[QUOTE=Math2]WNBA
ANd the players don't deserve 52 anyway[/QUOTE]
Agree.
They deserve 57%
Printable View
[QUOTE=Math2]WNBA
ANd the players don't deserve 52 anyway[/QUOTE]
Agree.
They deserve 57%
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Agree.
They deserve 57%[/QUOTE]
They deserve 43%.
[QUOTE=Math2]They deserve 57%.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?[/QUOTE]
Thats why those 2 are above basketball right now because of parity.
[QUOTE]Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.[/QUOTE]
Market size is definitely a factor. Its good management + market size=chip. Knicks and clippers doesnt have good management while lakers have both. Lots of teams are well managed too like utah, but the difference is that they dont have the market to support high payroll so theyre up to good management.
[QUOTE]
Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?
Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?[/QUOTE]
Its just not about the finals but the whole playoffs and regular season games. Thats the problem with nba coz they are only targeting the big market fans unlike nfl and mlb thats why they have higher revenues to support the salaries of players. If theres no parity the only fans that are watching are fans from big market teams coz they are the only ones with the chance of winning while if theres parity, fans from small market teams too would be interested in nba.
And do you think only boston and lakers are well managed teams and so they are the only ones who deserved a ring coz im sure most of the teams are well managed too, its just that they have a small market that cant support high salaries.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]I just told you it doesn't have parity. Name me a small school that has won a football or basketball title in the past 20 years.[/QUOTE]
of course its hard to win for small schools coz theres no draft but still they have more parity than nba and thats the reason why they have higher ratings.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]
It's cute and politically correct for people to say they want parity, but people don't watch it when it actually happens. The worst rated finals ever had San Antonio vs Cleveland and NJ. You think that's just a coincidence? It's not like they didn't have star power. Duncan, Kidd, Lebron are all superstars. The NBA's biggest following comes from the large cities, and pandering to the small markets by isolating the cities out of contention is a bad business decision.[/QUOTE]
maybe because cleveland and nj doesnt have a chance against san antonio? If cleveland and nj have a chance then im sure more are watching thats why you need parity in order for them to have a chance
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Most of those losses are due to interest and amortization.
Any accountant can show a business is losing money. Google "hollywood accounting", and educate yourself.
Calling you retarded would be an insult to retarded people.[/QUOTE]
So now amortization and interest are not expenses? Then dont expect your business will survive if you dont treat them as expenses
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Isn't Stern a Knicks fan? He grew up in NY. If he picks the teams to win that he wants, wouldn't he pick his hometown team in his largest market to win at least 1 title in the past 30 years?[/QUOTE]
if knicks didnt trade its picks, im sure they will have the number 1 pick instead of chicago, the second/third biggest market
[QUOTE=knicksman]Thats why those 2 are above basketball right now because of parity.[/QUOTE]
Really? Baseball's history as our national past time, and the fact that everyone loves football has nothing to do with it?
[QUOTE=knicksman]
Market size is definitely a factor. Its good management + market size=chip. Knicks and clippers doesnt have good management while lakers have both. Lots of teams are well managed too like utah, but the difference is that they dont have the market to support high payroll so theyre up to good management.[/QUOTE]
How much has market size affected the Spurs? You know, the team that has made the playoffs 20 of the last 21 years, while winning 4 titles. They must get help from god or something, since they have the 25th largest market yet have been good for over 2 decades.
[QUOTE=knicksman]
Its just not about the finals but the whole playoffs and regular season games. Thats the problem with nba coz they are only targeting the big market fans unlike nfl and mlb thats why they have higher revenues to support the salaries of players. If theres no parity the only fans that are watching are fans from big market teams coz they are the only ones with the chance of winning while if theres parity, fans from small market teams too would be interested in nba.
And do you think only boston and lakers are well managed teams and so they are the only ones who deserved a ring coz im sure most of the teams are well managed too, its just that they have a small market that cant support high salaries.[/QUOTE]
Well let's look at the playoffs. How did Memphis, and OKC do? They seemed to get pretty far if I remember correctly. What round did the Knicks make it to?
[QUOTE=knicksman]So now amortization and interest are not expenses? Then dont expect your business will survive if you dont treat them as expenses[/QUOTE]
They are, but they should not be counted against the team. When an owner buys a team, they usually don't do it in one lump sum payment. What they do is spread the payments over say 5 years with loans, and they charge the interest to the team. Why should the team be in any way responsible for the interest the owner has to pay for the loans he needed to buy the team?
[QUOTE=knicksman]if knicks didnt trade its picks, im sure they will have the number 1 pick instead of chicago, the second/third biggest market[/QUOTE]
Right. So good management > market size.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Really? Baseball's history as our national past time, and the fact that everyone loves football has nothing to do with it?[/QUOTE]
college basketball is more popular than college baseball and how come it didnt translate to the pro?
[QUOTE]
How much has market size affected the Spurs? You know, the team that has made the playoffs 20 of the last 21 years, while winning 4 titles. They must get help from god or something, since they have the 25th largest market yet have been good for over 2 decades.[/QUOTE]
Spurs has the most wins among the small markets. why dont we compare it to a team from the big markets with the most wins too. Boston 17 to spurs 4.
Whats next among the small markets?maybe detroit-3 to 2nd in the large markets which is lakers- 15. even chicago which is only 3rd among the big markets has more wins than spurs.
[QUOTE]Well let's look at the playoffs. How did Memphis, and OKC do? They seemed to get pretty far if I remember correctly. What round did the Knicks make it to?[/QUOTE]
I never thought new york is competing this year esp with the injuries. I thought the start was next year. Just judge the team next year and observe how many free agents are joining them compared to memphis and oklahoma. New york are a first round exit this year yet most of the free agents like dalembert wants new york over oklahoma and memphis
[QUOTE=knicksman]college basketball is more popular than college baseball and how come it didnt translate to the pro? [/QUOTE]
Because baseball has a minor league system which takes away from the talent pool for college. If the NBA had a minor league system, the interest in NCAA basketball would wane.
[QUOTE=knicksman]
Spurs has the most wins among the small markets. why dont we compare it to a team from the big markets with the most wins too. Boston 17 to spurs 4.
Whats next among the small markets?maybe detroit-3 to 2nd in the large markets which is lakers- 15. even chicago which is only 3rd among the big markets has more wins than spurs.[/QUOTE]
Most of Boston's titles came when there were only 8 teams in the league. Chicago only has more because they were smart enough to draft Michael Jordan, who brought them 6 titles. Outside of Jordan's years, the Bull's history has been awful.
[QUOTE=knicksman]
I never thought new york is competing this year esp with the injuries. I thought the start was next year. Just judge the team next year and observe how many free agents are joining them compared to memphis and oklahoma. New york are a first round exit this year yet most of the free agents like dalembert wants new york over oklahoma and memphis[/QUOTE]
Aside from Amare, who else is joining them? Amare would have signed with Phoenix if they offered him a max deal, but they were too cheap. So who else has left their small market team just to play in NY?
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]They are, but they should not be counted against the team. When an owner buys a team, they usually don't do it in one lump sum payment. What they do is spread the payments over say 5 years with loans, and they charge the interest to the team. Why should the team be in any way responsible for the interest the owner has to pay for the loans he needed to buy the team?[/QUOTE]
Because its the team that uses those loans. If they are the ones reaping the benefits then they should be the one also shouldering the costs to get those benefits. Without those loans then that team wouldnt be there. Without that team, players are on other leagues receiving 1/4th of their salaries they receive in nba.
Gilbert & Sarver = the Franklin & Bash of the NBA.