B-Rich

Warriors to Keep Golden State Name Despite 2019 Move to San Francisco

Recommended Posts

You have to be careful with local ratings in NYC. The Devils and Islanders have low ratings, but due to market size still pick up more eyeballs than teams in smaller media markets. Maybe that's the same for the Nets, but LOL if they're still crappy relative to other markets. It's what they deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Barclays moves for the Nets and Isles have both been underwhelming in ticket sales, but the Nets were worse off pre-move. Maybe perception is skewed because of all the hats they sold that first year. If memory serves the Nets drew terribly (like below even the worst Isles seasons) in their Uniondale years, but I'm not sure how to tell if that would be radically different today/how much was a relic of the NBA not being that popular in the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, the admiral said:

You have to be careful with local ratings in NYC. The Devils and Islanders have low ratings, but due to market size still pick up more eyeballs than teams in smaller media markets. Maybe that's the same for the Nets, but LOL if they're still crappy relative to other markets. It's what they deserve.

 

Exactly. The Yankees and Mets are never at the top of local TV ratings lists, despite drawing more households than any other two teams in the majors. In 2017, the Mets had the 23rd ranked local TV ratings of any ML team, but pulled in more households than any team not named the Yankees.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2017/10/10/here-are-the-2017-mlb-prime-time-television-ratings-for-each-team/2/#1c97b72c63cc

 

I can't find reliable statistics on household data for the NBA, but it seems like the Nets' 0.42 rating equates to about 30,000 households per game - not good, but better than what teams in many smaller markets draw. 

 

https://www.netsdaily.com/2018/2/19/17027174/nets-local-tv-ratings-still-worst-but-growing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

The Nets' local television ratings were the worst in the league for the fourth straight year, and the ninth time in the last eleven years.  Their attendance was second worst (29th), after having ranked 28th and 27th in the previous two seasons.

 

 

 

A brief grammar aside: "for whoever is hosting them".  We'd need "whomever" if that word were the object of a preposition or of a verb.  But the object of the preposition "for" is the entire clause "whoever is hosting them"; and, within that clause, "whoever" is the subject.  

 

 

Good tip! Most grammar resources are kind of muddy on that one.

 

Would whomever work if it said, “...for whomever is the host.” or would it need to be “...for whomever the host is.” so that “the host” is the subject of the clause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2018 at 10:51 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

LOL - you don't think that playing in LA and wearing black and silver was the reason NWA adopted them?

 

Before that, you had the John Madden Oakland Raiders that won over hard-nosed old-school football fans.  

 

Both of their geographic homes contributed to their fan base.  They're a rare team that has support (at least from a merch perspective not necessarily a game-day one) from multiple demographics.

 

Oakland 2.0 means nothing - their legacy was already cemented, and fortunately so for them because otherwise they'd just be another irrelevant franchise (albeit with cool unis.)

Yes, I absolutely think wearing black and silver was the reason NWA adopted them. That's why I made the comparison to the Rams, which were also based in LA but never made their way into rap culture. The Raiders have always had nationwide merchandising appeal because they have a great look. That would be true whether they're based in Oakland, LA, Las Vegas, or Topeka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:
3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

A brief grammar aside: "for whoever is hosting them".  We'd need "whomever" if that word were the object of a preposition or of a verb.  But the object of the preposition "for" is the entire clause "whoever is hosting them"; and, within that clause, "whoever" is the subject.  

 

Good tip! Most grammar resources are kind of muddy on that one.

 

Would whomever work if it said, “...for whomever is the host.” or would it need to be “...for whomever the host is.” so that “the host” is the subject of the clause?


Even in that sentence "whomever" wouldn't work, because it's not the object of anything (neither a verb nor a preposition).

A sentence in which "whomever" would be correct would be "...making every game a unique event for whomever they visit."  Of course, this alters the meaning; but I am using this version of the sentence only to demonstrate a case where "whomever" is the object of the verb within the clause in which it sits.

So, to take a step back and give a clearer comparison:

"Give the book to whoever is sitting in the office."

- the object of the preposition "to" is the clause "whoever is sitting in the office", in which "whoever" is the subject of the verb "is sitting"

 

"Give the book to whomever you find in the office."

- the object of the preposition "to" is the clause "whomever you find in the office", of which "whomever" is the object of the verb "find"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, whitedawg22 said:

Yes, I absolutely think wearing black and silver was the reason NWA adopted them. That's why I made the comparison to the Rams, which were also based in LA but never made their way into rap culture. The Raiders have always had nationwide merchandising appeal because they have a great look. That would be true whether they're based in Oakland, LA, Las Vegas, or Topeka.

 

Maybe not then, but a few years later...:lol:

 

capture7ju2.6708.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Maybe not then, but a few years later...:lol:

 

capture7ju2.6708.jpg

Counterpoint: is Nelly really a rapper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:


Even in that sentence "whomever" wouldn't work, because it's not the object of anything (neither a verb nor a preposition).

A sentence in which "whomever" would be correct would be "...making every game a unique event for whomever they visit."  Of course, this alters the meaning; but I am using this version of the sentence only to demonstrate a case where "whomever" is the object of the verb within the clause in which it sits.

So, to take a step back and give a clearer comparison:

"Give the book to whoever is sitting in the office."

- the object of the preposition "to" is the clause "whoever is sitting in the office", in which "whoever" is the subject of the verb "is sitting"

 

"Give the book to whomever you find in the office."

- the object of the preposition "to" is the clause "whomever you find in the office", of which "whomever" is the object of the verb "find"

 

So, I’m wondering, in the second correction I suggested (...for whomever the host is), the object of the preposition is the clause at the end (“whomever the host is”), but isn’t the subject of that clause “the host,” making the object of the clause “whomever” (as in “the host is whomever”)?

 

Your help here is much appreciated, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, whitedawg22 said:

Counterpoint: is Nelly really a rapper?

 

Certainly debatable, but some of his writing would definitely qualify in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kroywen said:

 

Exactly. The Yankees and Mets are never at the top of local TV ratings lists, despite drawing more households than any other two teams in the majors. In 2017, the Mets had the 23rd ranked local TV ratings of any ML team, but pulled in more households than any team not named the Yankees.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2017/10/10/here-are-the-2017-mlb-prime-time-television-ratings-for-each-team/2/#1c97b72c63cc

 

I can't find reliable statistics on household data for the NBA, but it seems like the Nets' 0.42 rating equates to about 30,000 households per game - not good, but better than what teams in many smaller markets draw. 

 

https://www.netsdaily.com/2018/2/19/17027174/nets-local-tv-ratings-still-worst-but-growing

 

nba and mlb are all cable deals these days which is subscriber based and cash up front deals. ratings are somewhat a proxy for popularity but not necessarily valuable as the nielsen ratings of old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

So, I’m wondering, in the second correction I suggested (...for whomever the host is), the object of the preposition is the clause at the end (“whomever the host is”), but isn’t the subject of that clause “the host,” making the object of the clause “whomever” (as in “the host is whomever”)?

 

The verb "to be" cannot take an object.  Only a transitive verb takes an object; and "to be" is not a transtitive verb.  It's not even an action verb; it's a linking verb. (There are a few specialised cases in which "to be" can be interpreted as a kind of action verb, such as when it means "to behave", when you tell a child "You have to be good", or when it means "to engage consciously in one's own existence", when you say "During this vacation, I am not going to do anything; I am going to just be."  But, even if we grant that "to be" in these uses is an action verb, it is still intransitive.)

In a clause with the linking verb "to be" joining two noun phrases (which can consist of a noun + modifying adjective(s) or else of a pronoun), one can sometimes take one's pick about which noun phrase is the subject.  For instance, if I say "New York is my home", this is not so different to the sentence "My home is New York".  Anyway, once we establish (sometimes quasi-arbitrarily) which noun phrase is the subject, the rest of the clause is the complement. So, in the clause "whoever the host is", even if we call "the host" the subject, the linking verb ("is") and the other noun phrase (the pronoun "whoever") make up the complement.  In other words: there's no object; so there is no call for the objective case form "whomever".

 

 

31 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Your help here is much appreciated, btw.

 

Oh, it's my great pleasure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

nba and mlb are all cable deals these days which is subscriber based and cash up front deals. ratings are somewhat a proxy for popularity but not necessarily valuable as the nielsen ratings of old.

 

Which makes market size more important. The larger the market, the more subscribers there are, and the higher the subscriber fees generated by the RSN with which a team has a contract. Which translates into larger TV contracts for teams in that market (as long as they can draw sufficient eyeballs to that RSN, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Certainly debatable, but some of his writing would definitely qualify in my opinion.

He had the gall to battle KRS-One, so I guess he is a “rapper.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once thought that the Clippers should have renamed themselves the Westside Clippers. Also, are they legally named LA Clippers, I know their called LA by media and referred to as such on NBA broadcasts and websites, but is that the legal name now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Maybe not then, but a few years later...:lol:

 

capture7ju2.6708.jpg

But Nelly is from St. Louis, which shows that location does matter. Or at least, generally does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 11:59 AM, Digby said:

I think the Barclays moves for the Nets and Isles have both been underwhelming in ticket sales, but the Nets were worse off pre-move. Maybe perception is skewed because of all the hats they sold that first year. If memory serves the Nets drew terribly (like below even the worst Isles seasons) in their Uniondale years, but I'm not sure how to tell if that would be radically different today/how much was a relic of the NBA not being that popular in the 70s.

 

The Nets had terrible attendance in New Jersey.  I bought walk-up tickets to the Finals in 2002, and we sat in a half-empty section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nets have always been the most boring of the New York B-teams. They never had the Mets' success and turmoil, the Jets' fanbase agita, or the Islanders' success. They won the East the two years that the nation was more or less checked out of the NBA and did it by being kind of boring. What a drag, the Nets. Barclays was a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, the admiral said:

Barclays was a mistake.

 

I was with you right up until that part.  The only way a second basketball team was going to work here was if they leaned into the Brooklyn theme.  That's how they separate themselves from the Knicks.  And Barclays is a huge part of that.

 

Problem is that you also have to be really good.  Or even decent.  You can't suck.  And for all the successes the Nets have had off the court in Brooklyn, from the merchandise to their community outreach, it's ultimately for naught when then on-court product is so lousy.   They find a way to turn that around, and create a team worthy of everything else they've built, and they could absolutely eclipse the Knicks in this city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to what extent the Nets ticket numbers are propped up by the New York yuppie transplant class going to see their hometown team play the Nets for cheap. That's the only reason for my visits to Barclays, anyway. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now