Printable View
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]You gonna back up that claim with proof?
If the Spurs generate the most money as you claim, and the NBA is rigged, as you also claim, then why not have the Spurs win every year?[/QUOTE]
They don't now idiot. They did back 5 years ago though. You just obviously believe whatever you read on internet or whatever the media tells you. Or whatever you see in a commercial.
You are obviously incapable of thinking for yourself.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]They don't now idiot. They did back 5 years ago though. You just obviously believe whatever you read on internet or whatever the media tells you. Or whatever you see in a commercial.
You are obviously incapable of thinking for yourself.[/QUOTE]
Your schtick at first was kinda annoying, but now after reading more of your posts and seeing how well you can stay in character, I have a better appreciation for it. To be able to stay that dumb for so long definitely deserves kudos.
[QUOTE=Droid101]You are the stupidest poster on any website I've ever heard of.
If the NBA is just rigging the league for the money, Kobe or Yao Ming will win the title every year, fact. Maybe LeBron James.
Your theories are whack-job, at best.[/QUOTE]
Your IQ cannot be above 80.
You cannot rig the same team to win every year fool. Otherwise people like you will finally catch on, no matter how dumb. By changing up here and there then idiots like you say, "if it was rigged how come same team don't win every time, duh. See it ain't rigged."
Also, NBA is an extremely racist and incredibly, hugely immense ultra zealot patriot USA organization. Yao Ming, a Chinese player would never ever never ever be allowed to lead a team to an NBA championship.
Unless there is a direct script story line that the NBA pushes to idiots like you, such as "Dirk finally wins the big one" (which is nothing more than a rigged title gifted to Cuban to shut him up about all the other rigging the NBA does - like 2006 Finals).......
A German white boy would never sniff a title, whether he deserved it or not.
You probably actually believe that Bird-Magic was just all a magical coincidence too. Your level of naivete is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]
You probably actually believe that Bird-Magic was just all a magical coincidence too. Your level of naivete is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
:roll:
You are the biggest joke on the internet.
[QUOTE=Euroleague][B]Wrong. The Spurs always had the highest ratings internationally. They had the lowest in USA, but worldwide they had the highest. NBA made more money when Spurs were in finals than with any other team.[/B]
No coincidence why the Spurs won 4 titles, with the enormous cash they brought in. Of course, easily tricked and manipulated people believe this bullshit that they had the lowest ratings.
Clever by NBA marketing by only counting US ratings. See this way the average NBA idiot fan actually believes the NBA does not rig every playoffs. "See, see, NBA ain't rigged or Spurs would never be in the finals. Because they had the lowest ratings. Why would NBA purposely lose money if it was rigged? They would not let the Spurs in there if it was really rigged".
Meanwhile, the Spurs were the highest income team of all NBA with their huge international TV draws.
It is really pathetic how stupid NBA fans are.[/QUOTE]
prove it
show that the ratings were the best ever worldwide with the spurs in the finals, and that the nba made the most money with the spurs in the finals
[QUOTE=SourGrapes]prove it
show that the ratings were the best ever worldwide with the spurs in the finals, and that the nba made the most money with the spurs in the finals[/QUOTE]
Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Does anyone else find it odd that all the major sports league claim profits except the one that chooses to run a woman's league as well?[/QUOTE]
Lol great point
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
that's not how this works. you introduce a point, the onus is on you to back it up. otherwise, we'll all just assume you are full of sh*t (too late)
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
:bowdown: :bowdown: Greatest troll ever
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
lol. Im enjoying this trollin for once. :applause:
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
Fine. Here are the ratings that show the Spurs did not bring in the most money.
[url]www.google.com[/url]
Secondary source:
[url]www.bing.com[/url]
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: :bowdown: :applause:
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
[quote]While the 2004 Finals showed improvement for ABC, the 2005 Finals sank back towards record-low levels.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association_Nielsen_ratings[/url]
Worldwide, it showed pretty high in China and Argentina, but the same lowness everywhere else.
Once again, you are an idiot.
[QUOTE=SourGrapes]that's not how this works. you introduce a point, the onus is on you to back it up. otherwise, we'll all just assume you are full of sh*t (too late)[/QUOTE]
That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. You are claiming the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.
You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.
Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.
Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. [B]You are claiming the Spurs[/B] did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.
You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.
Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.
Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.[/QUOTE]
never happened. nice try though
[QUOTE=Droid101]Actually, they'd make even more.
The Warriors just sold for 25% more than what Forbes said they were worth ($363 million). Forbes says the Lakers are worth $643 million. If they were sold for 25% more than that (and it'd probably be higher, owning the Lakers is a status symbol), Buss would have profited $736.75 million dollars over what he paid for the franchise![/QUOTE]
Thanks for that. Insane amount of money lol.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]The Lakers earn money every year genius. What the hell do the Lakers have to do with this? The teams that lose millions every year are what this is about. And that is like 85% of the teams in the league.
Under your logic and way of thinking, the NBA would become a 6 team league.[/QUOTE]
No. You said that the NBA loses money every year. I'm telling you that the NBA profit system is built on one thing and one thing only, ownership of teams. Every year an owner sells a team, the NBA makes money for that year. Thats why a business model of losing billions is okay because at the end of the day one team sale can get you 800 million back.
The lockout IMO has nothing to do with money, I think a super rich guy like an owner knows that he is NOT gonna make a return on his money until he sells it if he buys the timberwolves or something. I think he knows he'll make bank if he sticks around for 10 years though. He might lose 40 million but then make 90. Its a long term game.
EDIT: my argument is on the basis that when you buy a team or hire a GM or do anything the NBA gets something from it. A portion or whatever. If thats incorrect then my argument is flawed and obviously incorrect.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. You are claiming the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.
You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.
Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.
Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.[/QUOTE]
I think I was the one that introduced the point, but I backed up my claim with undeniable stone cold facts.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]I think I was the one that introduced the point, but I backed up my claim with undeniable stone cold facts.[/QUOTE]
your efforts are the kind that make this a good forum, but they're falling on deaf ears with this loser
[QUOTE=Sarcastic][IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg[/IMG]
How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?[/QUOTE]
WNBA
ANd the players don't deserve 52 anyway
[QUOTE=FourthTenor]lol the owners % doesnt just all go in their pockets. If it did they wouldnt be losing any money and their'd be no lockout.
The owners share goes into the teams/league. You know, the flights, hotels, equipment, arenas, advertising, officials, etc etc.
Owners obviously get a sizable cut in salary but they arent just pocketing their share of the revenue unlike the players, lol
More revenue on the owners side probably means better product for the fans. But we know what this is perceived as. "big rich white owners vs little poor (lol) black players" so the liberal emos and the racially hypersensitive naturally side with the players when really fans have no reason to side with either. Its their negotiations.[/QUOTE]
Agree
[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.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Right. So good management > market size.[/QUOTE]
yes but if both are well managed then market size is the determining factor. and most teams are well managed, its just that the SOFT CAP makes it possible for other teams esp the big market teams to inflate the value coz they can offer anything they want. Thats why there are overpaid players which you blame it to the owners when in fact the soft cap system is the one inflating the values of players. With the hardcap, these big market teams cannot outbid knowing they dont have the capspace to sign him.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]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]
Its just that basketball is really more fun to watch than baseball. But the nba was just mismanaged with lack of parity.
[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]
We can also say that spurs got lucky with duncan. Without duncan, then there would be no rings for them too.
[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]
melo who forced his way and chris paul too. maybe deron too if not for chris paul reserving first.
And in the past, shaq to lakers, tmac to rockets, kobe and magic forcing their way to LA.Kareem to LA too and now dwight to LA too. Thats a lot.
[QUOTE=knicksman]yes but if both are well managed then market size is the determining factor. and most teams are well managed, its just that the SOFT CAP makes it possible for other teams esp the big market teams to inflate the value coz they can offer anything they want. Thats why there are overpaid players which you blame it to the owners when in fact the soft cap system is the one inflating the values of players. With the hardcap, these big market teams cannot outbid knowing they dont have the capspace to sign him.[/QUOTE]
You do know teams over the cap can't actually sign max contract free agents right?
[QUOTE=knicksman]Its just that basketball is really more fun to watch than baseball. But the nba was just mismanaged with lack of parity.
We can also say that spurs got lucky with duncan. Without duncan, then there would be no rings for them too.
melo who forced his way and chris paul too. maybe deron too if not for chris paul reserving first.
And in the past, shaq to lakers, tmac to rockets, kobe and magic forcing their way to LA.Kareem to LA too and now dwight to LA too. Thats a lot.[/QUOTE]
Actually the NBA had it's best run when it had very little parity in the 1990s with Jordan. Prior to that in the 1980s, it was the Lakers vs Celtics that brought the league up in the first place. The NBA actually had TONS of parity in the 1970s, when 8 different teams won the title. The NBA couldn't even get on live TV when it had that parity, and I would bet that most people could barely even name the teams that won in the 70s.
Carmelo Anthony was traded to NY. The Nuggets didn't have to trade him, but by most accounts they got the better end of the deal when they got to deplete NY's entire roster.
Since when is Chris Paul a Knick? That's news to me, but I am ecstatic that it finally happened.
All the other situations you are talking about were through trades. It's also funny that you didn't bring up Barkley forcing his way out of Philadelphia (big market) to Phoenix (smaller market) in order to chase a ring. In his case it seems the player wanted to win, and market size didn't matter. He wanted the better organization that gave him a chance to win.
I'm still trying to figure out where all these big market teams over the salary cap have signed stellar players just because they're a large market. LA got Ron Artest and Steve Blake??? New York were horrible for ever and they only got Amare because they had the cap room and they still overpaid for him.....Which game changer did Dallas sign? How about Boston? 2 broken down O'neals. I'm not seeing it...........