Printable View
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]I thought that was weird too....I got it from wikipedia.[/QUOTE]The Miami Market is officially Miami Ft Lauderdale, it's number 16 according to sports media watch
[url]http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/03/nba-market-size-numbers-game/[/url]
Not sure where wiki gets their numbers, might be census numbers which doesn't reflect exactly what marketing people look at when creating media market lists.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]We could also say "if Portland doesn't pick Sam Bowie and picks Michael Jordan instead, then they would be another small market with lots of rings".[/QUOTE]
...or if Nick Anderson hits his freaking free throws...
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]We could also say "if Portland doesn't pick Sam Bowie and picks Michael Jordan instead, then they would be another small market with lots of rings".[/QUOTE]
do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.
its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.
do you really think all of the owners in those markets at a disadvantage are just making everything up? do you really think that would fly in a negotiation like this.
the fact that you think every franchise has the same chance to win year in year out just shows what a stubborn ass you really are. its just downright illogical.
again, nobody is saying its the most important thing or that it can't be overcome, but it is important and it matters. money matters. location matters. exposure matters. fans matter. whether you admit it or not...sorry.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.
its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.
[/QUOTE]
..and those competitive advantages have been curtailed by the '99 agreement.
Not going to argue that smaller markets don't have a harder time turning a profit, but putting a solid team out there...the scales balance towards parity.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.
its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.
do you really think all of the owners in those markets at a disadvantage are just making everything up? do you really think that would fly in a negotiation like this.
the fact that you think every franchise has the same chance to win year in year out just shows what a stubborn ass you really are. its just downright illogical.
again, nobody is saying its the most important thing or that it can't be overcome, but it is important and it matters. money matters. location matters. exposure matters. fans matter. whether you admit it or not...sorry.[/QUOTE]
It's just as absurd as saying "if Robinson doesn't go down, the Spurs don't draft Duncan".
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If, and, or but.
It's all irrelevant. The facts are what happened. The Spurs drafted Duncan and won multiple rings. Don't attach the other stuff to it.
To clairfy Joey Zaza's earlier posts about the area rankings...those are the Nielsen DMA rankings, which measures market size based on the number of households in a metro area. The Tampa Bay area is actually ranked ahead of Miami-Fort Lauderdale, as the 14th largest TV market in the nation. Besides, Seattle-Tacoma, they've been the largest TV market without a NBA team, although Orlando-Daytona Beach is right next door.
Some of you guys are forgetting that TV money (the national contracts from Disney and Turner) is what really drives the NBA...hell, all of professional sports for that matter, because it's guaranteed money as opposed to ticket sales and merchandise.
Here's this year's Nielsen list, and I'm only listing those markets that have teams...
[url]http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_RANKS.pdf[/url]
1. New York City (Knicks & Nets)
2. Los Angeles (Lakers & Clippers)
3. Chicago (Bulls)
4. Philadelphia (76ers)
5. Dallas-Fort Worth (Mavericks)
6. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (Warriors)
7. Boston (Celtics)
8. Washington, D.C. (Wizards)
9. Atlanta (Hawks)
10. Houston (Rockets)
11. Detroit (Pistons)
13. Phoenix (Suns)
15. Minneapolis-Saint Paul (Timberwolves)
16. Miami-Fort Lauderdale (Heat)
17. Denver (Nuggets)
18. Cleveland (Cavaliers)
19. Orlando-Daytona Beach (Magic)
20. Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto (Kings)
22. Portland (Trail Blazers)
25. Charlotte (Bobcats)
26. Indianapolis (Pacers)
33. Salt Lake City (Jazz)
34. Milwaukee (Bucks)
36. San Antonio (Spurs)
44. Oklahoma City (Thunder)
49. Memphis (Grizzlies)
52. New Orleans (Hornets)
[QUOTE=ShawnieMac06]1. New York City (Knicks & Nets)
[/QUOTE]
Go to a KNicks game, go to a Nets game. They are not the same market. They are not close drives from each other (since they've moved to Newark they are closer, but for 8 of the last 11 years, its the meadowlands) and their crowds are different. Nets at their very best drew like the NYK at their worst.
its not the same market.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]..and those competitive advantages have been curtailed by the '99 agreement.
Not going to argue that smaller markets don't have a harder time turning a profit, but putting a solid team out there...the scales balance towards parity.[/QUOTE]
99 helped i think, but the problem isn't so much just the last decade....although a lot of titles and parity has been influenced by markets.
its about the future. the trends are not good. we've all seen it the last few years. i want detail it all again, but what is going on right now scares 20 or so owners...and rightfully so.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]It's just as absurd as saying "if Robinson doesn't go down, the Spurs don't draft Duncan".
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If, and, or but.
It's all irrelevant. The facts are what happened. The Spurs drafted Duncan and won multiple rings. Don't attach the other stuff to it.[/QUOTE]
i didn't post anything about duncan or spurs. but it is worth mentioning what an anomaly that was. i have no problem with someone using the spurs as proof it can be done...because i'm not arguing that. i totally agree it can be done.
where we disagree is that you think a team like the bucks has just as good of a chance to win as the lakers year in year out over large amounts of time. and that is total bullshit in my opinion.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]i didn't post anything about duncan or spurs. but it is worth mentioning what an anomaly that was. i have no problem with someone using the spurs as proof it can be done...because i'm not arguing that. i totally agree it can be done.
where we disagree is that you think a team like the bucks has just as good of a chance to win as the lakers year in year out over large amounts of time. and that is total bullshit in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
See, you always use the Lakers as the big market team when comparing to small market teams. Why not use the Clippers. The Lakers are an anomaly, just like the Spurs are. What about the Knicks. Why don't you compare anyone to them?
Which team would you rather have? The Knicks, who play in the biggest market, or the Thunder, who play in the smallest market? Which team will be better over the next 5 years?
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]See, you always use the Lakers as the big market team when comparing to small market teams. Why not use the Clippers. The Lakers are an anomaly, just like the Spurs are. What about the Knicks. Why don't you compare anyone to them?
Which team would you rather have? The Knicks, who play in the biggest market, or the Thunder, who play in the smallest market? Which team will be better over the next 5 years?[/QUOTE]
You can't use 5 years. Use 30 years. Use 50 years.
Knicks vs Thunder? Definitely debatable going forward because the Knicks could easily get in a ton of talent or a player like paul soon.
Again, you confuse yourself. I'm not saying that the Lakers will for sure be better than the Bucks over the next 30 years. I'm saying the Lakers have an inherent advantage. What they do with that is up to them. You can replace the Lakers with the other 8 or 9 big markets/desirable locations if you want. They still have an inherent advantage....
This is what you are saying:
"There is no advantage to market size or location. All teams operate with the same chance to put a championship team on the floor. Its 100% management and nothing else matters"
Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is what you have stood by. There there is absolutely nothing that teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Mavs (currently), Celtics, Heat...etc...have over other teams. Right? You say there is absolutely nothing there.
I disagree. You just confuse that management is more important. That doesn't just negate everything else. We all know that if you cloned a person and had him run the knicks and the bucks....that overtime the knicks would most likely have better teams. with 100 million dollar payrolls and the ability to attract elite free agents. everyone with a brain knows this. you just refuse to acknowledge it for some crazy reason.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
You still can't grasp that there are no absolutes. And also, this isn't just about the past. Its about the growing trend the NBA is seeing now.
[/QUOTE]
Correct. The hardliners, the small market owners, are worried with the present\future, the history of last 10 years is irrelevant. Who cares is few superstars changed team in the last decade, what's important is that last year Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Carmelo, Boozer did. Atlanta had to overpaid to keep Joe Johnson, and Utah had to trade Williams because they didn't wanted to lose him for nothing, so again who cares what happened or what was the trend 10,5 years ago.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You can't use 5 years. Use 30 years. Use 50 years.
Knicks vs Thunder? Definitely debatable going forward because the Knicks could easily get in a ton of talent or a player like paul soon.
Again, you confuse yourself. I'm not saying that the Lakers will for sure be better than the Bucks over the next 30 years. I'm saying the Lakers have an inherent advantage. What they do with that is up to them. You can replace the Lakers with the other 8 or 9 big markets/desirable locations if you want. They still have an inherent advantage....
This is what you are saying:
"There is no advantage to market size or location. All teams operate with the same chance to put a championship team on the floor. Its 100% management and nothing else matters"
Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is what you have stood by. There there is absolutely nothing that teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Mavs (currently), Celtics, Heat...etc...have over other teams. Right? You say there is absolutely nothing there.
I disagree. You just confuse that management is more important. That doesn't just negate everything else. We all know that if you cloned a person and had him run the knicks and the bucks....that overtime the knicks would most likely have better teams. with 100 million dollar payrolls and the ability to attract elite free agents. everyone with a brain knows this. you just refuse to acknowledge it for some crazy reason.[/QUOTE]
Who the hell can predict 30 or 50 years? LA can have a earthquake and fall off the map in that time frame. Be reasonable bro.
Let's say the Lakers don't get Howard next year. Where do you see them going in the next 5 or so years with an older Kobe? They're gonna have another down period like they had in the 1990s when Sedale Threatt and Cedric Ceballos were leading the team.
[QUOTE=Blue&Orange]Correct. The hardliners, the small market owners, are worried with the present\future, the history of last 10 years is irrelevant. Who cares is few superstars changed team in the last decade, what's important is that last year Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Carmelo, Boozer did. Atlanta had to overpaid to keep Joe Johnson, and Utah had to trade Williams because they didn't wanted to lose him for nothing, so again who cares what happened or what was the trend 10,5 years ago.[/QUOTE]
yep...the last decade wasn't really pretty either. these concerns really started showing in 06 when a group of small market owners wrote a letter to Stern about how they wanted system changes and that they felt they just couldn't consistently compete
now its much worse of course. paul and howard are likely gone. like you said, the nuggets and jazz were forced to trade their franchise players because they were scared to lose them for nothing. the cavs and raptors lost their franchise player. cuban basically bought every player the mavs have other than dirk.
the trend is that players care a lot more now about where they are playing and less about how much they are making. you could pay howard 5 million a year in LA for his salary and he'd still probably end up making more there than he would playing for the hornets at 15 to 20 million a game. and that is just the money. clearly these players want to create "a brand" of themselves. and you do that in the big markets.
anybody saying its not becoming an issue is laying.
now, i personally like it. i think players should have more power over where they play. so much is riding on it. money, legacy, fame...etc. players should have a lot of control. i want the big markets to be great and have the best players. those are the teams people care about...those teams drive ratings. i'd hate to watch the talent diluted even more than it is now. that is my view though...if i was a small market owner, i'd think differently.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Who the hell can predict 30 or 50 years? LA can have a earthquake and fall off the map in that time frame. Be reasonable bro.
Let's say the Lakers don't get Howard next year. Where do you see them going in the next 5 or so years with an older Kobe? They're gonna have another down period like they had in the 1990s when Sedale Threatt and Cedric Ceballos were leading the team.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying to predict. I'm just saying you can't use 5 years to prove something.
Predict? Who knows? The Lakers management could screw up their 100 million dollar payroll just like the knicks have. Cuban and Nelson have spent/wasted a lot of money on players that weren't good fits or just weren't good. It was bad management.
Nobody is saying management doesn't matter. It does. Management is pretty clearly the most important thing. However, its a lot harder to manage a team on 50 million than it is on 100 million. You miss in the draft or have a hole in your team? Good luck plugging it quickly.
I'm done debating what is pretty clearly a fact. Certain franchises have advantages over others. How they take advantage of those is what matters, but that doesn't negate the simple fact that the advantages are there to begin with.