OT-NBA collapse
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/selfish-players-are-wrecking-NBA-wit…
I am not usually a big fan of Jason Whitlock because of how race-centered a lot of his columns seem to be, but I really agree with him on this one. Free agency and how it is being handled by the players is ruining the league.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:34 PM ^
For the foreseeable future at least, so collapse away!
February 24th, 2011 at 7:34 PM ^
Something really does need to be done possibly a franchise tag would be nice.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
The NBA will be fine, if not better off after all the stars have come together in the past few months. Small market teams aren't what makes any league successful. It's all about teams in NYC, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago pulling the rest of the league along. People are more likely to watch Melo/Stoudemire play the Heat than they are to watch a team with one or no stars (San Antonio, Portland) play each other. All of this recent talk about what's going to happen now is unnecessary. This isn't an unprecedented time in NBA history; the 80s were much the same. Bird and the Celtics, Magic and the Lakers. Can anybody else recall the big names of that era? If so, they were in big markets playing with other big stars. This is nothing but good for the league.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
The NBA is not fine. The star players are what drives the ticket sales and if they all cluster together in the larger marktes, then the smaller market teams will struggle. Also there are more teams now than there were in the 80's which also has some impact.
This discussion has a tendency of becomming political. Which is a no no on this blog. I hope this thread doesn't turn this way.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^
During their run the Pistons didn't have a single player I would call a "star", but chemistry and efficiency and defense made them difficult to beat, and people showed up because they won. Star power is overrated. Wins are what matter, and you can win without "stars." GM's just have to find the right combination of solid players.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:58 PM ^
No need for me to reply, because you said what I was going to say. Wins put the old asses in their seats...and Mike Valenti gets those asses out of said seats...
February 24th, 2011 at 8:05 PM ^
You can't just look at an outlier and say that this proves things are fine. Outside of that Pistons team that did only win once, look at the other past champions of the last 20 years: Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Heat, Bulls, Rockets. All of these teams had at least 2 bona fide stars. The Pistons did not, but again, one out of 20.
You need stars to win in the NBA and the fact that they are all clustering to a few teams means there are teams that have no shot and know that they don't. That is bad for the NBA.
February 25th, 2011 at 1:37 AM ^
I'm assuming you mean the 2004 team, Thomas was a no doubt "star". And with the exception of the '04 Pistons and maybe '08 Celtics (though Garnett was first team all-NBA) you have to go back to the 1970's where a team without a top 5 player (All-NBA 1st team) wins a championship. There's barely any teams that make it to the Finals without a top five performer.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:06 PM ^
Since when has the NBA cared about its small market teams? They're looking for stars and teams to market globally.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^
Bingo. The global comment hit the nail on the head. Kids in China and Europe will recognize LeBron and the Heat before they recognize any player on the Bucks or Kings.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:32 PM ^
I'll echo this as well.
The NBA is huge overseas. Much more so than in the US where it's somewhere behind the NFL, college football and baseball.
I had a cab driver in Istanbul who knew more about the Milwaukee Bucks than anyone in the US, outside of Milwaukee.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^
If the Milwaukee Bucks are marketed well enough to win fans in freaking Turkey, of all places, the NBA isn't going to care about the bad franchises as long it has at least some blockbuster teams. As long as the players don't get too greedy and switch teams every other week, the current model is sustainable indefinitely.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:42 PM ^
The current model is not sustainable indefinitely. That is why they are contemplating getting rid of some teams.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:47 PM ^
Getting rid of a few teams does not change the basic structure of the current model. There's a core of extremely good teams and a lot of bad teams; getting rid of a few bad teams leaves the marketors with sufficient highlights, fluff, and games for the national and global markets.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^
I should clarify: The current model being unsustainable meaning that there are too many teams especially in this economy. But, yes you are correct, it wouldn't really change the model as a whole.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
I think we had slightly different ideas of "sustainability." My idea of sustainability is that the business model can run indefinitely without major organizational changes. Telling three or four basket case teams to pack up shop and writing severance checks is a lot easier than, say, replacing an entire coaching staff or executive management for Pro Team X. The NBA can protect its investment pretty easily here. All they need are a few years of market studies to figure out which markets to cut or reorganize, and the system will proceed as before.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^
The NBA is huge overseas. Much more so than in the US where it's somewhere behind the NFL, college football and baseball.
I don't agree, at least not when it comes to Europe. (China I don't know about.) The NBA is far more mainstream here than there. Over there, it has a cult following - playoff games get little blurbs in the newspaper - but the vast majority of people in Europe (other than, perhaps, a few hotbeds like the former Yugoslavia) know next to nothing about the league, and can't name more than a few teams. Even the few who are familiar with the sport will often say that they lost interest after Jordan retired.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^
This is completely overblown. Small market teams as championship contenders have always been few and far between, which will continue to be the case. Like most sports, small market teams must win with innovation and chemistry, and they will, occasionally.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:49 PM ^
Which is why I loved growing up in Michigan/Illinois. Go Wings; Go Bears.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^
Go Lions ;)
February 25th, 2011 at 2:16 AM ^
Go Browns! (kidding--I don't have that much tolerance for pain but I do have a soft spot for the team)
February 24th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
In the NFL the small markets have just as good a shot at winning the super bowl as large market teams. Look at Green Bay and Pittsburg both cities are small This is done through revenue sharing. It is very socialist in nature, every team gets the same cut of the pie.
The NBA should just contract some teams and hold a draft for those players. This would raise the talent level of all teams and make the competition better.
February 25th, 2011 at 12:46 AM ^
That's because the NFL has a salary cap, revenue sharing deal, and restrictive rules regarding free agency that really put most teams on equal footing. Also, since each team is comprised of 53 active players, no one man has as big an impact on any game as in basketball. There may also be a higher rate of injury in the NFL, which may play into it somehow, but I really don't have any data on that. I feel like the value of any one player, or even three players, in the NFL is much lower as far as their impact on their team vs. the impact of one guy or three guys in the NBA.
February 25th, 2011 at 5:32 PM ^
I'd have to disagree with this notion that small market teams can't compete in major sports. Though the major markets do make the headlines on ESPN, the smaller markets can and do compete across all sports.
Take this year alone as an example: The Spurs are one of the best teams in the NBA; the superbowl was between a city in Wisconsin and a city in Western PA; a team from Vancouver leads the west in the NHL; and the World Series could have potentially been NY-Philly but instead ended up being 2 teams from the Western half of the country.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^
The NBA looks pretty ridiculous at times, but I think it has to do with the relative value of one player.
In football, hockey, baseball, one player won't play the vast majority of the time and be responsible for so much of the offensive/defensive output of the team.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^
Compared to baseball, basketball looks just fine. But, it is the big market teams that make the $$ for the league. What baseball doesn't have is revenue sharing that keeps the small teams as "little brother".
Now, the NFL provides the best model and teams like Green Bay couldn't win anything without the revenue sharing agreements that they have.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
just so false. the packers are in the top 5 of revenue every year. Packer tickets are worth their weight in gold (not to be taken literally...paper isn't heavy).
Reveue sharing is why the Arizona Cardinals aren't football's version of the KC Royals. Just because a team exists in a small town doesn't make them small market. GB is the second most popular team in the NFL behind the Steelers.
February 25th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
February 24th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^
The NFL has made almost no global inroads. Great teams sell. Kids in Europe can tell you about Michael Jordan and the Bulls, Kobe and the Lakers, LeBron and the Heat etc. Kids in the US know about Barcelona, Real Madrid and the Big 4 (now 5) English teams.
NFL is making huge profits now, but I wonder how much it would be doing if people weren't betting on it playing fantasy football.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:58 PM ^
Of course American football hasn't made inroads. No one else plays it, and it requires a too expensive equipment set and too many players for it to sprout in places that it is not played.
Soccer, baseball, and hockey are played all over the world. And the American invention basketball requires just a ball, a couple of hoops, and a few players.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^
Hockey is played all over the world? Try like 10 other countries, tops. Outside of the U.S., Canada and some European countries, it's unheard-of.
Baseball is at maybe 15-20. It's big in North America, the Spanish-speaking Caribbean, the northern part of South America, Japan and a couple other Asian countries. Elsewhere it's off the map.
February 25th, 2011 at 4:29 PM ^
Actually, hockey is played all over the world.
We just call it field hockey. It's even an Olympic sport which men play. No, really.
Imagine my surprise as a kid watching the Summer Olympics, and they mentioned hockey. What? Girls play that!
February 25th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^
Field hockey and ice hockey are two quite different games and no, neither is played worldwide.
February 25th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^
C'mon, I knew he was talking about ice hockey, but leaving out "ice" left the door open for me to throw in the other as tongue-in-cheek.
Field hockey may not be as "worldwide" as soccer, but looking at Wiki's Hockey World Cup page, there have been teams from 6 continents - is that not "all over the world" enough for you? ;)
The Field hockey at the Summoer Olympics page lists 40 nations.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:15 PM ^
The NFL has made some inroads in the UK and Germany. It gets a modest amount of coverage there. Actually, in the UK it's probably the most well-known North American league. Basketball, baseball and hockey are almost completely unknown there.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:55 PM ^
But I think what makes the NFL the most popular pro league in the country is it's parity. For me, I can get so much more engaged when there are more than a handful of teams (not individuals) that have a prayer of contending for titles.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:14 PM ^
I think it has more to do with football being the ideal American spectator sport.
Unlike people in Canada, who like watching intently for sixty minutes of mayhem, or people in the rest of the world who watch a good portion of an event intently, sometimes zoning out when the ball is stuck around midfield, we seem to like predictability (four chances guarenteed in normal circumstances, guarenteed possession after a score) and being able to focus in and then zone out.
Wow that was too long of a sentence.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:07 PM ^
I am confuzzled
February 24th, 2011 at 9:23 PM ^
Hockey is nonstop maddness, soccer is a little less than hockey, but still way more than football. Watching football allows us to grab a drink between plays or when the offense is bogged down deep in their own zone.
Nothing against football, I love watching, but you can zone out for much more of the clock time in football compared to those other two.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:56 PM ^
Other reason's football is king
- your team plays once a week making it a must see event
- only 16 games a year in the regular season making the regular season matter
- playoffs are limited to the elite teams only 12 of the 32 teams get in
- the violence of the game.... i'm sorry hockey was better with more fights... who doesn't think the best red wings regular season game wasn't the brawl with the Aves?
- Fantasy football... this gives you more than just your team to root for
- As a kid its a great game to play either in the back yard or on an organized team
- its a better game to watch on tv... baseball, hockey, and basketball are better live.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^
Heck, I watched the Columbus Clippers play once at their new-ish park. $10 ticket, you can walk around anywhere you want and you aren't packed in shoulder-to-shoulder in the seats, greasy ballpark food, goofy promotions. It's got everything except good athletic play.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:08 PM ^
i love live baseball i go to toledo mud hens games for about the same... the only problem is that dame drive home after 9 innings of beer and hot dogs. Also being a michigan fan did you chear or Bo Henson when he played in cbus?
February 25th, 2011 at 12:35 AM ^
I didn't know much about him, so I looked him up on wikipedia. I'm not suprised that he got booed by the CBus fans for being a Michigan grad. Similar crap has gone down with Manny Harris and the Cavs. It's really sad that Michigan can take advantage of the Ohio pipeline but Ohio can't seem to put a pipeline to Michigan to help out their pro teams. Oh well.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:34 PM ^
Teams playing once a week:
I think that's another huge reason. I played hockey for well over a decade, and I remember realizing for the first time (as a pretty young kid) that football teams played once a week.
You're also right about the ease of playing it as a pick-up game. Hockey is my first and strongest love, but anyone can see that football is the more easily watchable game. I think there's something to be said for casual fans being able to turn it on and have some idea of what's happening. Hockey is too fast (and sometimes complicated) plus it really is intense the whole way through.
As to the violence, I have to disagree. Hockey hits are every bit as hard as football hits, and at a much faster speed.
February 25th, 2011 at 12:15 AM ^
i was considering the violence more geared to baseball and basketball... as a detroit fan i used to love the Bad Boy's and the Jordan Rules.
As far as hockey, the hits are comprable to football. I just think they should allow more fighting in hockey. I never grew up a hockey fan, but i enjoy going to minor league games and its all ways fun when a fight breaks out. I think one of the main reason's it does not translate to the TV is because the puck is hard to follow. Part of this is because a lot of americans don't know how to watch the game properly, you have to be more aware of the strategy of hockey and following the action rather than just trying to watch where the puck is going. In basketball you don't watch the ball as it is bouncing up and down, and football unless it is a pass you don't just watch the ball while someone is running with it. Hopefully with HDTV the puck issue becomes less of an issue.
As far as making Soccer more watchable. Get rid of the offside penalty. If a team playing defense doesn't want to keep a defender back to guard against cherry picking then shame on them. plus you have a goalie to help stop the ball. To me the offsides in soccer would be like calling a penalty everytime Braylon got pass a saftey because they are to slow.
February 25th, 2011 at 12:34 AM ^
February 24th, 2011 at 9:20 PM ^
What's fun about watching a bunch of average teams play each other? If there are some stakes to it, fine, but if there aren't forget it. People tune in in record numbers to watch great teams play at historically high levels even if there are no stakes (think Pats Giants reg. season finale).
February 24th, 2011 at 8:00 PM ^
Look at San Antonio, my favorite team. You have to build a loyal fan base and make the fans want to come out. That is why OKC and San Antonio are both really successful organizations. They both have plans and devoted fans.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:49 PM ^
The reason why San Antonio is successful is because of their management. They tend to draft really well and like you said have really loyal fans.
I wouldn't compare OKC to San Antonio, but they are becoming a successful organization. I would say that most of it has to do with them having such an exciting young team. It could all change if they loose Kevin Durant and Westbrook. If it were not for Durant and Westbrook OKC might be like the Timberwolves or Bucks.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^