Miami doesn't even attract their own fans....

Dwight Howard profited from a kid's basketball camp that bears his name in Orlando and lied to all the kids through a spokesperson that he was still rehabbing injuries and couldn't show up at the camp this year in person. But he attended a Dodgers game the same day as the camp which parents paid $105 for their kids to attend. Just another Feel Good Story courtesy of the thugz and drugz which make up the illustrious NBA.

Well he actually WAS rehabbing in LA and they offered to give the people their money back. Soooooooo???

Rotinaj;1245992 wrote:Well he actually WAS rehabbing in LA and they offered to give the people their money back. Soooooooo???

So they're still all thug criminals who don't pay child support and do drugs and beat woman and hookers!!!!11

friendfromlowry;1246077 wrote:So they're still all thug criminals who don't pay child support and do drugs and beat woman and hookers!!!!11

You'll find that in ANY Pro League, not just the NBA

KR1245;1245720 wrote: These "superteams" will eventually water down the league. It will limit the number of quality games that you can have in a season.

LOL wut?

The NBA has almost always been a league of superteams. The only team to win a championship without a true superstar in recent memory is the Pistons and one could consider the fact they essentially had a starting lineup of all-stars as being a superteam. Considering their Eastern Conference domination it's fair to say they were a superteam. I wouldn't argue with someone who said they weren't though.

But seriously it's a league of superstars and it seems they've always found a way to play with each other and the ratings seem to suffer when there's no superstars playing together, not the other way around.

lhslep134;1246177 wrote:LOL wut?

The NBA has almost always been a league of superteams. The only team to win a championship without a true superstar in recent memory is the Pistons and one could consider the fact they essentially had a starting lineup of all-stars as being a superteam. Considering their Eastern Conference domination it's fair to say they were a superteam. I wouldn't argue with someone who said they weren't though.

But seriously it's a league of superstars and it seems they've always found a way to play with each other and the ratings seem to suffer when there's no superstars playing together, not the other way around.

It's always been a league of superstars, but has it always been a league of superstars who joined together on their own? (I ask because I don't know the answer).

SportsAndLady;1246179 wrote:It's always been a league of superstars, but has it always been a league of superstars who joined together on their own?.

I would counter by saying even if no other superteam besides the Heat was formed because players collusively wanted to play together, it still wouldn't invalidate my point. To me it doesn't matter how the superteams were formed, just that they exist. There's no one way to form a superteam, so that's why I don't care/think it matters if players are choosing to play together, because superteams are going to get formed regardless.

lhslep134;1246177 wrote:LOL wut?

The NBA has almost always been a league of superteams. The only team to win a championship without a true superstar in recent memory is the Pistons and one could consider the fact they essentially had a starting lineup of all-stars as being a superteam. Considering their Eastern Conference domination it's fair to say they were a superteam. I wouldn't argue with someone who said they weren't though.

But seriously it's a league of superstars and it seems they've always found a way to play with each other and the ratings seem to suffer when there's no superstars playing together, not the other way around.

It hasnt been like this. We havent seen superstar players get together and join teams in the manner that they're now. I understand that there have always been "superteams" but they were formed via the draft and through trades. Bird and Mchale were drafted by the Celtics with Parrish coming in through a trade. Jordan and Pippen were both drafted by the Bulls. I've heard alot of people say that the early-mid 90's were the heyday of the NBA. Theere was alot of talent spread out throughout the league and it made for better quality basketball night in and night out. Barkley on the 76ers, Miller on the Pacers, Ewing on the Knicks, Jordan with the Bullls, Isiah on the Pistons, Dominque with the Hawks, Bird with the Celtics etc... multiple superstars and HOFers spread out around the league. I'll take a more balanced league with stars in different cities over what we currently have.

TV ratings were up while the attendance numbers were down. What do you think the drop off will be in Orlando's attendance next season? It will probably be pretty significant, I dont see how that can be good for the league

lhslep134;1246193 wrote:I would counter by saying even if no other superteam besides the Heat was formed because players collusively wanted to play together, it still wouldn't invalidate my point. To me it doesn't matter how the superteams were formed, just that they exist. There's no one way to form a superteam, so that's why I don't care/think it matters if players are choosing to play together, because superteams are going to get formed regardless.

It wasnt an argument..I just didn't know.

KR1245;1246200 wrote: I'll take a more balanced league with stars in different cities over what we currently have.

Kobe in LA, Andrew Bynum in PHI, Kevin Durant in OKC, Kevin Love in MIN, Lebron James in MIA, Derrick Rose in CHI, Carmelo in NYC to name a few


Yeah, you're right, we don't have stars in different cities.

SportsAndLady;1246201 wrote:It wasnt an argument..I just didn't know.

I know you weren't arguing, I didn't know either. It just doesn't matter to me how they formed.

KR1245;1245720 wrote:These "superteams" will eventually water down the league. It will limit the number of quality games that you can have in a season.

I think in this instance, you're right. The Lakers already were a team that attracted a lot of fans, attention, ratings, etc. So were the Magic a couple seasons ago when Dwight wasn't a whiny bitch and they were contending for the eastern conference title. Now, you have an attractive team that got better, and another team that will likely be a dump for a while and no one will want to watch.

So the Magic lose relevance, but guess what happened, a bottom feeder turned into a "superteam" in Brooklyn.

It's cyclical, but I mean you need enough stars to go around to make it happen. There was an abundance of stars in the 90s and an abundance of stars right now.

lhslep134;1246215 wrote:Kobe in LA, Andrew Bynum in PHI, Kevin Durant in OKC, Kevin Love in MIN, Lebron James in MIA, Derrick Rose in CHI, Carmelo in NYC to name a few


Yeah, you're right, we don't have stars in different cities.

No. The stars aren't playing in cities that *he* wants them to be playing in

jordo212000;1246303 wrote:No. The stars aren't playing in cities that *he* wants them to be playing in

By "he" do you mean the NBA owners? This is the reason that they went on strike in the 1st place. The owners as well as many of the fans want more balance in the league.

I'm sure the Magic are thrilled about what Dwight Howard in LA will do the leagues TV ratings. Sure they will lose millions of dollars in ticket/merchandise sales and some local businesses will take a major hit during bball season. Who cares though, it's all about those TV ratings.

Yet who do the Magic have to blame for their organizational decisions and state of their franchise? Mostly themselves.

It's called being a "small market." You have to overcome things in life. Sports isn't any different. The likes of Charlotte, Orlando, Utah, etc...they all have to overcome the fact that they are in a small market compared to other franchises and that in many cases, that is combined with a lack of interest and loyalty in basketball.

Azubuike24;1246350 wrote:Yet who do the Magic have to blame for their organizational decisions and state of their franchise? Mostly themselves.

It's called being a "small market." You have to overcome things in life. Sports isn't any different. The likes of Charlotte, Orlando, Utah, etc...they all have to overcome the fact that they are in a small market compared to other franchises and that in many cases, that is combined with a lack of interest and loyalty in basketball.

I understand that. I guess I'm not sure what the Magic could have done differently. The current group of stars are different from those of the past. Players have their minds set on which city/franchise that they want to play for even while they're currently on another team. I'm not sure that anything can be done to stop it, the players hold all of the power in this. Melo whined his way out of Denver, Howard whined is way out of Orlando and Bron wanted to play with his friends in Miami. These small market teams dont have much of a chance.

KR1245;1246359 wrote: These small market teams dont have much of a chance.

What a revolutionary, profound statement. I can't believe small market teams don't have much of a chance nowadays, as opposed to the entire preceding history of North American major sports where small market teams have always had a chance...

:rolleyes:

lhslep134;1246262 wrote:So the Magic lose relevance, but guess what happened, a bottom feeder turned into a "superteam" in Brooklyn.

It's cyclical, but I mean you need enough stars to go around to make it happen. There was an abundance of stars in the 90s and an abundance of stars right now.

I don't consider Deron Williams and one of the most over-payed players of all time to be a super team.

lhslep134;1246385 wrote:What a revolutionary, profound statement. I can't believe small market teams don't have much of a chance nowadays, as opposed to the entire preceding history of North American major sports where small market teams have always had a chance...

:rolleyes:

They do in the NFL, and if I am not mistaken it is still a hell of a lot more popular than the NBA/NHL/MLB combined. The owners actually have control and they don't allow the players to dictate the league.

like_that;1246402 wrote:They do in the NFL, and if I am not mistaken it is still a hell of a lot more popular than the NBA/NHL/MLB combined. The owners actually have control and they don't allow the players to dictate the league.

Reps

like_that;1246402 wrote:they don't allow the players to dictate the league.

There are definitely examples to the contrary, off the top of my head I'll throw out Carson Palmer. Can small market teams compete better in the NFL than other leagues? Most definitely. But I think part of that is due to the nature of the game. With the exception of QB, I think football is the sport where a star has the least amount of impact on his team's chances of winning a championship (meaning that competitive balance will inherently be better). The best running back in the league over the past 5 years hasn't won anything of value (Peterson). Neither has the best receiver (Andre Johnson). A team of stars means much less in the NFL than it does in any other sort IMO.

LOL, wow...

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/Former-translator-for-terror-leader-Osama-bin-Laden-wants-LeBron-James-to-apologize-to-Cleveland

The only thing I laughed at about that article was the part about the cat.