Melo and the Nicks

[Azazello1313]

Not so sure about MLB having the same issues that the NBA does. IMO, the NBA is in very serious trouble, losing nearly half a billion a year and a star system that is becoming ridiculous even to it's fans. There is one set of rules for the superstars and another for everyone else, just as there is a set of rules for the "best" teams as opposed to the rest.

 

Again, pissing off a coach as excellent and storied as Jerry Sloan to the point where he packs it in halfway through the season shows the power the NBA so-called stars have. And then Williams ups and leaves anyway.

 

In the next five years, at least six NBA teams will fold.

 

I think you've got the NBA's problem nailed. different from MLB's problem, I agree, I was just responding to det's comparison of the NFL and MLB.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think you've got the NBA's problem nailed. different from MLB's problem, I agree, I was just responding to det's comparison of the NFL and MLB.

All sports leagues have their issues for sure but the NBA's are grave. The "announced crowd" at T-Wolves games is routinely 15,000 or so in a stadium that takes a shade under 20,000. In fact, there are maybe 3 or 4 thousand present most of the time. That 15,000 includes giveaways, complimentaries, buy-one-get-one-frees, half-prices and season ticket holders who long since gave up on it. The upper level is pretty much closed to all intents and purposes.

 

Me and Mrs UM used to go to 10-12 games a year mostly via a 10 game package until this year when we finally decided that dragging ourselves out to get ripped off that many times a year watching a dispirited bunch of guys going through the motions is just stupid. It became a chore. We hardly bother with the TV games either. The whole circus is boring and predictable with a regular season that is almost completely meaningless.

 

Desperate attempts by ESPN, the NBA and TNT to drum up interest are increasingly falling on deaf ears, I fear.

[detlef]

disagree strongly with the sentiment here. there are prerennial winners and losers in the NFL, but that is determined by systems and coaching legacies and sustained draft and free agent success over many years. the teams that are predictably good and the teams that are predictably bad, they aren't predictable based on market size and such. pittsburgh, indianapolis, green bay. in the NFL, a team in a city like pittsburgh can aspire to be a dynasty. in modern MLB, a team in a city like pittsburgh can aspire to be .500 one year out of ten. there is definitely room to rise and fall in MLB, but an overriding caste system is very much in place. I just don't see it being good for the sport.

 

it's a simple fact that, as far as fan base and revenue go, the NFL is leaving MLB and the NBA in the dust. it is not a stretch at all to see the correlation.

First off, I want to make it clear that I don't deny that the NFL is stronger than any other major sport right now. The proof is very much in the pudding. So is, however, the reality that, despite the efforts to level the playing field that the NFL does, that it is ultimately no more effective. Sure, teams from small markets may have a better shot (though I'd be willing to entertain a study with you on that), but that doesn't mean that there's any more parity. Assuming that parity is defined by an ever-changing group of teams at the top and bottom.

 

Regardless of why certain teams consistently excel or fail, that doesn't change that it still happens. Sure, Lions fans may have the illusion that they have a better chance of being a contender than, say the Pittsburgh Pirates, that doesn't mean much when they still suck year after year. Or the Bengals or the Browns, or the Bills. They're all teams that, for the last 10 years, fans are teased with the occasional decent season, only to see their team fall back to where "they belong". Hell, you could put AZ into that category even despite the fact that they came inches away from winning it all. They still sucked before and after that. We'll put them in league with the Tampa Rays. Crappy team for pretty much ever who put it all together for a ride that lead them nearly to the top. Again, people "think" the Lions are on the rise, because they won all of 6 games last year. But you need merely go back and look at their history to see that there's actually very little reason for hope. Hell, even in the 90s. A decade that could be pointed to as their strongest in most of our lifetimes, they were under .500 for the decade.

 

So, it's not so much parity that we want but for teams from small markets to do well. But if you're not from Pittsburgh or Green Bay, what difference does it make that they're good all the time? You still have a small group of cities who rightfully expect their teams to be good and a selection of teams who can assume their teams will suck, and a group in the middle who are decent enough, often enough. It's really the same with MLB. It's just different cities.

 

And besides who's to say that 1) The reason small market teams doing well in the NFL doesn't have less to do with salary cap and more to do with revenue sharing between teams and that 2) teams like KC and Pitt are simply run by people who don't care about winning? That these guys are taking the money the league gives them via luxury tax and just pocketing the money.

 

At any rate, what would be an interesting comparison is to, first, establish what the "Big Market Teams" are. Then look at every city that has both an NFL and MLB franchise and see how those teams do compared to one another. Hell, just establishing what "Big Market Teams" are is hard enough. I mean, back to the NBA, we're complaining that big bad Miami is stealing all the players from lesser markets. Yet, in MLB, the Miami team has among the lowest payrolls year after year. So, is Miami a big market in the NBA but a little player in MLB? So, can we even be certain that we're talking about market fairness and not simply that some towns are football towns, others are baseball towns, and others still, are basketball towns? I mean, LA can't even support an NFL franchise and yet the Lakers are the biggest thing there.

 

None the less, I would guess the "big" cities would be NY, Boston, Chicago, and Philly. We could probably fit a few more, but I don't know who. Azz? Is there anyone you'd like to include in the "big" markets department? LA? Dallas?

Edited February 24, 2011 by detlef