jays a contender all by his lonesome
Furthermore, MLB playoff series are such a small sample size of games that an underdog has a decent chance of taking out a better team. Last season, the Texas Rangers had the worst run differential of any AL team heading into the playoffs; however, they managed to take out both Tampa Bay and New York — which were superior ballclubs — before it finally lost the World Series to the San Francisco Giants. Even San Francisco was a surprise team, as it wasn’t expected to beat Philadelphia in the NLCS.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
by AK1984 on Jul 9, 2011 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't like it, but I think he's right
The star power is the big thing. A single player in the NFL just doesn’t have the impact that a single player does in the NBA. Send Tom Brady or Peyton Manning to the Panthers and they’ll win a few extra games… maaaybe even squeak in to the playoffs, but it won’t make them a contender like LeBron did for the Cavs.
Parity works in the NFL because good teamwork gets you a lot further than signing big free agents (just ask the Redskins). It matters in the NBA, as the Mavericks just showed, but they still had Dirk at the best he’s ever been to lead them there. “Best player on the field” isn’t nearly as important in football. So Peyton Manning is a big star, but it doesn’t really phase Giants fans that he’s stuck in Indy. With a good enough team around him (and a well timed hot streak), even Eli freakin Manning can win a championship.
The NBA on the other hand has a handful of teams with “players good enough to lead you to a championship” and a bunch of teams that don’t. Because of this, and the scheduling stuff Phizbin mentioned above (which, as BS mentioned, increases the NFL’s reliance on TV money over ticket money), most small markets teams don’t generate enough interest to fill arenas when they don’t have the star power and the big markets don’t do nearly as much for the league when they don’t have stars.
This^
Star power drives the NBA. It’s not as much of a team game as the NCAA and NFL. As a result, teams without all-stars are harder to watch. For example, even though the Clippers and T’Wolves are terrible, I’ll tune in just to see what Griffin and Love will do next.
Except Love
isn’t exciting. All the guy does it rebound/put backs.
True, Blake Griffin is much, much more entertaining to watch than Kevin Love.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
That was one reason I couldn't believe Love went over LMA
to the All-Star game. I feel like LMA is just a more fun player to watch. Both players are from small markets, but I feel like Stern would have gotten more bang for his pick with LMA.
LaMarcus Aldridge is exceptionally boring, too.
If the objective was strictly to add excitement when replacing Yao Ming on the 2011 Western Conference All-Star Team, then Steve Nash would’ve been David Stern’s selection.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
True
But I think Stern is all about the young up and comings guys. Only reason I say LMA is fun to watch, is all those Ally-oop dunks we got to see.
Yeah, LaMarcus Aldridge wouldn't've been the most boring replacement possible.
The most boring replacement possible at that time was Zach Randolph, although he shed that label somewhat during the playoffs.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
How important is star power in other sports?
I’m pretty out of touch so I really don’t know, but if it’s more desperately needed in basketball than in, say, football, could it be because the basketball season is too long and therefore boring to the casual fan unless there’s a Bird-Magic kind of rivalry?
IDK that you could say its more important
I guess the only reason you could say that is Stars are generally more exciting in the NBA. In the NFL there is a lot more that happens from non stars. Then again, many people will watch just Philly cause they know Vick will probably do something crazy, or Mini cause they know AP will probably go off.
I think the NBA is obsessed with catering to the casual audience it gained during the Jordan years.
Most of those fans don’t love and respect the game, but rather want to see highlights and “special” things happen, so they can say they were there. Dunks and crossovers are the king of highlights on ESPN, which only compounds fan obsession with “players making plays” over teams playing a complete game.
In that way, I would compare the NBA to golf and, respectively, Jordan to Woods. Gold is in great shape right now, with lots of young, exciting players. It’s FAR from having the fringe factor it enjoyed when Tiger was on his historic role though. The sport continues to go forth, as it always has. Meanwhile, the NBA changed itself to not only capitalize on the greatness of Jordan (who coincided with the beginning of modern sports coverage ie—ESPN), but actually used the “Jordan” model to try and convince fans other ‘great’ players were on the way. Harold Minor flopped. Penny got injured. Kobe is totally un-likable. Basically, the league’s primary game plan—to coin-and-mint the next MJ—has been a total FAIL to the detriment of the game.
Fans don’t generally look at NFL players as rich, overpayed, spoiled brats. Why is that? They are marketed as players playing in a league and game larger than themselves. Fans often have an issue with the NBA players’ brands and the way they are presented. Why is that? They are marketed more like “tough”, hip hop looking cool cats who are bigger than the game itself—IE—Jordan-types. Fans know better, not to mention the fact that middle class, white fan bases are less likely to respond to the message. So the league has hurt itself but the ESPN and McDonalds culture around its players has ultimately hurt it as well. The two together create unrealistic fan expectations—the need to “see something happen”—over more informed appreciation of the game—the desire to “see good basketball”.
Basically, the NBA got too big for its britches. Like golf before it, it needs to go back and concentrate on the game, making the regular season and playoffs a more compact presentation so we REAL fans don’t get utterly fed up once and for all.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 10, 2011 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"gold" = "golf", D'oh.
It would have been way cooler if my typo was “gorf”:
In this picture: “FLAG SHIP” circles overhead, waiting for gorf to post something sarcastic and insensitive.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 10, 2011 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
and "role" should be "roll".
Argh, say I. Argh.
Mmmmm. A buttered roll sounds good to me right now.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 10, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
The NBA can't ignore its casual fans. That's not an option in any way, shape, or form, so forget it.
The casual fans matter more than the hardcore fans, no matter if you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Somewhere between ignoring and obsessing over
would make sense. The presentation of the product is suffering. Not that I have concrete ideas, mind you. I think game nights with several games finishing one after the other—ala NCAA rounds 1 and 2—would be highly entertaining. I actually enjoyed the overall style of officiating this postseason, so I have little gripe there. Just market the game itself more—it’s hardly complicated.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 11, 2011 12:59 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think
they need to get away from the Hip-Hop culture. It just makes there target audience extremely narrow. And also market the game a little more and the players a little less.
That's a asinine suggestion.
It’d be an enormous miscalculation to pull away from marketing superstar players as the league’s main assets. They’re the most marketable product on the floor.
Likewise, the NBA marketing itself as a diverse product is, without a doubt, a net positive. If anything, other professional sports organizations (e.g., MLB) should take a page out of the NBA’s book in that regard.
Despite countless people giving NBA Commissioner David Stern tons of flack, I’ve come to realize these past few days how much worse it could be if some Joe Sixpack type joker was put in charge of things. Within a few years, the NBA would be run into the ground.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
I agree to a point. Stars will always drive the drama of NBA basketball but
the NFL has real rivalries that seemingly span generations. These rivalries go far beyond the players. Is it possible for the NBA to generate actual—sustained—drama within its divisions? Divisional drama would REALLY help smaller teams IMO. Instead, I’m guessing most teams sell ticket packages focusing around individual players. Is that bad? No. It’s common sense. But is it sustainable? I think a combination of player marketing while configuring the regular season and playoffs to increase the drama within divisions would help the league long term.
Can the NBA do a better job of—while protecting the marketing interests of its “star” attractions—educating the fan base about the game itself? I mean, if semi-casual hockey fans can learn what off sides means, semi-casual NFL fans can appreciate blocks in the open field, I’m sure NBA fans can learn to appreciate screens and rebounds. Its simply a matter of emphasizing the team concept of “winning” while giving proper credit to the offensive stars of the league.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 12, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
For better or worse, the NBA is locked into a star player driven marketing model than any other sports league
There are plenty of reasons for the ranging for the number of players on a side, to star basketball players being on court more than in other sports, to fans being closer to the court, to the simple fact that basketball players are far more recognizable because there isn’t any mandated equipment that covers the head.
I think the musical and fashion parts of hip hop are part of many of the players personalities,
and that players should be presented “as-is”—no tattoos air brushed off, for instance. But the league and its advertisers should definitely stop showing these guys as towering, Jordan-like individuals who are bigger than the game. Football commercials manage to seem more team-like most of the time. I’m not sure exactly how, but the NBA needs to make an effort to emulate that a little more. I mean, if the NFL can make the Manning brothers look funny and interesting, anything is possible.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 12, 2011 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Screw Los Angeles and their band Wagon Fans
The Nba and the real fans would be better off without any teams in Los Angeles and Bill Simmions period.
Besides they aren’t winning the title this year anyway so by default they avoid the only other definition of "waste" that matters.
—Dave
This wasn't thought through all the way
I don’t think.
by AR-15 on Jul 9, 2011 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Are we not small market?
Do we not sell out the Rose Garden…like….always? Our fans show up. The front office may be crazy, but we (fans) are the reason players love to retire here. Why the media thinks we rock. Other cities take note, its places like Portland flipping Oregon that keep the NBA going.
you're out of your element, donny. shomer shabbos.
by Gpop171 on Jul 9, 2011 3:06 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
We still don't generate revenue numbers
even close to LA.
Turnstile
Take it with a grain of salt but at a BLAZER function last month I was told by a manager of ticket sales, that the PORTLAND Trailblazers were Number 1 in the NBA for bodies going through the turnstiles….yep…counting the rotation of the stile…
I don’t see them winning the title immediately. Nicolas Batum
National TV audience > local ticket sales.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
also not all ticket sales are equal from a revenue standpoint
The fan cost index (which is defined as: the prices of four (4) average-price tickets, two (2) small draft beers, four (4) small soft drinks, four (4) regular-size hot dogs, parking for one (1) car, two (2) game
programs and two (2) least-expensive, adult-size adjustable caps) for the most recent season has going to a Lakers game costing almost $490 while going to a Blazers game costs just under $300.
Everything is more expensive in LA
I don’t know if that prices difference has anything to do with the popularity of the team, but more so just the cost of living there.
I'm surprised Toronto is so high and Golden State is so low on that list.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
the Lakers are worth way more to the league as a brand than the Blazers
jersey sales, paraphernalia and perennial superstars all contribute to the power of their entity. Also they, like the Knicks could play for empty arenas as they make far more money from their tv deals than ticket sales.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain_4.html#ixzz1IE4sPu16
by Tyler Durrden on Jul 9, 2011 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Totally agree, but aren't we an anomaly?
Reproducing that in small markets across the country is the million dollar question.
Just like the Green Bay Packers have a 955 year waiting list for season tickets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_season_ticket_waiting_lists#Lengthiest_waiting_lists
Players probably should get paid less.
Teams should be required and encouraged to use local players who grow up with-in their market. Leave a few spots open for Euro players or migrating veteran All-Stars. If teams want good players then they can invest in training programs like soviet Russia or China or Nike. Then the teams will be more relevant to the small markets. Right now players don’t live in the cities the rep. and move around so much that it doesn’t make sense to have team loyalty so much as it does player loyalty. All the story-lines in the NBA follow individual players – not teams – so it means very little to route for a team when the players, and team culture change so frequently.
i dont think the nba or any sport can reach NFL popularity
NFL is just so easy to follow.
games or once a week, either on sunday afternoon (available on broadcast TV) or primetime (national TV).
whereas blazer fans can only get all the games based on their cable provider, plus games are during the week, thus you really only able to pay attention to your team.
Felton will make a lot of people have selective memory on their reaction to draft night
Raymond Felton's job requires him to where a sleeveless shirt in front of thousands of people; it should not be this hard to determine whether or not he is fat.
Trade for Iggy
That's actually a good point.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
I don't think it's a small market thing.
It’s a regional thing. The Bible Belt are into collegiate sports 1st. Miami and ATL are huge, but their fans suck just like NOH and Memphis.
The NBA needs more parity. That's it
Everyone brings up great points but the list of teams that perpetually DON’T win is much larger than the teams that do win.
If you want fans to be interested in an already too long NBA season, then their team needs to win big once in awhile. How can a league be healthy when all the fans know that 75% of the teams have little if any chance to ever win?
We go into every season knowing that a small handful of the same teams will end up playing each other in the end. So why watch game #52 in the middle of the season between Atlanta and Memphis?
Sure there are exceptions and some teams remain popular even but for the most part winning and the drama of deep playoff runs are what ties fans to teams for a long time.
I’m still a HUGE fan of the Blazers because of what they did in the early 90’s when I was a little kid. The hope that we can repeat those few years of pretty darn good success is what keeps me interested season after season.
I have no doubt that the NBA would be a healthier brand if random teams won more often. Any fan in any town should have the chance to see a winning team given that the management of that teams makes smart decisions on a consistent basis.
by biggfish02 on Jul 9, 2011 4:29 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Parity is pretty impossible in the NBA
With only five players on the court at any time per team, having the best player out there makes a huge difference and there are only a few best players out there. Parity is possible in football because having a lot of better than average players does far more than having one extremely skilled player even at an impact position.
all the more reason the NBA should make it as difficult as possible for superstars to team up.
"Well, you can always sell your team."
Part of that is a richness of star players being drafted in a few years' span.
We won’t see so many “star” level guys go unrestricted at the same time in the future, will we? And Miami is the only example of stars “teaming up” thus far. Did it ruin the league? If anything, it saved the finals: Chicago would have been brutal to watch. As it happened, Miami rolled through a one-dimensional Eastern conference, but got utterly embarrassed by a complete team. Next up on the “teaming up” circuit is New York, assuming they get Chris Paul, but how good will they REALLY be? They won’t have any supporting cast and will be one injury away from missing the playoffs.
So I really don’t think the unrestricted guys going to large markets is any more destructive to the competitive balance of the game than, say, Memphis sending Gasol to LA for chump change, or Milwaukie trading Kareem. Now those—THOSE are a total joke.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 10, 2011 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions
What percentage of NBA revenue even comes from ticket sales? I would think it is small compared to TV or at least it should be.
If the Pac-12 alone can make several billion $$$ on their new TV deal, can’t the NBA do the same or better?
I would think that ticket sales are very tiny in comparison to the money that could made on TV.
Does anyone remember high school?
I don’t think this is that complicated. if you went to high school in the US and ESPECIALLY if you played sports, a fundamental reason should be clear.
In the US, football is pushed on kids WAY more than any other sport. It’s the only sport that the non-athlete student body is forced to attend pep rallies for, or at least that was the case when I was a kid. Obviously, there are exceptions at schools where they are national champs in another sport, but those are more than offset in places like Texas and Louisiana where football mania drowns out enthusiasm for any other sport, IMO.
Add to that incredibly huge cultural bias the basic numbers: a b-ball team has a 5 man squad and a relatively small bench. A football team? Twice that many players on the field and 2-3 times as many on the bench. We’re talking about 2-3 times as many people who grew up playing football, and I’m being conservative to correct for the relatively small number of football-basketball athletes.
Am I missing something here?
This is all true
but also the way the sports are marketed. Basketball is heavily associated with hip-hop culture.
2 teams 34 championships
I believe that’s over 50% of the titles. That is not healthy for any league.
" that small-market fans aren’t forking over money for professional basketball anymore unless their local team is good or great. And even then, they might not show up."
This is why the need league’s parity. Why root for a team if they pretty have no shot at winning. Or what fun is rooting for a team when the odds a so clearly stacked in their favor.
Those who talk about the league needing the big market teams to have all the star power seem to have a really superficial few of the league.
JRogero
by JRogero on Jul 9, 2011 5:40 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
It's not parity that is needed
What is needed is better revenue sharing. So small market teams can charge less money for tickets, but still make a profit. That will increase attendance and fan interest. Fans are not showing up for NBA games not because their team is crappy, but because the cost is too high for the product they put on the floor.
It's not that expensive
You can get 300 level tickets for 15-25 dollars. Go eat off the dollar menu before you arrive and ride the max to get there…..thats a pretty cheap night out.
ya i was thinking if several cities colluded...
portland has pa and he has his own arena but if other big cities colluded and formed their own bargain agreement for lets say 20 years none will contribute a cent to stadiums, no team shall reside in such city unless there is a team in other partner market cities. i dont think nba owners would be able to continue their extortion anymore
i dont think i really want parity either
a simple provision that every other year a team gets to Drop ( non guaranteed, player doesnt get a cent) any 1 bad contract they desire i think would be enough.
I'm a little amazed such silly little piece got bumped to the front page
It appears nobody bothered to tell Bill that the NBA has revenue sharing and just like the NFL. And just like the NFL, the majority of this money comes from TV deals the league signed with the networks. Money from TV revenue and merchandising sales is where the league generates it’s income from. One of the major differences between the two leagues is ticket sales, in the NFL the money from ticket sales are split 60-40 between the teams. In the NBA, the home team keeps all the money from ticket sales.
Oh and it’s pretty convenient that he’s either ignored and overlooked the fact the NFL not only has a hard cap moreover the contracts are not guaranteed. Or that the NBA, unlike the NFL, keeps a fund of 180 million to help keep teams like Charlotte, New Orleans, and Memphis afloat.
Location, or more specifically the market share, is an important factor for a particular team’s ability to generate money. Having no team in LA, would suck for Staples Center, Sterling, and Jerry Buss. But it would affect the NBA, as much as it did the NFL, meaning it wouldn’t miss a beat. But it’s a pretty stupid idea to even entertain this idea in the first place, because it’s the opposite scenario that’s more likely to happen. Since it’s all about market share and location, that means smaller market teams have more of an incentive to move to Socal. Being in LA or Anaheim is putting yourself in a huge markett. It’s why you have the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings, and Ducks all in the same place. It’s also why neither the Clippers and Lakers wanted the Kings to relocate to Anaheim, it would have guaranteed a smaller share of revenue.
There used to be a time when the NFL had both the Raiders and Rams in LA and when they left it really wasn’t a big deal. It was actually nice because that meant no more NFL blackout so people who lived in Socal actually got to actually watch more football on tv.
It’s not about creating something new, it’s to improve the old revenue sharing plan to help make all teams profitable for the long term.
"How you gonna fire a ninja Paul?" - Rich Cho
by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Jul 9, 2011 6:41 PM PDT reply actions
Wow!! I get Simmons point, but I see in between the lines...Is this the end of the NBA?
The players only want to play for the big market teams anyways. What if the players never agree to the new cba?- will they start their own league? maybe go back to the ABA instead of NBA? Maybe they should scrap the whole thing and start over.
It seems to me like a popularity contest with the big market teams being the popular ones and the small markets get teabagged. And then, though I cant blame them, the players make it worse by only wanting to play on the popular teams, which leaves teams like the, TWolves and Clippers sucking for 20 straight years! Oh, and where are the Clips from? Oh yeah LA. For me the leagues entire structure is like Phizbin up above said “absurd”. It could and should be reshaped in several areas(schedule, – but I pray they can fix it with the new cba. However that appears to be highly unlikely.
Last but not least—ive been a fan of the NBA for as long as I can literally remember. When the last lockout occurred, I wasnt so bummed as I am this time. Just the fact that we are having a lockout that might go on throughout the entire next season is a slap in the face of the smaller market teams especially and is surely going to lose them some fans. And hes right those lost fans surely arent forking over dough, especially to small market teams. Big market teams can afford to lose a few fans because they already have a larger fanbase. But again thats why we are in a lockout, because noone can agree how to divide up the revenue, who gets what share and making sure someone elses piece of the pie isnt bigger than yours.
by cavejunctionblazer on Jul 9, 2011 6:42 PM PDT reply actions
i dont know why that sentence got crossed out
I didnt mean to
by cavejunctionblazer on Jul 9, 2011 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions
dont really agree with simmons
P-town has the best fan base? id say we fork out lots of money for our blazers. like um… HAVING to have comcast to watch every game… which is the most expensive network
"Tommy: Did you hear I finally graduated?
Richard Hayden: Yeah, and just a shade under a decade too. All right. "
no
the nba sucks because they only market Lebron and Kobe. If Chris Paul or Kevin Durant got a fraction of the attention that the Lakers get then more people would care about the NBA. As it is, there is no reason to care if you aren’t a Laker or Heat fan. Which is and has been the wrong model for a successful league for years.
The NBA wants us to like Kobe and Lebron like they are Magic, Bird, or Jordan, and they aren’t. Those guys had charisma for one, maybe not Bird, but he scored blue collar points with his hustle. Kobe and Lebron are a couple of spoiled man children who are unlikable.
I think the league would be better off without the Lakers or Heat, because then people would get behind the other teams instead of being forced to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
"Sasha? That's a sissy name." -Mike Rice
by koyote on Jul 9, 2011 9:25 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
"The NBA is about star players"
-Duh
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Jul 9, 2011 10:33 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
If I'm not mistaken...
Dallas had a sports team record streak of destroying the spread, atleast 15 straight. according to Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331351387699210.html
The Mavericks’ streak began quietly on April 8 with a meaningless 11-point regular-season victory over the Clippers. If a gambler wagered $11 on the Mavericks in that contest and rolled over the bet on all 14 ensuing Dallas games, he would have cashed out $179,387 after Dallas’s win on Tuesday against the Thunder. Before this, the Sacramento Kings held the longest against-the-spread winning streak, having strung together 13 straight in 2000.
It would seem no one really saw it coming, except those Dallas homers =P
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
