You're right.
I'm right.
Your opinion is no more correct than my opinion.
We could have a 10 page back and fourth about which ice cream flavor is better. It doesn't matter.
Shake your head all you want but in the end neither of us is any more correct in our beliefs.
You can't "market and showcase said talent" if you don't have said talent to begin with.
But this is a completely different topic. That's actual interest in the sport. People outside of the US just aren't interested in football.
On the other hand, where there is interest, the talent, particularly star talent, is what makes the leagues more popular. You see this with soccer, basketball, and every other massive sport out there.
How quaint. You exist in a world where all beliefs and opinions are equal, regardless of foundation.
You're really not very good at this.
But if there's no national stage to showcase those talents, they're useless.
It's like saying American Idol is so popular because they showcase the best talent. That's not the case at all.
But they wouldn't rank 5th worldwide. Everybody around the world would tune in to watch. As a matter of fact, every time a star studded Euro team shows up to play a few friendlies in the US, they play on a packed arena, and with TV coverage. Not only that, they get paid a load of money to come play (look at both Real Madrid and Barcelona this summer).
And ultimately, you're missing the point. The interest for basketball is already there. Even at the college level. So that point is really moot.
And you exist in a world where opinions can be validated with tangible proof.
What world is that may I ask?
So your point is that without the NBA there's no national stage?
Your contention is that if the NBA were to decide to close it's doors, interest in professional basketball would cease to exist?
I'd like to hear the explanation for that
No, you're getting hung up on the use of the letters N-B-A.So your point is that without the NBA there's no national stage?
Your contention is that if the NBA were to decide to close it's doors, interest in professional basketball would cease to exist?
I'd like to hear the explanation for that
As long as there is a public demand for professional basketball, there will always be a premier league, whatever the name of said league be.
Anyway, it's late. I'm shutting down. I think we can both agree, we need the NBA to come back already.
There's an appe e for basketball in America. The NBA didn't create that appe e. The NBA didn't create the national stage. They're merely the beneficiary of federal protections that give them a monopoly on the best talent.
And why, pray tell, would be a public demand for professional basketball?
What is it exactly that draw fans to invest time and money, or turn on their TV's for when watching professional basketball?
Is it to watch the "NBA brand"? Owners? sub-par talent?
This thread for starters.And you exist in a world where opinions can be validated with tangible proof.
What world is that may I ask?
You really, really aren't very good at this.
This we agree withAnyway, it's late. I'm shutting down. I think we can both agree, we need the NBA to come back already.
You just made the case against yourself.
He's all yours... time for bed for me.
My math was slightly wrong, but it's explained here.
Basically, the Spurs and other ABA teams pay 1/7th of their television revenues for the rest of time to the owners of the St. Louis ABA franchise.
It's costing the Spurs now about 5+ million every single year.
Buddy Holly...showing up late...with the not so good goods.
My God, BH. Don't you ever learn. This was like the generic Internet battle you see all GNSF have except you've been here for awhile and should know better
People like you (not that you're a bad person in real life) are what enables this NBA PR machine. I really hope you haven't been spreading this stuff around because you could be damiging the cause worse than Chris Farley in Black Sheep. Vote for Donley!
I think we can all agree that an NBA with replacement players wouldn't be nearly as popular as it has been with the stars.
However, the star players haven't exactly been raking in ticket and TV money with their exhibitions since the lockout started. They're rather disorganized.
The marketing is extremely important. How many times have you seen NFL (and even NBA) players start doing well in the pros having come from obscure schools? They had been talented all along, but didn't have the hype that the big-school players did, so they didn't get recognition until they made a name for themselves in the pros. A chance they wouldn't have had without the league and its marketing machine.
The truth must be somewhere in between: it takes BOTH elite-level talent AND a single, well-run marketing machine to make a top-level league. Which one is more important? I say neither; it's a chicken-and-egg argument.
Not in the real world it isn't. Again, boiled down as simply as you can, there are more capable owners and marketing people than there is nba talent. Owners by themselves have nothing. Without the players the owners have s s worth nothing. The players without this current crop of owners take a hit, but rest assured new owners would step up to the plate. It's the reason so called terrible franchises are selling for an all time high.
It's not fair to say "look at the games these players are organizing, how'd those turn out?"
They are doing this stuff on the fly and for the sake of working out. IF they decided to blow things up rest assured even though it would be a struggle to create a new NBA, it could be done. Without these players, there is no chance for these owners to maintain the current NBA.
Oh yeah, that's the Silna brothers. I thought McComb was getting dough on top of that.
NBA is a league that is more star-oriented and less franchise-oriented than MLB or NFL. Because of that, I think creating a new basketball league would be doable. After few years, it would be at least as big as the current NBA.
This is one of the few times that I couldn't disagree more with you. I really do not think that people who have followed the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, and Spurs would be so quick to follow another team in a pseudo league because a few stars would be in that league.
The majority of college stars would still want the NBA becaue that is their dream. The heritage and tradition of the NBA cannot be trancended by a league of guys who are good at dunking, but have little use for team play. Might as well watch the globetrotters.
The most important issue would be the TV contract. In the beginning they might get some good ratings out of curiosity, but in the end it would do no better than the WNBA.
First, you made a strange assumption that a new league would be a "pseudo league", with some "guys who are good at dunking, but have little use for team play". You can create a new league as serious as the NBA.
Second, the whole NBA heritage is quite small. There are two and a half legendary teams (Celtics, Lakers and Jordan's Bulls) and one legendary arena (Madison Square Garden). The NBA doesn't have an iconic moment like the NFL has with the Superbowl. The whole "heritage and tradition of the NBA" argument is also hurt when the central team of last year was Miami, a team with little past and whose success was based on having three stars.
Not to mention with the hard line stance the owners are taking no one will want to play for them. I think people over estimate the players motivation. They want to play against the best talent and where the money is. The talent would follow the new league.
The logistical challenges of setting up a new league are ridiculous, and it would probably take over a year to get everything finalized, IF they can finance everything and find personnel to run the teams. That said, more power to them if they want to go that route.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote