Big Market Team Fallacy

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]I read it. You telling me Oklahoma is not going to be competing for titles?[/QUOTE]

of course they are. its on the whole. its not about one team or a few teams. its about the 22 teams that operate at a loss and struggle.

i don't even want it to change. it would be bad for the nba. if there was parity the nba would probably be awful and no casual person would watch. the idea of a kings vs bucks finals could set the league back 10 years.

i'm simply saying that i see why the small market owners have an issue. they simply aren't on the same level as some of the other teams. it doesn't mean you can't build great teams in small markets. the spurs, the kings, cavs, suns, thunder...etc.

but its on the whole. its harder to retain your good players. its harder to build around your draft picks etc. and for them its about competing for titles...at least that is what they have said.

but of course nobody is ever claiming things like "can't" and "never" for individual teams. its just harder for them. and the future looks bleak. like i said before, its more about the future than the past....although big markets/desirable locations have dominated the league for 30 or so years now. the future looks much worse. players want more off court endorsements...more attention...more money. they want to live in LA or South Beach...or a big city. The players today clearly care more about that stuff. They want to play with their friends.....etc.

You can't just ignore what has happened the last couple years and what lies ahead.

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Your definition of Big Market is broad. So lets have it:

1.New York City
2.Los Angeles
3.Chicago
4.Philadelphia
5.Dallas/Fort Worth
6.San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
7.Boston
8.Atlanta
9.Washington, D.C.
10.Houston
11.Detroit
12.Phoenix
13.Seattle/Tacoma
14.South Florida
15.Minneapolis
16.Miami
17.Denver
18.Cleveland
19.Orlando
20.Sacramento
21.St. Louis
22.Portland
23.Charlotte
24.Pittsburgh
25.Raleigh/Durham/Fayetteville
26.Baltimore
27.Indianapolis
28.San Diego
29.Nashville
30.Connecticut
31.Kansas City
32.Salt Lake City
33.Cincinnati
34.Columbus
35.Milwaukee
36.Greenville
37.San Antonio

The top 10 Markets have 11 teams, and since '99, 6 titles.
The middle 10 makerts have 8 teams, and since '99 2 titles
The bottom 16 markets have 7 teams and since '99 4 titles

So its certainly not ONLY big market teams. Since '99 half the titles have been won by small/mid market teams. If we take SA out (but not LAL for some reason), we get an extra big market win (NYK), two mid-market wins (Det-Cle) and a small market win (NJN)[/QUOTE]

its not just big market as in size...its about what a location offers. on your list Miami is 16th...but it would probably rank in the top 5...at least top 10 for most desirable place to play.

and that is the point. i'm not saying its the end all be all...as i have had to say now what seems like a thousand times. it is an advantage. if you gave a player the option to play in toronto or miami, they would choose miami 9 out of 10 times...maybe more if all things were equal. that is an advantage. that is all we are saying. is that there are some inherent benefits with market size and location...and those lead to things like more money to spend...more fan interest...more exposure...ability to retain more players...ability to sign better players...ability to attract better coaches..etc.

those are really just facts. just because some teams have done a crappy job utilizing those advantages does not mean those advantages don't exist.

So it's ok to say San Antonio is an anomaly, but it's not ok to say the Lakers are an anomaly as well?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]of course they are. its on the whole. its not about one team or a few teams. its about the 22 teams that operate at a loss and struggle.

i don't even want it to change. it would be bad for the nba. if there was parity the nba would probably be awful and no casual person would watch. the idea of a kings vs bucks finals could set the league back 10 years.

[B]i'm simply saying that i see why the small market owners have an issue[/B]. they simply aren't on the same level as some of the other teams. it doesn't mean you can't build great teams in small markets. the spurs, the kings, cavs, suns, thunder...etc.

but its on the whole. its harder to retain your good players. its harder to build around your draft picks etc. and for them its about competing for titles...at least that is what they have said.

but of course nobody is ever claiming things like "can't" and "never" for individual teams. its just harder for them. and the future looks bleak. like i said before, its more about the future than the past....although big markets/desirable locations have dominated the league for 30 or so years now. the future looks much worse. players want more off court endorsements...more attention...more money. they want to live in LA or South Beach...or a big city. The players today clearly care more about that stuff. They want to play with their friends.....etc.

You can't just ignore what has happened the last couple years and what lies ahead.[/QUOTE]

I see the problem as well. The only difference is that I see the solution as coming from revenue sharing from the big market teams, rather than taking money from the players.

If the small market teams are having a problem attracting talent because no one wants to play in those cities, then why not relocate to more desirable locations? Move Milwaukee to Puerto Rico, Sacramento to Cancun, Minnesota to Hawaii, and Charlotte to the Bahamas.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]its not just big market as in size...its about what a location offers. on your list Miami is 16th...but it would probably rank in the top 5...at least top 10 for most desirable place to play.

and that is the point. i'm not saying its the end all be all...as i have had to say now what seems like a thousand times. it is an advantage. if you gave a player the option to play in toronto or miami, they would choose miami 9 out of 10 times...maybe more if all things were equal. that is an advantage. that is all we are saying. is that there are some inherent benefits with market size and location...and those lead to things like more money to spend...more fan interest...more exposure...ability to retain more players...ability to sign better players...ability to attract better coaches..etc.

those are really just facts. just because some teams have done a crappy job utilizing those advantages does not mean those advantages don't exist.[/QUOTE]

Agreed there is a monetary and fame edge to playing in NY/LAL...but the most recent agreement did an excelent job of leveling the playing field so that competition (on the court) is even. By allowing teams to lock up their draft picks for 7 years, small markets can hang onto stars without ever comepting with big markets (see Cle). By allowing teams to pay their players more, they have an edge (greater than location) (see CWebb in Sac).

Now, smal market may eventually lose a guy, but that's ok, players should at some point be able ot make their own decisions...and guess what, when left with their own decision LBJ/Wade/Bosh DIDN'T EVEN CHOOSE ABIG MARKET.

So, my point is, under the old system, there was no competitive inbalance favoring big markets.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]its not just big market as in size...its about what a location offers. on your list Miami is 16th...but it would probably rank in the top 5...at least top 10 for most desirable place to play.

and that is the point. i'm not saying its the end all be all...as i have had to say now what seems like a thousand times. it is an advantage. if you gave a player the option to play in toronto or miami, they would choose miami 9 out of 10 times...maybe more if all things were equal. that is an advantage. that is all we are saying. is that there are some inherent benefits with market size and location...and those lead to things like more money to spend...more fan interest...more exposure...ability to retain more players...ability to sign better players...ability to attract better coaches..etc.

[B]those are really just facts[/B]. just because some teams have done a crappy job utilizing those advantages does not mean those advantages don't exist.[/QUOTE]

What are facts? Your made up 9/10 toronto/miami option? Where is the facts on that? Where is the proof free agents are FLOCKING to the big market cities? Occasionally it happens, but it's grossly overblown.

Because I distinctly remember Mo Williams turning the Heat down, and Michael Redd, to stay in their worse markets, and tons of others.

I live in Miami, but guess what, almost all Miami teams SUCK (dolphins/marlins/panthers). The attractiveness of the city didn't help much in reality. The hard caps of the NHL and NFL didn't help our teams. The sole reason the Heat started becoming non shitty is because of Pat Riley. And Lebron and Bosh came b/c of Wade, Riley, and the fact that Miami was the only team to clear their whole roster.

I don't think you can say this city is a small market based on population alone. That's misleading. When you say look where Lebron signed on the face it's not a big market that's true only on the surface, it's not reality. Miami although being small in population is huge in profile.

It's a big international city with lots of wealthy people that flock there for the social aspects and is extremely high profile rivaling bigger cities like LA or NY, it's a city where the rich and powerful go to make deals, be seen rubbing elbows with the other rich and powerful movers and shakers. There' a reason Lebron went there and it's not because he was looking for a nice quiet hamlet to escape the hustle and bustle of life in Cleveland.

LA has a massive population as does NY but it's not the population that draws players it's the extra opportunities. The chance to be in a place where things happen, where deals get made, that's what draws players to a certain area if they are fortunate to be on that level

[QUOTE=B

I don't think there is any doubt that certain locations are more appealing to NBA players. I can see how an NBA player, all things being equal, would choose Miami over Miluakee.

However, the NBA has done a good job of negating those advantages - at least since '99. For the most part, players stay where they were drafted or are traded elsewhere. Very few impact players leave as FA's (Nash sticks in my head, obviously LBJ, Wade, Amare, Boozer)...that's since 99. Yes, big market LAL has dominated, but not to the exclusioon of small market SAS and LAL got their best players through small market moves (retaining own player, trades) and not dominating the FA market.

Joey Zaza, how in the world can south florida and Miami be two seperate markets?:oldlol:

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]I don't think there is any doubt that certain locations are more appealing to NBA players. I can see how an NBA player, all things being equal, would choose Miami over Miluakee.

However, the NBA has done a good job of negating those advantages - at least since '99. For the most part, players stay where they were drafted or are traded elsewhere. Very few impact players leave as FA's (Nash sticks in my head, obviously LBJ, Wade, Amare, Boozer)...that's since 99. Yes, big market LAL has dominated, but not to the exclusioon of small market SAS and LAL got their best players through small market moves (retaining own player, trades) and not dominating the FA market.[/QUOTE]That's all true

I don't like the San Antonio argument for small markets for one reason. If Robinson doesn't go down things change there big time and if Tim Duncan isn't so unassuming or has a personality more like Shaq's things could be very different there. San Antonio has a dynamic front office able to squeeze talent out of seemingly nothing but even with that it's been two key strokes out of the front offices hands that has put that team on the map.

[QUOTE=PowerGlove]Joey Zaza, how in the world can south florida and Miami be two seperate markets?:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

I thought that was weird too....I got it from wikipedia.

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=B