I'm saying that despite scoring being lower, the 90s NBA was vastly more popular. So scoring isn't the factor that some people think it is.
Just curious... how are you determining popularity? TV Ratings? Revenue? Attendence? There are flaws in choosing any of these metrics.
there's more people on planet Earth then there was in the 90's. More humans = more fans. NBA was smart and hit international expansion hard. Players from all over the globe want to be in the NBA. More countries = more fans. With the advent of affordable & portable personal computers (phones/tablets), NBA fans don't have to wait for the following day to read the newspaper. Modern technology allows instant access to get the inside scoop on contests. Bigger stadiums help with fan attendence. Ticket Master companies "buying" all the tickets allows the NBA teams to post a nearly packed house on the final attendence. >>Look... 17,831 people showed up to the Wizards @ Hornets game !! Ummm... there's a small fraction of that many fans in the stadium. But the tickets are considered "sold", therefore the Owners and League can fake it, and chalk up every game as a rocking arena filled to maximum capacity.
I agree with all this... there is also far less scarcity when it comes to availability of games. In the 90's, if a Blazer game was on TV it kind of a big deal and that game was competing with far less TV options. My parents weren't basketball fans, but sometimes they'd turn on the rare Blazer game because it was more interesting than Entertainment Tonight and This Old House. Now, they have hundreds of viewing options at any given moment, and never choose to watch the Blazers, but it hasn't nothing to do with the product being better/worse.
I absolutely agree with you. I don't want to go back to the days of the Bad Boys Pistons though. I would love to see traveling called. These step back three's are a joke. Just calling it a step back three is ridiculous. It should be a dribble back three. Virtually every drive, crossover or what not involves palming. It pains me at times to watch players milking the clock palming the ball on every dribble. My kids just tell me I am old and nostalgic. I tell them the game would be a lot different if it was called correctly. I hate super star treatment, but then I hate how NBA refs treat rookies and players from bad teams. The gall of a broadcaster saying a player won't get that call because he is a rookie. Criminal. They don't ref that way in the NFL because the season actually means something. The low post game is gone because of ratings. It's not as sexy as high flying dunks, think Vinsanity. Tim Duncan was called boring while being called "The Great Fundamental." You get where I'm going with this.
NBA took a massive dip after Jordan retired. I'd say it's more popular today than 20 years ago, but the term "popular" is very subjective.
Wemby at 19 is more popular than Jordan at 23 Keep changing your criteria if you'd like. The question itself was silly.
Yeah the Magic/Bird/Jordan /Barkley/Shaq/Hakeem era was pretty good. Seems like Kobe/ LeBron/Curry/George/CP3/ is up there though Edit- I’m sure someone will add a different name. Just talking about era of player.
That's your story my friend! You asked a question, I answered it. You changed the question, I answered it differently. The question/response format is kinda how forums work.
You compared a player that did not play at 19 in the NBA. Is Wemby more popular than LeBron? He was actually in the league at 19. I would say no. Sorry.
I changed it to Jordan at a slightly older age to fit your new criteria. So now that I've pointed out that rookie Wemby was more popular than rookie Jordan, where does that leave us? So many different variables from 3-4 decades ago.
I didn't see how many were sold, but I am aware of the link between Nike and Jordan. I didn't realize the question was about total shoe sales in different decades.
LOL how do you measure popularity? Shoes sales? Jersey sales? Basketball cards? Or are you just going off feel?
