interesting discussion we were having at work today do you think with todays society, and the refs and staff we have in the nba, that it is anywhere possible for a small market team, such as Utah, Milwaukee, Portland, or Minnesota to win a title. these cities are far from glamorous, they dont have anything to draw attention to the cities. and wen i looked back the past few years and every team that has won the title, has a city population well over 700,000 people. Is this a coincidence or is it an issue that should be looked into? Take A Look At These Figures (as of April 4th, 2006) San Antonio-1,256,509 (3 Titles Since 1990) Los Angeles-3,844,829 (3 Titles Since 1990) Houston Rockets-2,016,582 (2 Titles Since 1990) Detroit-886,671 (2 Titles Since 1990) Exception Miami-391,902 (1 Title Since 1990) but we all kno miami is not a small time city. one of the most highly requested vacation reesorts in america. People would love to live here. Now We Look At These Cities Milwaukee-578,887 (0 Titles Since 1990, 1 Conf Finals Appearance, Loss To Philly-->Population 1,463,281) Minnesota-372,811 (0 Titles Since 1990, 1 Conf Finals Appearance, Loss To LA-->Population 3,844,829) Portland-533,427 (0 Titles Since 1990, 2 NBA Final Trips...Loss To Detroit,Loss To LA Charlotte-610,949 (0 Titles and 0 Conf Finals Appearances Since 1990) What Im Getting at is this, i know players travel to high market cities for a more glamourous life. But can we argue that maybe the refs are a little more biased to higher class cities. Maybe because the more population of that city the higher the rating for the finals. Is it a scheme to make money? Think about it, the worlds manipulated us, now it seems we would laugh at the fact of saying "oh you gonna watch the finals?" "nah man whos playing? i havent caught it in a while" " oh man its Milwaukee and Utah" you kno what i mean. Does the nba want to see Mil and Utah, or do they want to see Miami and Dallas. Would they want to see Portland and Charlotte, or would they be more satisfied with New York and San Antonio. What Are You Guys Thoughts On This? Biased Nba? or just More Talented Teams? (remember not just for this year, over the past 15 is what im talking about) **Remember the MJ push off.......we all seen it. and that was Chicago (2,842,518+Micheal Jordan) against Utah (181743+Being In Utah) think about it seriously, before you reply
I don't know about refs being biased about the cities. I've always had my doubts about the referees systematically favouring a certain group. Just seems really farfetched and without a purpose. I do think the system is unintentionally slanted against smaller cities though. Players and, more importantly, GM's often find the bigger markets more appealing. Those bigger markets usually have a more solid financial base and much more exposure, so it's understandable. Still, it makes it more difficult for a team in a smaller city to (1) form a knowledgable and productive staff and (2) attract/keep the big name players that bring success.
i wouldnt say that the referees are biased rather the players themselves are biased. Every player wants to play in a big time city where they can be recognized more and possibly make more money. But I don't think referees favour a certain team more than another just because of location. They may favour a team because of a specific player; however, that is a completely different subject. I think a less populated city will win eventually ( i.e. Cleveland and maybe New Orleans). We'll just have to wait to see.
Miami Population: 362,470 (c/o Here) This one, as noted on the page, is from the most recent census back in 2000, so it's accurate. Minneapolis Population: 382,618 (c/o Here) This is taken from the same site, differenct city, taken from the same 2000 census. San Antonio Population: 1,144,646 (c/o Here) Again, same site, same census. So, as you can see, his numbers weren't very far off. And, as you can see, Minneapolis and Minnesota are not bigger than San Antonio, for that matter, combined, they're barely half it's size.
Trust me those number about Miami are WAAAAAAAAAAY off. I live in Miami and I can easily say there are 2-3 million people here.
the city of miami has less than a milion people. But Miami metro area probably has 3 or 4 million no doubt. you have to take into account the metro area and surrounding cities, otherwise those numbers are meaningless. for example, san francisco has only 700,000 people, but the metro area has something like 5 million. that's a pretty big difference. L.A. has 3 million but the metro area is over twice that. the San Antonio number includes the whole metro area. so in a sense, Miami is bigger than San Antonio.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Playmaker15:</div><div class="quote_post">Trust me those number about Miami are WAAAAAAAAAAY off. I live in Miami and I can easily say there are 2-3 million people here.</div> you're totally right about that. see the city populations are meaningless, you have to take in the whole metropolitan area. here are the largest NBA metro areas: NYC - 18 million LA - 12 million CHicago - 9 million Miami - 5 million Philly - 5 million Toronto - 5 million Dallas - 4 1/2 million Miami is the fourth largest city in the u.s........
If there is a bias, those small city teams shouldn't even make finals, conference finals or even PO. But, those teams regulary made POs and beyond for past 15 years. Also, if those teams were stacked and lost games against far inferior teams due to refs, you might have a case. However, Utha was inferior team against Chicago, and the reason Portland lost the series against LA was because they couldn't secure 15 pts 4th quarter lead. As a Warriors fan, I actually do wish for those bias. However, being in Bay Area (one of top 10 metro in US) did not help us at all when it comes to getting a call from refs...
lol please post a site that states that miami has 5 million people miami isnt a big city its jus a very popular one
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting phunDamentalz:</div><div class="quote_post">you're totally right about that. see the city populations are meaningless, you have to take in the whole metropolitan area. here are the largest NBA metro areas: NYC - 18 million LA - 12 million CHicago - 9 million Miami - 5 million Philly - 5 million Toronto - 5 million Dallas - 4 1/2 million Miami is the fourth largest city in the u.s........</div> those numbers are HILARIOUS man 18 million people in NYC dam man
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Skriptz:</div><div class="quote_post">lol please post a site that states that miami has 5 million people miami isnt a big city its jus a very popular one</div> okay http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-metro...s-by-population metro areas - new york metro area includes northern NJ, long island, etc. that is the real "market" of a team.
Minneapolis, if you add in st. paul (basically the same city) has like 3 mil easily. If you add the suburbs its more like 5 mil. Minneapolis is a very big city, and if you add in st paul, the are a top ten city for sure. anyway though, yes i think there is bias. What looks better for the league? an LA and NY finals, or Utah vs Milwaukee?
I'm surprised nbody has brought up sacramento in this topic, remember that WCF in 02 vs. Lakers? horrible calls made against the Kings (like when bibby's nose fouled Kobe's elbow) for obvious reaons, it was better for the NBA if the Lakers repeated. Despite sactown being a small market, we have the 3rd highest ticket prices in the league.
Im sure Miami has 5 million, why would the biggest city in Florida have 300k people in a state with 14 million people.... and how to hell would half of Miami go to the Miami Heat Parade lol. But the 5 million is with the Metro Area which i believe is downtown Miami.
It is possible for a small market team to win a title in the NBA. The formula for them to win is no different than a large market city. You have to be successful with your draft picks, not overpay for players, and build your team around players who put winning as their #1 priority. Minnesota and KG should have one at least one title by now, but mismanagement cost this franchise. The Joe Smith fiasco cost them draft picks and set the team back a couple of years. This team went from the WCF against the Laker Dream Team, straight to the lottery. Utah hasn't recovered from the Stockton-Malone Era, and a lot of it has to do with the constant injuries this team has dealt with. They have a nice group of talent, but their key players can't make it through an entire season. Owners and GMs who overspend in the NBA do not find much success in the league. Having the salary cap in place along with the luxury tax allows small market teams to be competitive with free agents and allows them to retain their key players.
Sure it's possible for a small market team to win because of the salary cap. When you look at baseball it becomes harder for teams to win because there is no cap, when you hear the Yankees and Red Sox pretty much buying their way into the World Series. With a smaller market team you still draft your players and you can still lure some free agents. Plus how do you explain the Philadelphia Sixers? Who haven't won anything since 1983. Or the Los Angeles Clippers? Who were in the playoffs this year for the first time in years. Or the New York Knicks? Who, we all can agree, have been horrible in the late years. The size of your city doesn't play a huge role in finding your team's success more than evaluating talent and making the right draft picks or signing the right free agents.
