NBA TV ratings down

[Sports Enthusiast]

I'm sure the NBA will be just fine with this "trouble".

I'm admittedly lazy enough to not look it up but I'll bet its like the NHL where not every team is making money. There is no "lucrative" TV deal like in baseball or football. I can't imagine a team like the Sixer's making money these days.

 

[Virtanen18]

They wouldn't be a Championship team. They'd be competitive and a playoff tram probably. However they wouldn't win it all or anything.

For like the 12th time, you're arguing that taking the best player off of a sports team makes them worse. Really thought provoking stuff!

 

[Virtanen18]

Then you should understand why this league has trouble...if you don't have that individual type player you're not winning a championship. The Spurs are kind of the exception to the rule but also his many teams play together for over a decade anymore?

Since when is the league in trouble? Because TV ratings are down a bit? Lol

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Only one team wins it all.

But again, take the league MVP off any team and they will be significantly weakened.

Did the bulls really get that much worse without rose? Its not like he's all that good anymore. Sure I guess their chances dropped but him being back doesn't make that big a difference. He's a shell of a player he was before he wrecked his knee.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

For like the 12th time, you're arguing that taking the best player off of a sports team makes them worse. Really thought provoking stuff!

Only basketball does this actually matter. Maybe in football with the QB obviously but just having a QB doesn't guarantee you anything either. There's teams with solid QBs who aren't amazing.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Since when is the league in trouble? Because TV ratings are down a bit? Lol

I wouldn't call it healthy but I can't imagine the Nets or philly making money these days(examples)

 

[Morozov]

Did the bulls really get that much worse without rose? Its not like he's all that good anymore. Sure I guess their chances dropped but him being back doesn't make that big a difference. He's a shell of a player he was before he wrecked his knee.

So you're saying in the league you must have this awesome athletic scoring talent to compete, but now you're saying that losing a player of that caliber doesn't make that big of a difference.

Which is it?

If the Bulls had MVP Rose still then they're undoubtedly a much bigger threat to the title.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Being a ball hog doesn't mean he isn't a star. He's a flawed star in many ways nothing you are saying is news to anyone and as I said I am not a Melo fan. But he's been one of the elite scorers in Basketball for a long time, a bunch of all star games, scoring leader, multiple time Olympian, signature shoes, and he's been marketed as a star, regularly one of the highest selling jerseys.

Being a star doesn't mean you are faultless. There's really no question that Melo's name has star value.

I guess we think of stars differently. If you're asking me if I'd build a team around him I'd say no in a heartbeat as opposed to a guy like Westbrook or Durant, LeBron, Curry, Wall, Davis for example.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

So you're saying in the league you must have this awesome athletic scoring talent to compete, but now you're saying that losing a player of that caliber doesn't make that big of a difference.

Which is it?

I think you do but I was just trying to make a case for an example where maybe losing that type of player isn't that big a difference. Granted Rose can't stay healthy so I guess that's a part of it but he seems like a shell of his former self when he plays. The East isn't so good so they could make the Conference Finals which would be as far as they got when he was at his best.

 

[Morozov]

I wouldn't call it healthy but I can't imagine the Nets or philly making money these days(examples)

Philly, according to Forbes, made $125 million in revenue last year.

The Nets $212 million.

 

[Morozov]

I guess we think of stars differently. If you're asking me if I'd build a team around him I'd say no in a heartbeat as opposed to a guy like Westbrook or Durant, LeBron, Curry, Wall, Davis for example.

Anybody with a clue would build a team with these guys over Melo. That doesn't negate the fact that Melo is a star.

Being a star isn't all about talent either, the media plays a huge part in creating stars.

Over the past decade I doubt there's more than five guys who have sold more jerseys than Melo.

People like scoring, Melo has been one of the premier scoring talents in the league for over a decade. Melo averages 25 per game over his career, how many others have done that? how many players in the NBA do you think are better scorers than Melo? don't bother responding about his other attributes, strictly scoring, how many players do you think are better scorers than Melo?

 

[Morozov]

I think you do but I was just trying to make a case for an example where maybe losing that type of player isn't that big a difference. Granted Rose can't stay healthy so I guess that's a part of it but he seems like a shell of his former self when he plays. The East isn't so good so they could make the Conference Finals which would be as far as they got when he was at his best.

So you need one of these guys, but it doesn't make that big of a difference if you lose one.

Doesn't add up sorry.

There's not really any doubt that the Bulls would be a bigger threat to the title with MVP Rose on the team. Saying that's as far as they got when he was at his best isn't very fair given that window (e.g. the MVP Rose window) was obviously shut down very prematurely, so we will never know what they could have achieved further on, but what you are saying implies that was their ceiling. Again, only one team can win it all each year, that's as far as OKC have got and they have two top 5 talents in the league.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Anybody with a clue would build a team with these guys over Melo. That doesn't negate the fact that Melo is a star.

Being a star isn't all about talent either, the media plays a huge part in creating stars.

Over the past decade I doubt there's more than five guys who have sold more jerseys than Melo.

People like scoring, Melo has been one of the premier scoring talents in the league for over a decade. Melo averages 25 per game over his career, how many others have done that? how many players in the NBA do you think are better scorers than Melo? don't bother responding about his other attributes, strictly scoring, how many players do you think are better scorers than Melo?

Splash brothers obviously. LeBron can be at times. Westbrook. Durant maybe.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

So you need one of these guys, but it doesn't make that big of a difference if you lose one.

Doesn't add up sorry.

There's not really any doubt that the Bulls would be a bigger threat to the title with MVP Rose on the team. Saying that's as far as they got when he was at his best isn't very fair given that window (e.g. the MVP Rose window) was obviously shut down very prematurely, so we will never know what they could have achieved further on, but what you are saying implies that was their ceiling. Again, only one team can win it all each year, that's as far as OKC have got and they have two top 5 talents in the league.

Well the bulls didn't reach a final even. They hit their peak with rose a few years back. He's older now and crippled and seems not to give much of a **** or so his words would lead one to believe. OKC also plays in the West and has to deal with the exception SA. They made it and lost to? Miami...the "big 3" after Miami lost the year before. Now that GS is what they are its even harder. OKC may have missed their window. Durant may leave. The East though isn't as good. You have Cleveland with LBJ. They could easily be #2 though that doesn't necessarily say much given how at their best Cleveland has to be a clear front runner.

 

[Morozov]

Splash brothers obviously. LeBron can be at times. Westbrook. Durant maybe.

So now Klay is obviously a better scorer than the guy with the 12th highest PPG in NBA history.

Right.

Guy has averaged over 20 once in his career, Melo has done that every one of his 13 years.

 

[Morozov]

Well the bulls didn't reach a final even. They hit their peak with rose a few years back. He's older now and crippled and seems not to give much of a **** or so his words would lead one to believe. OKC also plays in the West and has to deal with the exception SA. They made it and lost to? Miami...the "big 3" after Miami lost the year before. Now that GS is what they are its even harder. OKC may have missed their window. Durant may leave. The East though isn't as good. You have Cleveland with LBJ. They could easily be #2 though that doesn't necessarily say much given how at their best Cleveland has to be a clear front runner.

They only hit their peak because Rose was cut down which is what I said. We have no way of knowing what the Bulls could have done had Rose not been hurt.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

They only hit their peak because Rose was cut down which is what I said. We have no way of knowing what the Bulls could have done had Rose not been hurt.

Well we likely do. When is the last time a LBJ team didn't make the Finals? Only time they maybe beat his team is last year I'd think.

There in lies another problem with the NBA. Since the Bulls run how many winners have they had? Bulls, lakers and Spurs all have had 4+. That's 3 teams since the early 90s right there. You have Boston with one. Miami with 3 I believe. The Rockets had 2. The Pistons snuck one in and before the Bulls it was the Pistons and Lakers and before that the Celtics. I mean we had Golden State last year. The Mavs a few years back. But over like a 30 year period? You've had 9 teams win a title and all but one has been 2 or more. That's not really good for the league. Granted the Lakers and spurs kind of intertwined and all throwing punches at each other.

 

[Morozov]

Well we likely do. When is the last time a LBJ team didn't make the Finals? Only time they maybe beat his team is last year I'd think.

There in lies another problem with the NBA. Since the Bulls run how many winners have they had? Bulls, lakers and Spurs all have had 4+. That's 3 teams since the early 90s right there. You have Boston with one. Miami with 3 I believe. The Rockets had 2. The Pistons snuck one in and before the Bulls it was the Pistons and Lakers and before that the Celtics. I mean we had Golden State last year. The Mavs a few years back. But over like a 30 year period? You've had 9 teams win a title and all but one has been 2 or more. That's not really good for the league. Granted the Lakers and spurs kind of intertwined and all throwing punches at each other.

We don't because neither of us have a crystal ball to predict what would have happened.

You can say it's a problem, but the league seems to be coping despite the "trouble" you think they are facing with your "too lazy to look" comments. Ultimately, these aren't problems so much as your issues. I'm sure the NBA will continue to cope just fine without your viewing.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

We don't because neither of us have a crystal ball to predict what would have happened.

You can say it's a problem, but the league seems to be coping despite the "trouble" you think they are facing with your "too lazy to look" comments. Ultimately, these aren't problems so much as your issues. I'm sure the NBA will continue to cope just fine without your viewing.

The NBA only has a following because.....basketball. Its the easiest sport to play in terms of everyone no matter their socioeconomic situation can play. Its full of guys who grew up in the ghetto and bad situations so its relatable. The crowd for the NBA is a certain breed. It is mostly watched by younger people. Once upon a time it was liked by older white males. I loved the NBA in the 90s even though I hated the bulls. There were intense games and rivalries. Knicks and pacers was awesome for one. There's nothing close to that now.

 

[Morozov]

Oh yay it's another "the NBA ain't what it used to be" argument.

You'll be mentioning the Pistons shortly right?



Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

 

[tp71]

Did the bulls really get that much worse without rose? Its not like he's all that good anymore. Sure I guess their chances dropped but him being back doesn't make that big a difference. He's a shell of a player he was before he wrecked his knee.

Yes. They did.

 

[tp71]

The NBA only has a following because.....basketball. Its the easiest sport to play in terms of everyone no matter their socioeconomic situation can play. Its full of guys who grew up in the ghetto and bad situations so its relatable. The crowd for the NBA is a certain breed. It is mostly watched by younger people. Once upon a time it was liked by older white males. I loved the NBA in the 90s even though I hated the bulls. There were intense games and rivalries. Knicks and pacers was awesome for one. There's nothing close to that now.

Soccer is the easiest sport to play no matter of socioeconomic situation. You literally need a ball and two to four random objects to act as "goal posts". You don't need a basket on a long pole.

You grew up. Everything from your childhood is almost always seen as better. Rose coloured glasses. I loved Gilmour and Clark more than Leafs today...they were my idols. Things change. The rivalries seemed better too. Players retired, things changed.

It is mostly watched by younger people.

This is a good thing. You want these young people to grow up with the sport and introduce it to other young people to watch when they die. I know my fair share of old white guys who still enjoy the game.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Oh yay it's another "the NBA ain't what it used to be" argument.

You'll be mentioning the Pistons shortly right?



Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Hated them but the pistons are everything sports used to be and now they are not. You could even look at the NFL. Sports in general are becoming soft. Its almost like you're not allowed to try and play defense because somebody could get hurt. I'd say 99.9% of sports layers aren't out there to intentionally hurt anyone buy in a game things happen. I don't think tackling a guy trying to prevent him for a layup is trying to injure its just trying to play the game and not give up an easy hoop.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Soccer is the easiest sport to play no matter of socioeconomic situation. You literally need a ball and two to four random objects to act as "goal posts". You don't need a basket on a long pole.

You grew up. Everything from your childhood is almost always seen as better. Rose coloured glasses. I loved Gilmour and Clark more than Leafs today...they were my idols. Things change. The rivalries seemed better too. Players retired, things changed.



This is a good thing. You want these young people to grow up with the sport and introduce it to other young people to watch when they die. I know my fair share of old white guys who still enjoy the game.

You can use a garbage can for a basket but if you grow up in an inner city like Queens or something there's basketball courts all over. You can surely find a place to play...heck almost every school has a gym with a hoop.

 

[Morozov]

Hated them but the pistons are everything sports used to be and now they are not. You could even look at the NFL. Sports in general are becoming soft. Its almost like you're not allowed to try and play defense because somebody could get hurt. I'd say 99.9% of sports layers aren't out there to intentionally hurt anyone buy in a game things happen. I don't think tackling a guy trying to prevent him for a layup is trying to injure its just trying to play the game and not give up an easy hoop.

Everyone is already familiar with this argument, we've already gone over it in this very thread. It's boring.

Yes, sports are going softer. There's reasons for that. It isn't going to change.