Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Mo takes shot at Wade/Durant takes shot at competitive spirit in the NBA...

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Mo takes shot at Wade/Durant takes shot at competitive spirit in the NBA...
KR1245's avatar

KR1245

Senior Member

4,317 posts
Jul 17, 2010 11:01 AM
enigmaax;425803 wrote:It goes back to the whole good vs. evil thing. People either loved Chicago or wanted to see someone beat them (and called everyone else bandwagoners). Either way, people were interested. Hell the Spurs won four titles and few people really cared for the most part - remember hearing about how much of an anti-dream matchup Cleveland vs. San Antonio was? But throw the Lakers or Celtics in and suddenly everyone is watching again. Miami is going to be good for the NBA now as long as they win because everyone is going to have an interest - you're gonna see a lot of new Heat fans and you are going to see the rest of the world watching them the whole way just hoping they get beat.

I see your point. I would just argue that Jordan never had a team like the one being put together in Miami. Pippen was a good player but he was never considerred one of the top 3 players in the league. We have arguably 2 of the top 3 and 3 out of the top 10 players in the league on one team. The NBA has never seen a team like that. If you add Paul and Melo to the Knicks next year. Thats 6 of the NBA's 10 players on two teams. I dont think thats good for basketball. Part of the reason the NFL continues to dominate the NBA is because of the parity in football. If this continues it wont be there. I can see both sides of the argument
Jul 17, 2010 11:01am
S

Swamp Fox

Senior Member

2,218 posts
Jul 17, 2010 11:02 AM
I started to write this post but decided it wasn't worth any more energy. Obviously, we will see the fruits of the Miami highway robbery beginning with game 1 of this coming NBA "season". I think it will cause interest in Miami, and the only interest created around the other League venues will be to try and beat the Heat once or twice before season's end. I've really never rooted for untimely injuries or anything remotely connected to evil ideas like that, but this whole event has been so staged and so ugly, I must admit that if the Heat fall on their faces this season, I will be ecstatic. Beat the Heat!!!!!!!
Jul 17, 2010 11:02am
KR1245's avatar

KR1245

Senior Member

4,317 posts
Jul 17, 2010 11:04 AM
jordo212000;425806 wrote:I am still waiting for KR1245 to tell me more than 4 teams who he thought realistically had a chance to win the finals last year. We can go back to earlier posts in this very forum. EVERYBODY knew who was going to be players for the championship (Magic, Lakers, Cavs, Celtics). The regular season was a formality

ummmm ok? I never said that I could. As a Cavs fan I was glad that my team was near the top of the league.......I never said that I thought it was good for the legaue.
Jul 17, 2010 11:04am
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Jul 17, 2010 11:08 AM
KR1245;425809 wrote:We have arguably 2 of the top 3 and 3 out of the top 10 players in the league on one team. The NBA has never seen a team like that. If you add Paul and Melo to the Knicks next year. Thats 6 of the NBA's 10 players on two teams. I dont think thats good for basketball.

I would argue that those Celtics and Lakers teams of the 80s were just as stacked as this Heat team. The NBA thrives on good vs. evil. Like I've said before... screw parity. Casual fans do not care that a certain amount of teams win 40 games. I would argue more people care when it is top heavy, than when everybody is bunched up at 40-50 wins. What is exciting about that? Who is the casual fan supposed to root against?
Jul 17, 2010 11:08am
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Jul 17, 2010 11:10 AM
KR1245;425811 wrote:ummmm ok? I never said that I could. As a Cavs fan I was glad that my team was near the top of the league.......I never said that I thought it was good for the legaue.

But... now you are sure that it's bad for the league? You just haven't been paying attention over the past 10-15 years. This is how the NBA works
Jul 17, 2010 11:10am
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 17, 2010 11:18 AM
KR - I've seen a few people make that comparison and mention that 2 of the top 3 have never been on the same team, etc. It doesn't really matter. The season the Bulls were chasing history, everyone who remotely liked basketball was following the NBA. People want to feel like they are witnessing something special. The best thing that could happen to the NBA is for the Heat to start off on some tear and get people talking about whether or not this is the greatest team ever assembled. People either watch "their" team in the regular season or they don't. That isn't going to change regardless of what top teams are doing. This isn't driving anyone away from the NBA, but it has the potential to pull people in. Like I said, the group that isn't interested in seeing history is interested in seeing history prevented. If Miami rolls through the regular season, everyone is going to be looking for someone to stop them. Kobe and L.A. are going to be the last hope heroes all of a sudden.

If Miami doesn't live up to the hype, the NBA is not going to be impacted much either way.
Jul 17, 2010 11:18am
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jul 17, 2010 12:20 PM
Some of these arguments in favor of "superteams" I find pretty funny.

It's good for the league? You have to be joking right?

Steroids kicked ass for MLB, doesn't mean players using them was right.
Jul 17, 2010 12:20pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Jul 17, 2010 12:32 PM
ytownfootball;425846 wrote:Some of these arguments in favor of "superteams" I find pretty funny.

It's good for the league? You have to be joking right?

Steroids kicked ass for MLB, doesn't mean players using them was right.
Go look at the history of the NBA, champ. And I gotta laugh at you comparing steroids to superteams. Nice one. In what way are the situations similar? Free agents signing with one team is somehow related to guys injecting dangerous, illegal substances into their bodies?
Jul 17, 2010 12:32pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jul 17, 2010 12:35 PM
No chief. As usual, you don't get it, no sense in trying to explain it to a self admitted "casual fan". GTFO
Jul 17, 2010 12:35pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 17, 2010 1:53 PM
ytownfootball;425846 wrote:Some of these arguments in favor of "superteams" I find pretty funny.

It's good for the league? You have to be joking right?

Steroids kicked ass for MLB, doesn't mean players using them was right.

I don't get the comparison there. The NBA regular season isn't much of a draw anyway.

But look at the wide variance in Finals ratings in the last 30 years.

The Finals rating in 1981 (Celtics-Rockets) was 6.7. In 82, the boom started - 13.0 for Lakers-Sixers and they didn't do less than 12.3 until 1999 (Spurs-Knicks 11.3). Didn't go back under 10 until 2003 for Spurs-Nets (6.5).

Some other trends:

The Lakers first title of their 80s dynasty drew an 8.0 in 1980. Their last title drew a 15.4 and their dethroning the next year pulled a 15.1.

The Bulls first title in 1991 (against the Lakers) pulled a 15.8. They dipped the next year then hit 17.9, then a record for their 3rd title.

The Rockets two titles dipped below any of the Bulls, then the first year of the Bulls second trifecta jumped back up to 16.7. Then they set another all time record at the end of that run with an 18.7

The Lakers early 00s run was moderate by Lakers standards, but still went 11-12-10. The NBA would only pull double digits the rest of the decade twice - when the Lakers lost to the Pistons (11.5) and when they beat the Celtics this year (10.6). The first Celtics-Lakers of the decade was the next closest at 9.3. All-time low was achieved by the Spurs-Cavs (6.2).

So, no, I wasn't joking. I'm interested to hear your position.
Jul 17, 2010 1:53pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:05 PM
enigmaax;425900 wrote: So, no, I wasn't joking. I'm interested to hear your position.

I'm waiting to hear another nonsensical comparison followed by "GTFO"
Jul 17, 2010 2:05pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:11 PM
maax

I'll explain it only as I see it as far as ratings are concerned. You won't agree because you really seem to have no issue with clandestine deals in the NBA as they don't break, or at least appear to break any rules on the surface. I happen to not like how the deal in Miami went down, sure as a Cav fan it's obvious I have a bias. I don't think putting a team together that way is good for the game, the fans, or the owners. A lot of people who aren't Cle. fans feel that way too so it's not just my bias, but an overall thinking that I happen to agree with.

But to say that it's good for the game that players can pick and choose where they play is good for the game is obscure to me and many others as well. I liken it to the steroids only in terms that the steroid era was great for baseball. Sosa and Mac going at it that season drew a lot of attention. Come to find out later we should really be looking at it with a jaded eye. I don't think this whole deal for the Heat should be looked at much differently in terms of ratings for the league than the steroid era for baseball. It may not have been illegal (though I still feel it was), but I honestly believe history won't be kind to the whole situation. In terms of that, they're comparable imo.

and jordo, you agree with dynasty way too much on here to be considered worthy of retort, so GTFO :D
Jul 17, 2010 2:11pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:17 PM
ytownfootball;425913 wrote:maax

I'll explain it only as I see it as far as ratings are concerned. You won't agree because you really seem to have no issue with clandestine deals in the NBA as they don't break, or at least appear to break any rules on the surface. I happen to not like how the deal in Miami went down, sure as a Cav fan it's obvious I have a bias. I don't think putting a team together that way is good for the game, the fans, or the owners. A lot of people who aren't Cle. fans feel that way too so it's not just my bias, but an overall thinking that I happen to agree with.

But to say that it's good for the game that players can pick and choose where they play is good for the game is obscure to me and many others as well. I liken it to the steroids only in terms that the steroid era was great for baseball. Sosa and Mac going at it that season drew a lot of attention. Come to find out later we should really be looking at it with a jaded eye. I don't think this whole deal for the Heat should be looked at much differently in terms of ratings for the league than the steroid era for baseball. It may not have been illegal (though I still feel it was), but I honestly believe history won't be kind to the whole situation. In terms of that, they're comparable imo.

and jordo, you agree with dynasty way too much on here to be considered worthy of retort, so GTFO :D

I see what you mean, just don't entirely agree. The funny thing, even about the baseball ratings is that people want to take on this pseudo-moral stance on the entire era. But they were watching. Are they watching now? Say what you want about steroids hurting the game - if the game were so sacred and everyone was so concerned with the "fairness", they'd be tuning in now just on principle. The game is cleaned up now. Its back to a level playing field....and apparently boring as hell. People talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Bottom line is its entertainment, so if it isn't entertaining, people aren't going to watch.
Jul 17, 2010 2:17pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:28 PM
Lol, well I knew you wouldn't agree. And I have to admit to enjoying the steroid era, I can't deny it, it was great entertainment. This thing though, I see differently. I don't enjoy watching the Yankees because they buy shit, the NBA by allowing this to go on appears no different, though a different avenue, the result is the same. Hope that makes sense to you.
Jul 17, 2010 2:28pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:37 PM
Parity trumps anything else a league can put out as a product.

The NFL has become HUGE due to it's parity. It's a year to year league. People like RIVALRIES and when you have the top players on one team, who are their rivals? You won't see LBJ vs Wade anymore, which was becoming a good rivalry.

Also, when you have LBJ & Wade vs Kobe, it's not as attractive as a 1-on-1 affair.

Also, the nation has responded about this "Super Team" and a majority of the feedback has been negative. I'm sorry, but the NBA has struggled because of the lack of parity, I don't see that changing now.

Then, you'll have a lockout after next season. The NBA could turn into the NHL.
Jul 17, 2010 2:37pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:38 PM
ytownfootball;425913 wrote: I don't think putting a team together that way is good for the game, the fans, or the owners. A lot of people who aren't Cle. fans feel that way too so it's not just my bias, but an overall thinking that I happen to agree with.

The ratings from past dynasties refute the claim that it is not "good" for the fans. Fans love to see winners, they love to see bullies, and they love to see David vs. Goliath. What exactly do you think fans want to see? A watered down product? Two 7 & 8 seeds who can take 1 & 2 seeds five games instead of four? Please.

Like it's been said many a time already. This is the NBA, this is how it works. You HAVE to have multiple good players to win anything. Rarely can one guy carry a team. Boston and L.A. own the vast majority of NBA Championships. It has been like this for years, and now because the system doesn't favor Cavs fans we have to hear how the system has failed.
Jul 17, 2010 2:38pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:41 PM
hoops23;425925 wrote: The NFL has become HUGE due to it's parity. It's a year to year league. People like RIVALRIES and when you have the top players on one team, who are their rivals? You won't see LBJ vs Wade anymore, which was becoming a good rivalry.

The NFL is huge because it is football. This is a football loving nation. I tend to think that parity or not people would still love the NFL. Look at the Browns they have been awful for years and every week their games are sold out in Cleveland.

When was the last time you heard anybody say "my goodness I cannot wait to watch tonight's Heat vs. Cavaliers matchup! This is a must watch" haha. I've never heard that and I lived with 2 Cavs fans
Jul 17, 2010 2:41pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:42 PM
jordo212000;425927 wrote:The ratings from past dynasties refute the claim that it is not "good" for the fans. Fans love to see winners, they love to see bullies, and they love to see David vs. Goliath. What exactly do you think fans want to see? A watered down product? Two 7 & 8 seeds who can take 1 & 2 seeds five games instead of four? Please.

Like it's been said many a time already. This is the NBA, this is how it works. You HAVE to have multiple good players to win anything. Rarely can one guy carry a team. Boston and L.A. own the vast majority of NBA Championships. It has been like this for years, and now because the system doesn't favor Cavs fans we have to hear how the system has failed.

Please show the "ratings"? This years Finals was one of the highest watched ever.. Why? LA vs Boston and Boston came out of no where to make it.

Fan interest has been up in the NBA because there was a bit of parity forming around the league. LA is a great team, but it's no "Super Team"... You had teams like Cleveland, Denver, Orlando, OKC, etc.. all challenging for the throne and Boston came out of no where after a poor regular season.

Now, it's pretty much the Heat in the East vs the Lakers in the West.

I'm sorry, but again, a league with only 2 or 3 contenders just doesn't really interest me as a whole. I'll watch my Cavs and follow a couple of players like KD to see what they're up to, but as a whole, I just don't care anymore. Not really interesting.
Jul 17, 2010 2:42pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:44 PM
jordo212000;425931 wrote:The NFL is huge because it is football. This is a football loving nation. I tend to think that parity or not people would still love the NFL. Look at the Browns they have been awful for years and every week their games are sold out in Cleveland.

Football doesn't really start during the NBA season, so it's kind of irrelevant on how much loving football effects the NBA. Which is my point, the NBA isn't a good enough league to garner more interest.
Jul 17, 2010 2:44pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:46 PM
ytownfootball;425921 wrote:Lol, well I knew you wouldn't agree. And I have to admit to enjoying the steroid era, I can't deny it, it was great entertainment. This thing though, I see differently. I don't enjoy watching the Yankees because they buy shit, the NBA by allowing this to go on appears no different, though a different avenue, the result is the same. Hope that makes sense to you.

I pretty much agree about the Yankees. I just don't think the mass mentality is the same. It seems like you want to be an NBA fan. But like most sports (or anything really), it is not the hardcore fans that make the difference. It is whether you can pull in that, pardon me for referring to jordo, "casual fan". Hardcore fans say they care about the morality and all that other stuff, but never really go away. Casual fans come and go based on the existence or non-existence of entertaining storylines. Their money is going to make a difference. And if they have a team to either love or hate, they're going to be interested.

So, I think I understand your personal feelings, I just don't think you are the majority with the money that counts for the NBA.
Jul 17, 2010 2:46pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:49 PM
hoops23;425932 wrote: I'm sorry, but again, a league with only 2 or 3 contenders just doesn't really interest me as a whole. I'll watch my Cavs and follow a couple of players like KD to see what they're up to, but as a whole, I just don't care anymore. Not really interesting.

Lol. C'mon dude, how many teams did you think could win the championship this year? The number is 4, tops (Cavs, Celtics, Lakers, Magic). 1 more than your lament that there are only "2 or 3 contenders". The situation is nearly identical, this time it's not the Cavs who are a contender it's the Heat. Besides, we don't even know how good the Heat are going to be.
Jul 17, 2010 2:49pm
wes_mantooth's avatar

wes_mantooth

Tomfoolery & shenanigans

17,977 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:50 PM
hoops23;425933 wrote:Football doesn't really start during the NBA season, so it's kind of irrelevant on how much loving football effects the NBA. Which is my point, the NBA isn't a good enough league to garner more interest.

The NBA is not a good product to watch during the regular season. The officiating and star treatment take away from a great game. HS and College bball are much easier to watch. The NFL puts out a great product, so it is very easy to watch.
Jul 17, 2010 2:50pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:53 PM
hoops23;425932 wrote:Please show the "ratings"? This years Finals was one of the highest watched ever.. Why? LA vs Boston and Boston came out of no where to make it.

I'm sorry, but again, a league with only 2 or 3 contenders just doesn't really interest me as a whole. I'll watch my Cavs and follow a couple of players like KD to see what they're up to, but as a whole, I just don't care anymore. Not really interesting.
The Finals weren't close to the highest rated ever. They were among the highest this decade - about 24 or 25 in the last 35-ish years. And I'd say Boston is Boston regardless of where they came from in the standings - the NBA pushed the history hard and that likely had a lot to do with the bump.
hoops23;425932 wrote: LA is a great team, but it's no "Super Team"...
True. But they are the top team of the decade and the team that draws the best numbers. The "Super Teams" were doing 15-18 ratings whereas this team has topped out at under 11. I listed several numbers in a post above.

You can say you aren't as interested, but I'd say you are the same type of fan as ytown. Maybe you want the NBA to be one thing, but it isn't your money that counts and your angle isn't what works for the masses.
Jul 17, 2010 2:53pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Jul 17, 2010 2:54 PM
wes_mantooth;425942 wrote:The NBA is not a good product to watch during the regular season. The officiating and star treatment take away from a great game. HS and College bball are much easier to watch. The NFL puts out a great product, so it is very easy to watch.

Agreed. I can't stand watching whistle happy referees who call a foul every other trip down the court.

The NBA has a lot of regular season sand-bagging too. That's always been my beef. Nobody plays defense until the fourth quarter and the bad teams give up about halfway through the season. You can't sand-bag in the NFL because you will end up hurt/dead. Look at the Celtics, they didn't play hard until the playoffs, while the Cavs devoured poor competition to 60+ wins and then was quietly dispatched by the Celtics
Jul 17, 2010 2:54pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jul 17, 2010 3:04 PM
wes_mantooth;425942 wrote:The NBA is not a good product to watch during the regular season. The officiating and star treatment take away from a great game. HS and College bball are much easier to watch. The NFL puts out a great product, so it is very easy to watch.

This is true to. David Stern is a very intelligent dude, unfortunately it takes more than intelligence to run a league. He's been too strict on some stuff, but not enforcing enough on other issues. Plus the officiating is always terrible in the NBA.
Jul 17, 2010 3:04pm