March 5, 201015 yr John Amaechi! Yeah and all ya'll Cleveland haters better pipe down or we'll send Delonte on his three-wheeler to take out all your Cyclones.
March 6, 201015 yr I think just about every market that has an NBA team (just about every major media market) would be "the exception, rather than the rule".... if there even is a rule. College B-ball used to be great. It is still good, but terribly watered down by one yr rentals and other early departures to the NBA. You can't convince me that college really "competes" (takes fans away from) the NBA in any of the top 20 media markets such as NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Orlando, Atlanta, Cleveland. Once you move into the 20-40 range in media markets, you might run into some real competition like Cincy, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, etc., but with the exception of Charlotte, none of those cities have NBA teams. Oh you absolutely do see college basketball teams drawing NBA fans away. Indiana Hoosiers are immensely more popular than the Pacers, Georgetown is DC's team- not the Wizards, Duke/Carolina are more popular than the Bobcats, U of F steals fans from Orlando, etc. It happens all over, and especially when looking at satelite fan branches. Pro hockey might draw fans regionally since college hockey isn't much of a big deal, but it's harder to find outposts of fans for NBA teams besides in the immediate city the team is in.
March 6, 201015 yr ^ There definitely are some large markets where college b-ball rules. NC's big two, Cincy, Ky's big cities, maybe Pitt and maybe Conn. But that seems to be more the exception. Look at Columbus. It has a top 10 college team that doesn't sell out the arena. But a lot of people from Columbus come up for the Cavs games. I highly doubt that sellouts in Orlando have anything to do with the Gators. And same with DC. But regardless, the NBA has a global market. It is popular on nearly every continent. Certainly North America, Europe and Asia. So any 'sapping' effect college basketball might have is really not much of an effect at all.
March 6, 201015 yr I've been listening to a lot of NBA talk mostly coming out of the DC radio market and national press and all they talk about is how bad a shape the NBA is in. How many teams are essentially bankrupt, how they could very well lose another season to a strike, and so on.
March 6, 201015 yr I actually hope one day that the NHL is in CLE. Just a random thought...but CLE is far better for hockey than most any city below the Mason-Dixon.
March 6, 201015 yr I've been listening to a lot of NBA talk mostly coming out of the DC radio market and national press and all they talk about is how bad a shape the NBA is in. How many teams are essentially bankrupt, how they could very well lose another season to a strike, and so on. In DC? I wonder why the NBA has a bad rap in DC right now? But there definitely are some issues being discussed in the national press right now. That's partly just posturing for what is looking like some ugly labor negotiations after next season. As I stated above, the players' contract levels have to be controlled somehow. For instance, Detroit just this past summer committed close to $100 million on two players that are coming off their bench right now and both making around 10 mill per year. Marcin Gortat gets close to 7 mill per year to back up D Howard. Andy Varejao gets 8 mill per and is worth every penny of it when you consider the market rate. The NFL is much, much better at controlling the free agent market from running amuck. The NBA should look into something like the NFL has where signing "tendered" players means surrending draft picks.
March 6, 201015 yr Here is a quote from that forum link that pretty much says it all. Attendance is not a strong indicator of league success in the era of HDTVs. "There's a very simple reason that attendance has declined in the NBA, and it has nothing to do with the sport's fans losing interest. It's because the NBA is available on a wide variety of television networks that people have actually heard of and have access to. The NBA is on ESPN Wednesdays and Fridays, TNT on Thursdays, and on ABC every Sunday beginning in January. Oh, and the late stages of the playoffs and Finals are also nationally televised on ABC. The NHL? They have that big network contract with ... Versus, which can be found on channel five-hundred-and-something on your local cable or satellite provider. Maybe." Horrible argument ... here's why: If the NBA was and always has been superior, of course it's going to be covered more! If the NHL has always been inferior (as far as popularity) but is on the rise, then we'll will see sports networks start to pick it up as it wasn't always popular but is starting to (which we're going to and are starting to see). Simple logic folks. I don't get what you are arguing. You're saying that the NBA is more popular and is on more networks? Thats what I'm saying. Sure the NHL is growing. It has to grow, it was almost non-existent 3 years ago (or whenever the lockout was). Here's why the attendance is dropping in the NBA: Its expensive and its easy to watch on TV, so more people stay home. But its still has LOTS of fans. Here's why the NHL attendance is rising: It was at rock bottom a few years ago, and it has a smaller number (compared to the NBA) of very loyal fans. Its hard to watch on TV, so people go to the games. But the TV viewership is very small compared to the NBA. So - NHL(attendance + TV viewership) <<<<< NBA(attendance + TV viewership)
March 6, 201015 yr It is telling that after last sunday's olympic hockey game that all the radio and TV sportscasters were asking if the NHL would see a rise in popularity because of the US-Canada gold medal game. That question doesn't get asked if the perception exists that the NHL is doing well. This comment is not brought up if the NHL was and is a dominating sport. If it's a sport that wasn't every considered a contender, but is gaining momentum, yes. Folks, I've said it at least 3 or 4 times. No one on here or in the sports world is stating that hockey always was and is the dominating of the two, we're/I'm stating that the trend is starting to tip in favor of popularity between the NBA and NHL. If you're stating this is because of Network coverage, the NFL would be the least attended sport in the U.S. It's not, it is the single most attended game in the U.S. If your fan-base is so strong, you will see a packed house whether it's on TV or not. Every fan knows this. Cincinnatians get bashed on 700wlw for not attending the games like we should and rightfully so! See: Cardinals for strong fanbase/Televised games. Ticket cost is not the issue, because the two venues hold the EXACT same in occupancy. I repeat, the exact same. Is the puck easier to see over the basketball? Is it because it moves slower than the basketball? It's got to be the contrast of the white and black I guess... Who cares about seats?! That's not the point ... the point is that it will cost you more to get into the game. So has the price of tickets gone up, even past inflation? Why is attendance DROPPING? Were seats in the past much more affordable? The NHL stint argument doesn't hold up either because the trend goes back further than that and the NBA attendance was also dropping before that as well. See chart on post #1.
March 6, 201015 yr There may be a "trend".... but the NBA is in no danger of being eclipsed by a sport that has to allow its players to engage in street fights on the ice to maintain fan support. The gap is significant here in the States and overseas. Canada might be the exception. So has the price of tickets gone up, even past inflation? Why is attendance DROPPING? Were seats in the past much more affordable? It's called a recession. And, yes, the price of a ticket has gone up. Also, a lot of teams have simply given up until after the summer of 2010 in an attempt to clear cap space. The teams who are trying to be competitive (with the exception of dismal pro sports towns like Charlotte) are doing quite well. The Cavs are getting hammered by the luxury tax but are still profitable. It's a spend money to make money climate and a lot of owners are not getting that.
March 6, 201015 yr Whereas the NBA has to have players try to duel each other in the locker room to keep the fans coming.
March 6, 201015 yr I pick up the sarcasm, but that is exactly why your view from DC is tainted somewhat. The Wizards have not had any playoff success in more than a decade. Their best player is a knucklehead who got suspended for the year and has injury issues anyways. They traded away their next best 3 players for little more than cap relief so they could avoid the luxury tax and to try to create cap space to make a run at some the free agents this summer. They folded the tent... mailed it in... whatever you want to call it. The Knicks did the same (about 3 years ago) and Philly and Phoenix were seriously considering dumping salary at the trade deadline. Hell, even the Lakers have been trying to control costs and are riding a thin bench because of that. That is why something needs to be done to control this free agency craze. It usually just ends up being overpaid 2nd tier players that these teams that dump salary get anyway. While the gun incident turned off the fans, I'm not so sure the NBA being more lenient on its no fighting rules would do the same. Some fans would certainly be more entertained. But the NBA doesn't have to do that to maintain fan interest and that is my point. Hockey needs that angle to even be in the same conversation.
March 7, 201015 yr Also, I just typed in a Google search: "Highest attendance NHL game". The internet countered with, "Did you mean 'highest attendance NFL game?'"
March 15, 201015 yr Really, i think a lot of this comes down to the media contract. Not just because of where the games are, but because of the coverage that comes from it. ESPN doesn't give a damn about the NHL because they don't have any stake in the content. The NHL is stuck on Vs. and NBC which is the worst sports channel in the world.
March 15, 201015 yr ESPN doesn't give a damn about the NHL because of the money it would lose by airing the NHL instead of NBA games. It isn't about personal preference for anyone at ESPN. It's a business decision.
March 15, 201015 yr The choice was the NHL's not ESPN's at the last contract time. Versus offered more money and a less busy schedule. ESPN had covered the NHL for quite a number of years quite extensively.
March 15, 201015 yr ESPN could have topped Versus' offer. It didn't. The Versus contract for the NHL was $70 mill per year IIRC. The NBA pulls in 10x that in TV deals. Nuff said. It's as simple as this: NBA > NHL in the USA and most every other country. When it comes to the global market, NBA > MLB and NFL - http://www.sportingo.com/all-sports/a11587_worlds-top-most-popular-team-sports NHL > NBA in Canada and, apparently, Cincy.
March 15, 201015 yr Curling vs. NBA Curling is growing in popularity. NBA has seen a slight decline in attendance. The NBA is on ESPN and curling isn't. If curling were on ESPN then it would be just as popular, if not more, than the NBA.
March 15, 201015 yr According to the site I linked to above, the more fair fight would be between Field Hockey and Ice Hockey... with Field Hockey winning out on the global stage :laugh:
March 15, 201015 yr NHL > NBA in Canada and, apparently, Cincy. One poster doesn't equal all of Cincinnati. I would say the attachment to the NBA is less in Cincinnati than elsewhere because we don't have a team, but I don't see a ton of interest in the NHL either. I would definitely say the NBA is much, much more popular just because basketball is a more popular sport than hockey. I would say, however, that college basketball is more popular than the NBA in Cincinnati just because we have 2 teams, and no NBA team. If we were ever to get an NBA team, it would probably be more of a split like it is with the Bengals and UC football.
March 15, 201015 yr Do the Bengals seriously "split" with UC Football? I don't get the feeling at all that NEO's loyalty to the Buckeyes diminishes in any way the support for the Browns. Not even in the least bit.... even with a ton of fans driving down to c-bus every weekend for the games. I can understand places like Cincy, all of Kentucky, Kansas, and NC all have allegience to college b-ball, but does that allegience really equal a diminished interest in the NBA. If anything, I would think it would make it more interesting to watch. My brother-in-law went to Marquette and, for that reason alone, is a huge Miami Heat fan. Otherwise, he might not watch the NBA at all.
March 15, 201015 yr NHL > NBA in Canada and, apparently, Cincy. One poster doesn't equal all of Cincinnati. I would say the attachment to the NBA is less in Cincinnati than elsewhere because we don't have a team, but I don't see a ton of interest in the NHL either. I would definitely say the NBA is much, much more popular just because basketball is a more popular sport than hockey. I would say, however, that college basketball is more popular than the NBA in Cincinnati just because we have 2 teams, and no NBA team. If we were ever to get an NBA team, it would probably be more of a split like it is with the Bengals and UC football. I'm surprised that people would say that college and pro football compete. They never play at the same time. I could see how college and pro basketball could compete because of overlapping schedules. It also surprises me that UC football would be so popular. It is sort of a johnny-come-lately. Is this because the Bengals had so many bad years and lost fan base?
March 15, 201015 yr Do the Bengals seriously "split" with UC Football? I don't get the feeling at all that NEO's loyalty to the Buckeyes diminishes in any way the support for the Browns. Not even in the least bit.... even with a ton of fans driving down to c-bus every weekend for the games. I can understand places like Cincy, all of Kentucky, Kansas, and NC all have allegience to college b-ball, but does that allegience really equal a diminished interest in the NBA. If anything, I would think it would make it more interesting to watch. My brother-in-law went to Marquette and, for that reason alone, is a huge Miami Heat fan. Otherwise, he might not watch the NBA at all. Memphis has this issue. The U of M is wildly popular in Memphis and the Grizzlies (cmon, change that name) are not as popular. It is partially due to the fact that the Grizzlies have been pretty pathetic ever since moving to town and UM has usually been pretty good. I don't live there anymore, so I'm curious how the Calipari departure has affected things.
March 15, 201015 yr Curling vs. NBA Curling is growing in popularity. NBA has seen a slight decline in attendance. The NBA is on ESPN and curling isn't. If curling were on ESPN then it would be just as popular, if not more, than the NBA. growing in popularity? huh? its always been popular at bg. bg = curling capital of ohio. :laugh:
March 15, 201015 yr ^^ I can see the Memphis argument, but don't you think that is 'the exception' as opposed to 'the rule'? Not exactly a traditional pro sports town. That is why I specifically listed Charlotte as a City where college bball legitimately competes with the NBA. It is tradition down there. But besides Charlotte and Memphis, I can't think of any NBA team that has anything to worry about competition-wise from the college game. LA, Atlanta, Philly and DC all have significant college hoops presences, but each of those markets is plenty big enough to support both the college and pro game.
March 15, 201015 yr Do the Bengals seriously "split" with UC Football? I don't get the feeling at all that NEO's loyalty to the Buckeyes diminishes in any way the support for the Browns. Not even in the least bit.... even with a ton of fans driving down to c-bus every weekend for the games. if anything buckeye allegiance is split with notre dame in neo!
March 15, 201015 yr Split my half-irish arse. They just are a lot more up in your face about it.... Which reminds me of a joke - How can you tell if someone attended St. Ignatius?.... he will tell you :)
March 15, 201015 yr Do the Bengals seriously "split" with UC Football? I don't get the feeling at all that NEO's loyalty to the Buckeyes diminishes in any way the support for the Browns. Not even in the least bit.... even with a ton of fans driving down to c-bus every weekend for the games. I can understand places like Cincy, all of Kentucky, Kansas, and NC all have allegience to college b-ball, but does that allegience really equal a diminished interest in the NBA. If anything, I would think it would make it more interesting to watch. My brother-in-law went to Marquette and, for that reason alone, is a huge Miami Heat fan. Otherwise, he might not watch the NBA at all. Obviously the Bengals and UC Football don't split 50/50, but I would say (in recent years when UC has become good), that there has been a shift of focus to include UC more in the regional football discussion. It was previously all Bengals, with a slight attention paid to OSU. It doesn't mean that people like the Bengals less, it just dillutes the coverage, attention, etc. As far as the college players in the NBA, I would say that is definitely true for Cincinnati. I recently went to the Lakers/Nuggets game here in LA, and while I would have normally cheered for the Lakers, I wanted to see Kenyon Martin (UC alum) do well. I think a lot of people from Cincinnati tend to follow NBA teams that their favorite players from Xavier or UC are now on, which does two things for the NBA in Cincinnati. First it makes some people care about the NBA who otherwise wouldn't. And second, it makes for a fan base that doesn't have solid allegience to any one team. Cincinnati will never be solidly Cav's or Pacers territory (two closest teams), in part because of people following their favorite college players, and whatever team they are on. Personally I root for the Cavs because they're from Ohio, but I don't think many people feel an attachment to them as Cincy and Cleveland are too far apart (the Pistons and Bulls are about the same distance away). Although, for what it's worth, I have never met a Blue Jackets fan in Cincy lol.
March 16, 201015 yr Curling vs. NBA Curling is growing in popularity. NBA has seen a slight decline in attendance. The NBA is on ESPN and curling isn't. If curling were on ESPN then it would be just as popular, if not more, than the NBA. You know the NBA is in trouble when curling draws more in attendance than an NBA game. ;) ... again, I guess it's just better sportsmanship to watch the game these days on 1080p VS. going to an actual game.
March 16, 201015 yr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues You can also check out various attendance figures for each sport and team at ESPN http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance
March 16, 201015 yr Points to consider: * The correlation between revenue and attendance is quite weak.
March 16, 201015 yr The choice was the NHL's not ESPN's at the last contract time. Versus offered more money and a less busy schedule. ESPN had covered the NHL for quite a number of years quite extensively. I'm not arguing that, but since the contract isn't with ESPN they are not going to do a lot to promote it. Take a look at what ESPN used to be, it was like the CNN of sports where they would try and cover everything. Just like CNN (and all of the news) ESPN moved towards marketing their own products. Now you have tons of b-ball, New York, Boston and LA. I turned one ESPN the other day to see some coverage of the big ten tournament (i figured they'd have to have something on) and they had a fantasy baseball show on. I'm not naive, i understand that they're a business and they're just making business decisions, but the marketing and promotion of basketball (something Stern has done very well and Bettman has not) is a huge factor in the difference between basketball and hockey. We'll see what happens to the NBA if they have a labor dispute soon. Me? I'm a Red Wings fan and a Pistons fan (not so much this year)...but i like hockey better.
March 16, 201015 yr but the marketing and promotion of basketball (something Stern has done very well and Bettman has not) is a huge factor in the difference between basketball and hockey. I think it just has a lot more to do with the accessibility of basketball to the general public and the number of people that play it. Just look at the OHSAA ice hockey state tournament in high school. The largest crowd EVER for a state tournament game is just over 4,000, and there have only been 3 games with attendance marks over 3,100. Now look at how many fans high school state basketball tournament games draw. It's not even close (AVERAGE is around 15,000). Hockey just isn't even close to being as popular as basketball at any level in the US. That is the main reason the NBA is more popular than the NHL.
March 16, 201015 yr ^ its also the ease of play. Basketball = a hoop and a ball; Hockey = Ice, Skates, a stick and a puck. Much more difficult to find ice to play on and have all the equipment needed to play. Because of that interest will likely wane except for those that are truly vested. Look at all the most posular sports, ease to play is huge. Football = open feild and a ball; Soccer = Open field and a ball; Baseball = Bat (or something like one), open field and a ball (gloves are nice too).
March 16, 201015 yr Yeah, i made the point about how easy it was for the general public to play basketball, soccer, football, or baseball compared to hockey earlier. A lot of this almost sounds like people assume the NHL has always been a distant 4th behind the other 3 but it hasn't been.
March 17, 201015 yr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues You can also check out various attendance figures for each sport and team at ESPN http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance That's embarrassing when you consider how wide the gap was previously ... which brings me to post #1. What can the NBA and Stern do to re-capture basketball fans?
March 17, 201015 yr Those are just attendance at the arenas with most of them being 80% sold out and higher with the exception of the lowly nets who have only won 7 games and still sell 70% of their tickets. Also NBA Finals Draws More Than Twice the TV Viewers of NHL Final June 10 (Bloomberg) -- The National Basketball Association Finals drew more than twice the viewership of the National Hockey League Stanley Cup Final last night, according to Nielsen Co. Nielsen reported that 9.8 million U.S. households watched the Orlando Magic beat the Los Angeles Lakers, 108-104, on Walt Disney Co.’s ABC network, narrowing the Lakers’ lead in the best-of-seven series to two games to one. Meanwhile, 3.9 million U.S. households watched the Pittsburgh Penguins beat the Detroit Red Wings 2-1 to tie the best-of-seven series 3-3 in the Stanley Cup Final on General Electric Co.’s NBC network. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aPnc12x527gE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For 2009 NBA viewership up double-digits on ESPN. So far this season, ESPN has seen a solid bump in its NBA ratings. NBA games on ESPN are averaging a 1.2 U.S. rating (1.4 cable rating) and 1.7 million viewers, up 9% and 21% from a 1.1 (1.2 cable) and 1.4 million viewers through the same point last season. Last Friday's Celtics/Cavaliers game drew 2.6 million viewers on ESPN, making it the second-most viewed NBA game of the season on the network. http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/nba-viewership-up-double-digits-on-espn.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NBA on TNT up 36% in viewership The 2009-10 NBA season is off to a strong start on TNT. Through 8 games, TNT is averaging a 1.6 U.S. rating and 2.4 million viewers for NBA coverage, up 33% and 36%, respectively, from a 1.2 and 1.7 million through the same point last year. TNT opened the season with its most-viewed NBA doubleheader in 13 years (an average of 3.7 million viewers for Cavaliers/Celtics and Clippers/Lakers). Over the last two weeks, the net has followed up that strong performance with more solid numbers -- including 2.4 million viewers for Bulls/Cavaliers on November 5, and 2.6 million for Cavaliers/Heat last Thursday. http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/nba-on-tnt-up-36-in-viewership.html Seems like the NBA is doing just fine reaching out to the fans and getting their attention.
Create an account or sign in to comment