O.C.D

Members
  • Content count

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

About O.C.D

  • Birthday 10/29/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Mississippi

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

3,154 profile views
  1. Time to rebrand the Panthers?

    I disagree with almost every point you've made. The brand has more value than one that doesn't exist yet, they've been to the super bowl twice. The logo is iconic. The color scheme is beautiful and unique. If they can manage not to make them worse, a uni change might not be bad. They should leave the statue. The guy is the reason that state has a team. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't beat anyone. He didn't rape anyone. He spoke inappropriately with some women, touched one inappropriately, and used a racial slur against a former scout. He shouldn't have his connection to the team he founded erased.
  2. Players in the "wrong" uniforms

    I got to see him when he was on the Twins vs the Angels. He was David Ortiz by that time though. I wonder how many guys in the MLB aren't really named what they're called.
  3. NBA Changes 2017-18

    I'm kind of surprised another team hasn't picked up the red-black-gold- color scheme since the Sixers dropped it.
  4. NBA Changes 2017-18

    it's all about $$$
  5. College Football Uniforms - 2017 Season

    I feel you on everything but those sleeves.
  6. MLB Changes 2017

    1st paragraph- this idea is factually wrong. Not everything that a for profit entity does is solely about money. 2nd paragraph -not necessarily. Philanthropy exists in media production, as well as people making something for the love of the message or the art. 3rd paragraph- Agreed.
  7. Indiana Pacers New Uniforms, Alternate Logos

    These look so bad. Everything about these uniforms are a downgrade from what they had. This is the worst set in team history, easily
  8. Indiana Pacers New Uniforms, Alternate Logos

    Wow, that's bad. The uniforms I mean.
  9. [Insert player name here] joins the Lakers!

    Fair enough :-)
  10. [Insert player name here] joins the Lakers!

    Jordan is an entity in and of himself. Absolutely no other person or team can compete with Jordan as far as historical ratings or international appeal. He transcended the sport. But he's also not in the league as a player anymore so his presence doesn't effect the ratings. My statement was in reference to the Lakers, compared to other teams, being the biggest brand in the NBA. Me saying the Lakers are the biggest brand in the NBA was me responding to the question of by what measurable metric do the Lakers being good make the NBA better.
  11. [Insert player name here] joins the Lakers!

    I took your advice, and here's what I found: Purple=Lakers, Red=Jordan, Green= Super team Era. The ratings have trended downward since Jordan stopped going to the finals. Jordan's popularity transcended the NBA. He was a world-wide cultural phenomenon and I don't think it's fair to compare any other NBA player or team to Jordan in terms of ratings and media attention to the NBA. That being said, the Lakers (and Celtics) drew the highest ratings ever (pre-Jordan) and set the table for what Jordan was able to do going forward. The Lakers were a very large part of the NBA's high ratings and overall jump in popularity. You could debate how important the Lakers being involved was, but I don't think it should be understated. Post Jordan, the ratings fell below what they were before the Lakers-Celtics era. The lock-out contributed, as well the Jordan bubble burst (no Jordan = a large amount of fans not watching anymore). As soon as the Lakers come back into the championship picture, the ratings go up two consecutive years. 2002 went down (maybe people were bored with the Lakers winning, maybe they didn't think it would be a competitive series with the Nets, or maybe complacent Lakers fans thought winning was an after thought and didn't watch) Post Lakers 3-peat, the rating hit an all time low. The ratings shot right back up with the Lakers in the finals the next year (Malone, Payton, Kobe, Shaq proto-super team). The next 3 years, the ratings fell below what they had been with the Lakers recent involvement. The 3 years after that, involving the Lakers, saw an increase in ratings, with a slight dip in the middle. Enter, the super team era. Lebron goes to Miami. The ratings dip, but only slightly. Then, the last 3 season with Golden State. 1st two seasons drew slightly worse rating than the 1st two seasons of the Shaq-Kobe 3 peat. Average viewership was higher for Golden State's 3 year run. From what I can see, when the Lakers are good the ratings go up. I am legitimately perplexed how you could say "But they're a long way from being the "biggest brand in the NBA'". A long way? You think there are multiple teams in the NBA that are a bigger world-wide brand than the Lakers? IMO, I think you might be letting your personal feelings about the Lakers cloud your judgement in regards to where you place them as far as brand power in the NBA. The Celtics are a big brand, but I wouldn't even say they're the biggest brand in the Eastern Conference. The Lakers are hands down the biggest brand in the Western Conference, and I don't think any other team in the east comes close. The Celtics had Larry, the Lakers have had Kobe, Shaq, Magic and Kareem. The fact that the Lakers have had so many all time greats, basically 4 of the top 20 best NBA players of all time, fairly recent, puts them at another level of recognition as a brand. As far as the Knicks go, I completely agree. The NBA would be better if the Knicks could get it together and be good. If the Knicks and the Lakers are good at the same time, the NBA is much better. If you're saying that the Knicks being good would make a bigger separate impact on the NBA than the Lakers being good, I think that's debatable but worth the conversation.
  12. [Insert player name here] joins the Lakers!

    The NFL is a different animal compared to the NBA. Fantasy football and a smaller amount of games overall ensure almost every NFL game is highly rated. That being said, the Cowboys being good give the NFL higher ratings and more all around attention for the league. You might not have missed them, and that's valid, but that doesn't change the fact that when the Cowboys are good the league ratings go up. The Yankees and Lakers comparison is more apples to apples. There is no question that when the Yankees are relevant it increases baseball's ratings and overall attention for the league. With the illustrious history both of those teams have, coupled with the fact that they represent the 1st and 2nd largest media markets respectively, you can't ignore the fact that when those teams are doing well more people watch games and more people pay attention to the leagues they play in.This isn't me trying to justify nostalgia for a bygone era, all three of the teams we're discussing are the most polarising teams in their leagues. You either love them or hate them and they move the needle more than any other teams. Compare the Lakers to Golden State. Golden State is killing it right now, they are monsters. 2 tittles in 3 years, best roster by far. ESPN has been almost non stop covering Lonzo Ball and the Lakers in the off season this year. People were watching summer league games in prime time because the Lakers even potentially being good again is a story that people will watch. The summer league ratings are up 50% from last year the and the arena was drawing thousands per night. Those numbers are up because the Lakers are relevant right now. The league is better when the Lakers are good.
  13. [Insert player name here] joins the Lakers!

    Television ratings and general media attention. The Lakers are the biggest brand in the NBA and attract more attention than any other franchise. If you're the NBA you want as much positive attention and eye balls on your product as possible, a relevant Lakers team does that better than any other team.
  14. [Insert player name here] joins the Lakers!

    The league is better when the Lakers are good