|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Feb 2, 2016 23:14:26 GMT -5
I don't get the Silver likes. He banned Serling for PR reasons. Nothing about the NBA is better now than it was before. Sleeved jerseys are terrible, ads on uniforms is inevitable relegating the NBA to being the equivalent to my local rec league and the product as a whole is still the same as it was when Stern was there. You cannot possibly ignore the growth of the league internationally, the stability of the average viewer age compared to baseball and football (which are getting older and older), and the league blowing up on social media. They are destroying the NFL on YouTube, Twitter, etc. They connect better with a younger generation now than ever, and wildly more so than any other league. That trumps concerns about sleeved jerseys 1000 fold. Yet the game is bastardized with the concept of Big 3's. The league has grown internationally, but how much of that is international players making the jump and how much of that is Silver? Social Media is pretty inevitable. Ratings for the 2015 Finals was the highest, I will say that since 2000, so perhaps they are on the upswing, but when I see shit like ads on jerseys and the continued focus on the individual, I can't be optimistic on the NBA's future. I still think another basketball league could take its place.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 2, 2016 23:38:48 GMT -5
You cannot possibly ignore the growth of the league internationally, the stability of the average viewer age compared to baseball and football (which are getting older and older), and the league blowing up on social media. They are destroying the NFL on YouTube, Twitter, etc. They connect better with a younger generation now than ever, and wildly more so than any other league. That trumps concerns about sleeved jerseys 1000 fold. Yet the game is bastardized with the concept of Big 3's. The league has grown internationally, but how much of that is international players making the jump and how much of that is Silver? Social Media is pretty inevitable. Ratings for the 2015 Finals was the highest, I will say that since 2000, so perhaps they are on the upswing, but when I see shit like ads on jerseys and the continued focus on the individual, I can't be optimistic on the NBA's future. I still think another basketball league could take its place. Well, the league continues to grow in Asia despite having no real Asian stars. I HATE the big 3's and the discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots. But that's on the players, not Silver. It's very hard to legislate that out of the game. Especially when guys become free to bolt. You're crazy for downplaying social media as "inevitable". Yeah, it's the future and the present. That doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that the NBA is absolutely destroying every other league in terms of it's popularity on there. They have more Twitter followers than almost the NFL and the NHL combined. They have 22 million more subscribers on YouTube than the NFL, who has yet to break a million. They're all over Vine. The NBA is much, much more dialed in with the youth market than the NFL or any other league. To act like that isn't a big deal in terms of the stability going forward is insane. Some even project the NBA to leapfrog the NFL in popularity. These are high, high stakes. And the NBA is doing very, very well. As it stands now, no other basketball league could take it's place. You can say that's your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. They're a massively successful league on the RISE, and it would take an unfathomable amount of resources to even become a blip on their radar. This isn't WWE/TNA we're talking about. Comparatively, it's WWE and backyard organizations. The NBA is lightyears ahead of where a start-up basketball league would be.
|
|
MolotovMocktail
Grimlock
Home of the 5-time, 5-time, 5-time, 5-time 5-time Super Bowl Champion 49ers-and Wrestlemania 31
Posts: 13,937
|
Post by MolotovMocktail on Feb 3, 2016 1:41:45 GMT -5
1. Adam Silver. His first act as Commissioner was to ban Donald Sterling for life, and he's the only commissioner open to sports betting and working with the government and oddsmakers rather than keeping a blanket ban in place. 2. Rob Manfred. I'm judging him as an Oakland A's fan, but he seems much more committed to resolving the team's stadium issue than Selig who punted to a "blue ribbon committee" who after five years never spoke a word about their findings. I'll judge Manfred by whether Oakland still has a team by the end. 3. Roger Goodell. Presided over rule changes that killed the game while arguably doing nothing to make it safer. Has proven to be an empty suit in cases of player misconduct, DeflateGate being the most high-profile example. 4. Gary Bettman. The only reason Goodell is not in last. Three lockouts, one of which led to an entire season being canceled. Relocating from traditional hockey markets and into hockey wastelands, including through expansion. It seemed like hockey would do better in Milwaukee and in Canada than Atlanta and Florida, but what do I know? I really don't like your post because it makes me defend a couple of guys who I wish were broke. But Goodell and the NFL are trying to make the game safer. There's honestly very little argument against that. Yes, they have made rules that also favor QBs and WRs for their own personal gain under the guise of player safety. But something like trying to legislate the kickoff out of the game entirely because of the speed involved. I mean, those are special teams players. Bottom 1/3 of the roster guys who they are trying to avoid running into each other at high speeds. And I say that as someone who misses the kickoff, but it's 100% a sensible rule aimed at player safety. I would also venture to guess that there's less helmet-to-helmet hits and launching involved in tackling versus the early 00's. A lot of the relocating in the NHL had to do with the Canadian dollar weakening. There's no shortage of support in Canada for the product. Now, trying to expand to Florida and Atlanta and Phoenix especially was stupid, true. Though, Tampa has really caught on. But Quebec and Winnepeg couldn't really be helped at the time. The rules may seem sensible, but then this came out, showing that they had no impact, and things are getting worse: www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/29/464880358/nfl-report-concussion-diagnoses-increased-32-percentNot saying the rule changes are causing an increase, but they haven't had any impact on player safety, either. Tampa's a hot NHL market right now given the team made it to the Stanley Cup last year. I don't count on them drawing consistently through bad times.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 3, 2016 2:23:30 GMT -5
I really don't like your post because it makes me defend a couple of guys who I wish were broke. But Goodell and the NFL are trying to make the game safer. There's honestly very little argument against that. Yes, they have made rules that also favor QBs and WRs for their own personal gain under the guise of player safety. But something like trying to legislate the kickoff out of the game entirely because of the speed involved. I mean, those are special teams players. Bottom 1/3 of the roster guys who they are trying to avoid running into each other at high speeds. And I say that as someone who misses the kickoff, but it's 100% a sensible rule aimed at player safety. I would also venture to guess that there's less helmet-to-helmet hits and launching involved in tackling versus the early 00's. A lot of the relocating in the NHL had to do with the Canadian dollar weakening. There's no shortage of support in Canada for the product. Now, trying to expand to Florida and Atlanta and Phoenix especially was stupid, true. Though, Tampa has really caught on. But Quebec and Winnepeg couldn't really be helped at the time. The rules may seem sensible, but then this came out, showing that they had no impact, and things are getting worse: www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/29/464880358/nfl-report-concussion-diagnoses-increased-32-percentNot saying the rule changes are causing an increase, but they haven't had any impact on player safety, either. Tampa's a hot NHL market right now given the team made it to the Stanley Cup last year. I don't count on them drawing consistently through bad times. You can't point to a gross number of concussions and say there hasn't been an impact in player safety across the board, though. They've made strides in addressing the root causes, but there's obviously still more to be done. It's not a problem that's going to be solved quickly. Writing it off as a failure after last year is as irresponsible as declaring success after 2014 based off gross numbers. There's even a picture of Bridgewater in the article, whose concussion was caused by a forearm to the head. Launching, targeting, helmet-to-helmet were egregious errors in player safety, and there have been improvements in trying to eliminate them. And those efforts shouldn't be undercut in those trying to say those efforts don't exist. I mean, of ALL the times you could point to in terms of the NFL not caring about concussions, probably any of them would be better than present day. Tampa has been top 10 in attendance the last 4 years. This isn't some spike caused by making the Cup last year. They're a good hockey market. Ask any of the other hockey fans here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 18:44:01 GMT -5
Yet the game is bastardized with the concept of Big 3's. The league has grown internationally, but how much of that is international players making the jump and how much of that is Silver? Social Media is pretty inevitable. Ratings for the 2015 Finals was the highest, I will say that since 2000, so perhaps they are on the upswing, but when I see shit like ads on jerseys and the continued focus on the individual, I can't be optimistic on the NBA's future. I still think another basketball league could take its place. Well, the league continues to grow in Asia despite having no real Asian stars. I HATE the big 3's and the discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots. But that's on the players, not Silver. It's very hard to legislate that out of the game. Especially when guys become free to bolt. You're crazy for downplaying social media as "inevitable". Yeah, it's the future and the present. That doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that the NBA is absolutely destroying every other league in terms of it's popularity on there. They have more Twitter followers than almost the NFL and the NHL combined. They have 22 million more subscribers on YouTube than the NFL, who has yet to break a million. They're all over Vine. The NBA is much, much more dialed in with the youth market than the NFL or any other league. To act like that isn't a big deal in terms of the stability going forward is insane. Some even project the NBA to leapfrog the NFL in popularity. These are high, high stakes. And the NBA is doing very, very well. As it stands now, no other basketball league could take it's place. You can say that's your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. They're a massively successful league on the RISE, and it would take an unfathomable amount of resources to even become a blip on their radar. This isn't WWE/TNA we're talking about. Comparatively, it's WWE and backyard organizations. The NBA is lightyears ahead of where a start-up basketball league would be. The NBA has always been a player-driven league, even in the early days (Mikan vs. Knicks, anyone?), so it's always gonna be that problem where you do have a massive gap between the haves (usually big market teams or teams in "sexy" markets) which can get star talent without trying and the have-nots (everybody else, like Indiana, Utah, and Portland) that need drafting and shrewd free agent signings to compete against the 4 or 5 teams that have a legit shot at the NBA Finals. I mean, the NBA has also been able to build up their developmental league. At the beginning, it was a few teams in the southeast that all had color-coded versions of the D-League logo to differentiate themselves, but through CBA and ABA abandonments and further investment into the product, the NBA has began to foster more and more. They're not gonna overtake the NFL overnight, but within a decade or so, likely the NFL is going to suffer a few setbacks in popularity, what with the concussion/CTE issues and the league's desire to (God forbid) put a team in London. The fact that the NFL would rather waste a team spot (which, realistically, would be transplanting a below average team, like the Jaguars) in London than, say, revive NFL Europa and use that as a developmental league as well as an ambassadory program shows how bad their priorities are. Again, you may say that Sterling being fired was purely a PR move, but David Stern turned a blind eye to the guy's history of bigotry, misogyny, and the fact that he was a slum lord who proved that you CAN buy humanitarian awards all because Sterling was rich and had the firepower to destroy anybody foolish enough to accuse him, however justified they were. All it took was a slip (you may cite invasion of privacy, but he had it coming) of Sterling to show the real him and that was all you needed to justify what a rotten human being he was, and the fact that Silver took the hammer down and single-handed destroyed Sterling and removed a notorious headache from your league. Most of the other leagues tend to look the other way with incompetent or sleazy owners (Jeffery Loria, Dan Snyder, Mike Brown, and, even though MLS isn't part of the discussion, Andrew Hauptman) because they own their teams and they don't want to wrangle them, so the fact that Silver was willing to do that alone has justified him as my favorite of the GMs.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 3, 2016 18:58:59 GMT -5
Firstly, the teams you mentioned were all viable contenders in the 90's. They all had stars and made the Finals. The problem in today's NBA are trying to deter "super teams" without seeming to directly influence open free agency. And also try to take on the hugs problem that shoe contracts are dwarfing professional salaries to the elite players, pushing them to bigger media markets for exposure and changing the landscape of pro basketball in the process. It's a tough situation, but outside of that, they are killing it right now.
The NFL will face a decline in popularity IMO, much the same way baseball has. The necessary changes to make it safer also make it a less entertaining impact sport, and the real test is in 10 years when these parents have told their kids that they can't play, what type of player pool will we have then?
The NFL Europe point is pretty wrong though, as that was a tremendous failure. You shouldn't suggest them going back to something that didn't make money for a very long time. That's not a model for success.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 19:11:00 GMT -5
Firstly, the teams you mentioned were all viable contenders in the 90's. They all had stars and made the Finals. The problem in today's NBA are trying to deter "super teams" without seeming to directly influence open free agency. And also try to take on the hugs problem that shoe contracts are dwarfing professional salaries to the elite players, pushing them to bigger media markets for exposure and changing the landscape of pro basketball in the process. It's a tough situation, but outside of that, they are killing it right now. The NFL will face a decline in popularity IMO, much the same way baseball has. The necessary changes to make it safer also make it a less entertaining impact sport, and the real test is in 10 years when these parents have told their kids that they can't play, what type of player pool will we have then? The NFL Europe point is pretty wrong though, as that was a tremendous failure. You shouldn't suggest them going back to something that didn't make money for a very long time. That's not a model for success. The teams I mentioned were, yes, but the 1990s are a distant past now and, right now, they are in the "have nots" spot because today's players want to either play in teams that have a shot at winning or are in a hot market where they get media attention. If you have neither, enjoy the media not mentioning you. NFL Europa was a tremendous failure because the NFL didn't give a shit about it; they just inherited the remains of a failed league and treated it as a novelty. That's why, at the very end, it basically was "NFL Deutschland" with token Netherlands franchise being the diverse member. I'm just saying if the NFL wants to have an influence in Europe so badly, why risk bringing the whole league down by putting a team in London when you can put more effort into reinvigorating a viable opportunity to create additional revenue with London as your core market, especially as most of Europe is becoming more and more unified. Just because it failed then doesn't mean it'll fail again. I will always consider an NFL team in London a nightmare scenario and will always push NFL Europa as the alternative. Plus, it could help with two things that could help in the long term; a chance to develop and find new talent and provide spring football to give fans something to do after the Super Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 4, 2016 0:08:53 GMT -5
Firstly, the teams you mentioned were all viable contenders in the 90's. They all had stars and made the Finals. The problem in today's NBA are trying to deter "super teams" without seeming to directly influence open free agency. And also try to take on the hugs problem that shoe contracts are dwarfing professional salaries to the elite players, pushing them to bigger media markets for exposure and changing the landscape of pro basketball in the process. It's a tough situation, but outside of that, they are killing it right now. The NFL will face a decline in popularity IMO, much the same way baseball has. The necessary changes to make it safer also make it a less entertaining impact sport, and the real test is in 10 years when these parents have told their kids that they can't play, what type of player pool will we have then? The NFL Europe point is pretty wrong though, as that was a tremendous failure. You shouldn't suggest them going back to something that didn't make money for a very long time. That's not a model for success. The teams I mentioned were, yes, but the 1990s are a distant past now and, right now, they are in the "have nots" spot because today's players want to either play in teams that have a shot at winning or are in a hot market where they get media attention. If you have neither, enjoy the media not mentioning you. NFL Europa was a tremendous failure because the NFL didn't give a shit about it; they just inherited the remains of a failed league and treated it as a novelty. That's why, at the very end, it basically was "NFL Deutschland" with token Netherlands franchise being the diverse member. I'm just saying if the NFL wants to have an influence in Europe so badly, why risk bringing the whole league down by putting a team in London when you can put more effort into reinvigorating a viable opportunity to create additional revenue with London as your core market, especially as most of Europe is becoming more and more unified. Just because it failed then doesn't mean it'll fail again. I will always consider an NFL team in London a nightmare scenario and will always push NFL Europa as the alternative. Plus, it could help with two things that could help in the long term; a chance to develop and find new talent and provide spring football to give fans something to do after the Super Bowl. The main point I was arguing was that you said the NBA always has been a league with a big gap between the haves and the have-nots, but the 90's had a lot of stars across the board. Seattle had some big years, Orlando, Houston won, the Suns put out some good teams, Indiana was always neck and neck with NY, Utah was great, Portland. Tons of smaller market teams achieved some modicum of success and had something to be excited about. They need to find a way to even the playing field again, but it's a very uphill battle at this point. On NFL Europe, it was in the red for 15 years. You can't easily argue it's a "viable opportunity". The NFL has a developmental league. It's the NCAA. It's the arguably the best developmental league in sports in the pro-ready guys it produces and it doesn't cost them a dime. NFL Europe cost them plenty, and no one is going to sink MORE money in AGAIN in hopes that it somehow turns around big time. The NFL wants that London market, but it doesn't really want to bother sinking money in to feed smaller European markets. As it is, the players who fail to make the NFL usually go to the CFL, and that hasn't produced many NFL players. So I can see the logic being that there isn't a huge need for another developmental system.
|
|