- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Stephen A. Smith: I hope the Knicks & Lakers get the first 2picks in the draft
Posted on 5/20/15 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 5/20/15 at 7:16 pm
Yesterday, SAS said before the draft that he hoped, for the sake of the NBA, that the Lakers and Knicks got the first two picks in the draft. He didn't elaborate on it. But I guess he was saying that it's better for the NBA if the big market teams are improved (at the expense of the small market teams).
I got to thinking: Is it really better for larger market organizations to be dominant, and smaller market teams be the also-rans?
Or is it better for the league to have competitive balance, regardless of market size?
Despite itself, the NFL continues to flourish, and I believe the primary reason is that the NFL has done a great job of creating parity among all its teams. Green Bay and New Orleans have as good or better than winning it all, as the Giants, Patriots and Cowboys.
One of the NBA's concerns during the last lockout was the idea of primetime stars bolting small market teams for big cities, where endorsement deals could significantly bolster a player's worth. They tried to fix that by allowing an incumbent team to offer more money to players than other teams when contracts are up.
Plus, it seems the NBA has always kind of hung its hat on mid-sized cities to begin with.
I admit i'm a biased Pels fan, but I find the NBA more enjoyable when teams like the Spurs, Thunder, Grizzlies, and Pels are competitive; while the Lakers, Knicks, Nets, and 6ers struggle....than when it's like a seven team league with LA, Chi, Mia, NY, Bos, and everyone else acting as a minor league system.
On the other hand, I also recognize that the NBA may not want a top shelf player like Anthony Davis playing on a team that has had very few nationally televised games. Or is that the networks' fault. Or does it even matter at all?
I got to thinking: Is it really better for larger market organizations to be dominant, and smaller market teams be the also-rans?
Or is it better for the league to have competitive balance, regardless of market size?
Despite itself, the NFL continues to flourish, and I believe the primary reason is that the NFL has done a great job of creating parity among all its teams. Green Bay and New Orleans have as good or better than winning it all, as the Giants, Patriots and Cowboys.
One of the NBA's concerns during the last lockout was the idea of primetime stars bolting small market teams for big cities, where endorsement deals could significantly bolster a player's worth. They tried to fix that by allowing an incumbent team to offer more money to players than other teams when contracts are up.
Plus, it seems the NBA has always kind of hung its hat on mid-sized cities to begin with.
I admit i'm a biased Pels fan, but I find the NBA more enjoyable when teams like the Spurs, Thunder, Grizzlies, and Pels are competitive; while the Lakers, Knicks, Nets, and 6ers struggle....than when it's like a seven team league with LA, Chi, Mia, NY, Bos, and everyone else acting as a minor league system.
On the other hand, I also recognize that the NBA may not want a top shelf player like Anthony Davis playing on a team that has had very few nationally televised games. Or is that the networks' fault. Or does it even matter at all?
This post was edited on 5/20/15 at 7:20 pm
7
Posted on 5/20/15 at 7:48 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
Outside of the Pels, I don't really care about the cities that other teams play in.
I don't think the league is hurting due to the Lakers and Knicks sucking, either.
I don't think the league is hurting due to the Lakers and Knicks sucking, either.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 7:53 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
I don't think the league is hurting due to the Lakers and Knicks sucking, either.
And that's my point. I don't pay attention to revenue numbers, but the NBA's arrow HAS to be pointed up, and that is all despite the lack of success with the Lakers, Philly, New York, Brooklyn, and now Miami to an extent.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 8:05 pm to Epic Cajun
I have no problems with the Lakers and Knicks sucking. It keeps the bandwagoners in hiding.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 8:07 pm to Hank Marducas
quote:nah, they resort to following LeBron around like a lost puppy
It keeps the bandwagoners in hiding.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 8:46 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
The NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL all like it when major market teams are competitive. It makes sense when it comes to television. That said, I think the long term health and viability of all leagues are helped by competitive balance and smaller market teams actually challenging for championships.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:54 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
Don't watch him. National media outlets like ESPN have NY and LA homers who are supposed to be so great but in reality, well, they're NY and LA homers.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 5:21 am to Fontainebleau Dr.
Haven't you seen how hard the NFL is pushing for two teams to be in L.A by next year?
Big market teams help the leagues overall. Because people tend to love them or hate them. Most people don't love or hate the Bucks. The NBA needs to get more competitive overall IMO. Two too many teams. The NFL has parody. Most teams, save three or four, have a chance to make the playoffs and win a championship. In the NBA, three or four teams have a chance to make a championship run.
Big market teams help the leagues overall. Because people tend to love them or hate them. Most people don't love or hate the Bucks. The NBA needs to get more competitive overall IMO. Two too many teams. The NFL has parody. Most teams, save three or four, have a chance to make the playoffs and win a championship. In the NBA, three or four teams have a chance to make a championship run.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 6:30 am to Suntiger
quote:
The NFL has parody
Truer words have rarely ever been spoken.
The NBA is fine. They don't need parity. The sport and the league isn't built for it. There was no parity in the 80s and everyone loves 80s NBA.
They've changed the CBA rules (luxury tax) enough to stop deep pockets from just buying talent (not that that works). They've changed the on court rules to create an attractive and enjoyable product (especially once Hack a whomever gets the boot). NBA is trending up. Don't do anything stupid (lockout/strike) to burn it all down.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 7:30 am to Suntiger
Parity.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 7:34 am to Gtothemoney
That's what early morning posting will do for you. 
Posted on 5/21/15 at 8:15 am to Gtothemoney
Stephen a smith is a racist. Just my 2 cents
Posted on 5/21/15 at 8:22 am to Suntiger
Hey, I know it was a mistake. I don't think it's wrong though.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 8:36 am to Fontainebleau Dr.
quote:
I got to thinking: Is it really better for larger market organizations to be dominant, and smaller market teams be the also-rans?
Or is it better for the league to have competitive balance, regardless of market size?
Previously it was better for the major markets to have success because so much revenue was local. The new TV deal changes things quite a bit.
The current $930 million per year national TV deal breaks to $31 million per team. The new $2.6 Billion per year deal works out to $86 million per team. I don't know if they actually split it evenly like that or if anyone else gets a cut first, but you now have a situation where the national TV deal comes a lot closer to covering the team payroll like things are set up in the NFL.
The new economics mean ratings matter more than they used to and what gets ratings? Sure the bandwagon teams, even if they are a shell of their former selves get ratings, but the NBA is built around stars. Star players need to be on playoff caliber teams and the top stars need to be on contending teams. That's what ultimately is good for the league, not small market vs. large market. The Jordan era was a golden age not just because of Jordan, but because you had so many star lead teams trying knock him off. It seems like every playoff team from that era had a Dream Teamer.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 8:47 am to Fearthehat0307
quote:
they resort to following LeBron around like a lost puppy
Just think about it....these same people will be following AD in about two years from now
Posted on 5/21/15 at 5:36 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
Everyone's quiet after your posts
Posted on 5/21/15 at 5:40 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:c on z will actually like us
these same people will be following AD in about two years from now
Posted on 5/21/15 at 6:18 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
I think it is better, because it allows stars to end up in bigger markets, and stay there.
I don't think you'll keep a lot of big names around in Minnesota long term.
I don't think you'll keep a lot of big names around in Minnesota long term.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 8:25 pm to corndeaux
quote:
There was no parity in the 80s and everyone loves 80s NBA.
People dont love 80s NBA. They love 2 or 3 players from the 80s.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 8:34 pm to JohnnyKilroy
I like the 90's NBA. Back when there was some defense. They should just play 4 man zone on D and try to run fast break offense. It's basically illegal to play defense in the NBA today.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News