Reply With Quote
When has the NBA ever been a league that was able to market bottom feeders?
When the Knicks are good the whole league wins. That's that.
When has the NBA ever been a league that was able to market bottom feeders?
Personally, I love that the Knicks are getting attention now. It's good for the game. I don't agree with the OP, but I thought this is as good a thread as ever to have real discussion on the game.
Stern's probably ing his pants thinking about the big-market playoff matchups in the East.
Cry Havoc, what reason do you have to watch the Buffalo Bills?
They can, and it's really, really simple. By giving fans the hope of a better chance at a playoff/ le run in the next 3-4 years. People will watch a team if they see there's promise or hope that they might make a run at decent playoff contention.
And you're saying EVERY team in the NFL has hope of a le run in the next 3-4 years?
http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance
According to this, they sold 86.5% of home seats this year. Sounds like people are still watching them. And we're only what, 3 or 4 years removed from when I heard the Bills being talked about as a dark horse for the AFC le game.
Did you see the Rams, Cardinals, or Saints making a run to the Superbowl in their respective years? How about the Vikings in the NFC le game last year? Or the Jets last year? What odds would you have given those teams of making runs deep into the playoffs?
The lottery system is also a problem. In a league where one great player can make a huge difference, as DoK suggested, you can be the worst team in the league and still not get the best player in the draft. And there are plenty of examples where the draft might have only 1 or 2 surefire superstars. It's rare to even have more than 2-3. The 2003 draft is an exception, not the rule. So your team can suck year after year, and lose the lottery year after year and don't have a chance to get better. While a team might be pretty good, have a bunch of injuries one particular year that makes them just "average" where they just miss the playoffs, but they win the lottery as the 12th or 13th worst team. And what was a pretty good team already gets a superstar.
The lottery was put in place I think in part to discourage tanking. but I think there have been negative side effects to it. When you have the worst team in the league, you should get the best player in the draft, not the fourth best player in the draft.
But that's the NFL. That 86.5% was the fourth worst in the league for home attendance. Only two NFL teams had home attendance under 80%. That's the NFL. 8 home games. Almost all NFL teams sell out or come close to selling out. 80% home attendance is actually really bad for the NFL.
Agreed. It keeps teams on the bottom for far too long. And since player salaries are too high as it is thanks to the soft-cap, teams are having to trade away their best players for much less, exacerbating the talent disparity. Can you imagine if the Packers had to trade away Brett Favre in 1998 because they started 4-10 and couldn't afford to keep him while keeping the franchise afloat? How would that have sat with the Green Bay faithful?
It's very difficult to find parity in a league where one player makes over half of what an entire roster of players does, regardless of how good he is.
I don't have a problem with the Knicks getting attention. Heck, run a special five hour report, I don't care. It does annoy me when they have to shrink coverage for everything else to fit that .
Maybe it's cause I live in the tristate area and we've been bombarded with this from day 1. You can't turn on the TV and watch the news without seeing these mofos over here.
So they should give equal coverage to a Spurs-Grizz game as they do a Heat-Knicks game?
ESPN got it right...shrink the Spurs segment cause nobody outside of those cities gives a . In the other game, the NBA is showcasing Melo, Stat, LBJ, Wade, and Bosh.
ESPN made a tough choice there...
lol
Knicks fans were forced to watch the Spurs in 1999
You know, when their team got bukkaked in the Finals
Bringing up smack from 12 years ago is telling me.
What's funny is that the Spurs have won 4 les in the past 12 years while the Knicks have been cellar dwellers, yet NY still gets more love.
That must make you pretty mad
Seriously spurfan, what did you expect ESPN to do? You played the ing Grizzlies. Outside of Manu's acrobatic lay-up at the end there was nothing worth showing. Be grateful that you even got 30 seconds of airtime with that garbage.
Bringing up smack from 12 years ago is telling me.
What's funny is that the Spurs have won 4 les in the past 12 years while the Knicks have been cellar dwellers, yet NY still gets more love.
That must make you pretty mad
Actually, dirk4mvp, I didn't even mention the Knicks-Heat game in the OP. Not sure where you got that from.
lol moving goalposts.
"I didn't talk about the Heat-Knicks game, I just insinuated it."
Tell me scro, what more did you feel ESPN needed to show on the Spurs game?
Besides that Manu lay-up there was nothing worth showing.
Same with the Dallas game...show the 22-3 start then the subsequent curbstomping. Each game gets 20-30 secs each. Fair enough imho.
What else should ESPN have shown?
Oh, and your troll detector sucks, per usual.
It's the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. They are not a news network. They have no obligation to cover the Spurs. If it pisses you off so much just do like you do when you don't like a TV show...change the channel. I don't see you in here ing that you don't like the last episode of Mike and Molly. It's the same thing.
What I do now is I just go to espn.com and avoid the insanity that the tv channel brings to you. I just watch the highlights and go on my way. It's the easiest way to avoid a headache if you're a fan of the NBA or any sport.
So... I didn't talk about the game, nor insinuated anything about it...
And my troll detector is working fine, scro... Mavfan troll pretending to be another team's fan are all the same to me...
How dense are you?So... I didn't talk about the game, nor insinuated anything about it...
And my troll detector is working fine, scro... Mavfan troll pretending to be another team's fan are all the same to me...
"I didn't talk about the game or insinuate it, but my complaint about the Knicks coverage coincidentally came only a couple hours removed from a Heat-Knicks game that dominated the first 10 minutes of Sportscenter, as well as other segments."
Your backpedaling just looks pathetic now.
You are the living embodiment of the kind of poster Kori hates: an insecure, media-craving spursfan...and you do a piss-poor job of hiding it, tbh.
Oh, and once again you're wrong about the troll. Try again, sweetcheeks
"Maybe if I put things between quotes it will look like I'm actually quoting you"How dense are you?
"I didn't talk about the game or insinuate it, but my complaint about the Knicks coverage coincidentally came only a couple hours removed from a Heat-Knicks game that dominated the first 10 minutes of Sportscenter, as well as other segments."
Your backpedaling just looks pathetic now.
You are the living embodiment of the kind of poster Kori hates: an insecure, media-craving spursfan...and you do a piss-poor job of hiding it, tbh.
Oh, and once again you're wrong about the troll. Try again, sweetcheeks
So not only you pretend to know what I intended with my original post that didn't mention one lick about the Heat-Knicks game, but specifically mention the Amare-Melo sit down interview with Tirico, but you also pretend to know what Kori thinks about certain posters.
That's pretty rich coming from the 268234623478 Mavfan posting behind some troll account pretending to be a fan of another team and bringing absolutely nothing to the table.
"I'm just going to call you insecure between quotes and see if it sticks
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
