Did you even look at his link? There may be a population of 5.5 million, but they are ranked 16th in the league in # of TV homes, which is more important when talking about NBA market size. NBA market size is not measured by population.
That article completely misses the point. A team's winning percentage is not a good measure of favoritism. They cite cities like San Antonio, Oklahoma City, and Memphis, but last time I checked, all three of those teams were built through years of scouting, drafting, and well planned trades; not a bunch of super star players that held their previous team for ransom and demanded trades to bigger markets. I mean, New York's the biggest market, and they suck, but whose fault is that? They've had all the chances to be great. That's on them. EDIT: Got ya. Skimmed over the "households" part. The article still misses the point though.
It's not the size of the Miami market as much as its "glamour appeal" that draws players like Wade and Bosh and James. L.A. and New York (now with 2 teams) also have the glamour appeal, as well as the big market status. Life isn't fair, of course, but in a sports league like the NBA that depends on some form of competive balance to keep fans interested, this is bad for business. When fans realize that their own team is just part of a farm system for the big-market glamour teams, they're going to lose interest.
Didn't seem to harm the league in the 1980s, when most teams were irrelevant in terms of championship-contention. The Lakers, Celtics and, to a lesser extent, the Sixers, were perennial championship contenders, and once in a while another team (Detroit or Houston, etc) would challenge. The 1980s is when the league exploded in popularity and is still the era many fans call the "golden age." The difference, as far as I can tell, is that when fans perceive owners/GMs assembling the superteams, it's fine. When fans perceive players having any influence in driving the assembling of superteams, it's not good for the game.
is the angst really over the players having influence or is it over the appearance of an imbalanced playing field because of money? Of course there is OKC to hold up as an example of a small market team being competitive, but every team seeks to build through the draft & trades. Not every franchise is the beneficiary of top FAs gift wrapping themselves because of their inherent media driven advantages. Seeing star after star migrate to the marquee markets over the years seems more about the system in place then the players making individual decisions. STOMP
You can't do anything but look towards the future. The Lakers starting five is scary good. They easily have the best frontcourt in the game and could very well have the best backcourt as well.
Hey, look on the bright side. Next year, two of the 3 teams I hate will not win the championship, Thunder, Heat, Lakers.
If you believe the history written by Stern-selected writers on NBA.com, it was all him. What really happened was 2 things. Ted Turner created TV networks beyond the basic 3, and segregationists surrendered the public schools, changing the default dominant paradigm to enable freely talking about enjoying a black sport.
You have how many TV owners receive local Miami stations. He has the population of metropolitan Miami-Fort Lauderdale. What matters is a third ranking, TV owners receiving local stations which carry Miami games. Does Tampa-St Petersburg carry them?
How is the money/market a differentiating factor between now and the 1980s? Salaries and revenues go up over time, obviously, so the dollar figures are far higher now...but teams in the 1980s were playing without a salary cap and my recollection is that teams like the Lakers and Celtics outlayed a lot more money than teams like the Kings or Cavaliers. I'm not sure how "star after star migrating to marquee markets" contradicts players making individual decisions. If we take Miami as an example, how was LeBron James not making an individual decision to play with two other talented players that he liked? Multiple people making plans together in no way invalidates that each person involved made an individual decision to be a part of that plan, unless they were coerced in some fashion. Marriages are a plan made between two people, but it's still both people making an individual decision to marry. Stars have always "migrated" to larger markets. When it was perceived to be more management-driven, as in the 1980s, no one seemed to cry foul. Now that players have more individual agency in bringing about similar situations, there's a lot of crying foul. An alternate possibility is that just as many people were pissed about it in the 1980s, but the lack of a widespread internet connecting fans made it less obvious. Be that as it may, the popularity of league was huge in the 1980s and fans still wax nostalgic about that era (and not just Lakers and Celtics fans) so "superteams" don't seem to be league-destroying.
Ugh. I'll say it again. LeBron/Bosh/Wade didn't have a ton of teams to choose from and then picked Miami. They had ONE team to choose from if they wanted to play together.
...one team that just happened to have all the brazillian jobs you can eat? I'm sure that if Wade had been in Minnesota, we'd be watching the Big Three in Minneapolis...
That's the real anger ball: players can form super teams, but the fear is that they only want to go to adult playgrounds like LA or Miami. If we removed the salary cap entirely (which I believe was your idea in the sexism thread, KS), that would eliminate the "perks as substitute for cash money" angle, and we'd get to show the rebels the power of our fully operational billionaire owner.
I don't really get this. Most of the palyers don't seem to spend most of the off season in the city they play in, and during the season they are traveling half the time, meaning they get experience the night life in a bunch of different cities. I don't think it's about the culture of the city except for extremist partiers or extremist relaxers.
The Lakers get to play in front of Jack Nicholson and many others. The Blazers get to play in front of TNT star Timothy Hutton.
I am in favor of no salary cap, yes. But in the current system, LeBron/Wade/Bosh had only one option if they wanted to play together. It wasn't about market. If LeBron/Bosh wanted market, they both could've gone to the #1 market- New York. Even LeBron/Wade couldve gone to NY. But those three wanted to play together and that is why they chose Miami. They could give a flying fuck about Miami. They wanted to play together and win championships.
