Actually, Memphis' downtown area was bigger, as of the 2010 census (583,776 in Portland and 662,897 in Memphis). As for metro area, 10x bigger is a huge stretch. We're talking 2,260,000 vs. 1,316,100... not exactly 10 times. Also, I understand that your city's population has nothing to do with being on national tv when talking about local broadcasts, but in terms of national broadcasts, transplants matter. The higher the population, the higher the number of transplants in the fly-over states. All over the country there are people who used to live in NY/LA/Chi/etc. who want to keep in touch with their hometown teams. In particular, I'm a Memphis transplant who wants to keep in touch with his hometown team. I just figured Portland didn't have that much more of presence. I also find it hard to believe that they're really that much more fun to watch, at least to the point where you'd have them on national tv more and give them five TNT games. We're talking about a team that's in contention for the WCF versus a team that's in rebuilding mode and will be scrapping for the playoffs.
I told you I didn't know what the numbers were, but downtown Portland feels like NYC compared to Memphis. As a transplant, I'm surprised you don't already have the LeaguePass. I couldn't live without it and that's just because I'm a hoop junkie!
I got ya. I've had League Pass, and I'll probably always have it. However, I just wish I could be one of the transplants who could watch his team on TNT/ESPN every other night of the week and then catch their rare non-televised games online like my friends and co-workers from higher populated cities do. It just seems like no matter how good Memphis gets, they'll never get more than seven or so nationally televised games because of the Memphis market, and it surprised me to see Portland, a team in a similar market, with more televised games.
I think it's pretty simple.. Obviously I don't know the numbers but I'd say there are a lot more Blazers fans than Grizzlies fans.
Haha, true, but even Utah only has six nationally televised games to the Blazers' eight, with a similar, if not better, talent level. My biggest problem is how Portland/LAL get selected over Memphis/LAC for their opening day though. I understand there's a history between the Blazers and Lakers, but for the upcoming season, wouldn't it be more entertaining to see Memphis/LAC, a rematch of the most entertaining first round series and arguably the most physical of all of the playoffs? There was some serious bad blood in that one, and I'd think that'd be something people would want to watch. Regardless of that particular decision, as a "Memphrican," I always get offended every time the NBA releases their tv schedule and the Grizz have the same (or less) amount of games as teams from similar markets that have less talent. I completely understand the financial perspective from the NBA and the television networks' point of view concerning 'big vs. small markets.' It'd be a horrible move from their standpoint to give Memphis more nationally televised games over bigger market teams. However, it's frustrating enough, as a small market fan in general, knowing that unless your team gets to the finals, the rest of the world will see your team as second class. Just imagine that when you actually have the talent to make it to the finals but haven't convinced a national audience of it, you could still get less national tv games than lottery teams, and that leads to a perception that your team is far inferior to the teams that get more exposure. For example, if you polled a sample of 100 casual sports fans and asked, "Who's better, the New York Knicks or the Memphis Grizzlies?", you'd probably get 80-90 responses in favor of the Knicks, just because of the casual fan's exposure to the Knicks. It really affects the perception of your team. On a side note, I also noticed that the Lakers also have 25 nationally televised games this season, like the Knicks. I wonder if that's the cut-off or something... 25 games.
With this much TV money at stake, I'd bet the networks have a pretty good grasp of projecting their ratings. And I'd agree, and bet the Blazers not only have a larger local market (the entire Pacific Northwest) population than the Griz, but also have more fans scattered around the country. I don't know of course, but one could also speculate that the local ratings themselves are better in the Portland/Pacific market for Blazers games than for Memphis games. Maybe, despite their success, the folks around Memphis just aren't as into the Grizzlies as folks around here are into the Blazers. Maybe they'd rather play and listen to live music and make and eat BBQ!
Portland got on the schedule because they are playing the Lakers. It's not the Blazers getting favored treatment! So, what are appropriate costumes to wear on Halloween with Lakers in town?
I know, I thought about that after I posted. They aren't showing the Blazers, they're showing the Lakers v. the Generals...err...Blazers.
lol . . . exactly. It is Nash's debut as a Laker vs. whoever they are playing. Even better that it is a weak team so the debut will be a success . . . everyone loves a happy ending.
In addition to the Portland metro area, our statistics should now include that small suburban market to the north in King County - seeing as how we are now their regional basketball overlords.
I wonder how many of our TV appearances, if any, are not against the Thunder, Heat, Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls or Spurs?
I'm contemplating not getting LP for the first time since I've left PDX. I'm still stinging from what could have been. I'm not sure I have the fortitude to watch 82 games of the beginning of a rebuild. And if I get it, I'll watch every single freaking game.
