B-Rich

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

Recommended Posts

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
On 19/04/2018 at 2:18 AM, the admiral said:

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.

 

The mistake was not so much the move into that arena but the decision to lean on the name "Brooklyn" rather than to use the full city name "New York". The use of "Brooklyn" seemed cool and edgy; but it's also sub-local and exclusionary. 

 

An NBA team should be aiming for a broad base of support, not a narrow one. A typical team naturally claims its city; some teams claim a whole state (the Timberwolves and Jazz overtly; the Nuggets and Suns effectively; but not, despite their name, the Warriors). There is a team that claims a region (the Celtics), and one that claims a whole country (the Raptors).

 

And then there are the Nets, who don't even claim their entire home city. 

 

The Nets were always going to be handicapped by the existence of the Knicks; indeed, it was the Knicks' foul play that consigned the Nets to second-class status at a critical juncture in the team's history.

 

At the time of the NBA's merger with the ABA, the Nets were coming off of their second championship in the ABA's final season; and Dr. J had become a cultural icon. Julius Erving's performance in the playoffs, as well as in the ABA's slam-dunk contest, had elevated him to superstar status. The Nets with Erving would have been serious challengers to the Knicks for supremacy in New York.

 

71L5dCAmLoL._SY587_.jpg

 

 

This Sports Illustrated cover shows the high regard with which Erving and the Nets were held, as representatives of the two co-equal champions pose together before the merger season.

In response to this threat, the Knicks convinced the NBA to levy an unconscionable "territorial fee" against the Nets just as the merger was being finalised. This fee, designed to be well in excess of what the Nets' owner could afford, was intended to cripple the Nets by forcing them to sell off their greatest asset. It worked. The Nets sold Dr. J, limped to the NBA's worst record in the first post-merger season, and then scuttled off to the obscurity of New Jersey, abandoning the New York name. (This makes the picture above that much more painful, as Erving never dribbled an NBA ball in a Nets uniform.)

 

Even though New Jersey is the country's most densely populated state, for pro sports it is nowheresville, as it is divided roughly in half by supporters of New York teams and supporters of Philadelphia teams. In South Jersey people thought of the New Jersey Nets as a New York team — which would certainly have come as news to New Yorkers, who didn't think of the Nets at all. (Myself not included; I was a fan.) The New Jersey Nets' tiny support came almost exclusively from a small area immediately around their Meadowlands home. So much for taking a state name.

 

The team's purchase by a charismatic and ambitious foreign billionaire and its move into New York City created a chance for it to be rescued from obscurity. But the team bungled this opportunity by not reclaiming its former name "New York Nets", instead naming itself after a section of New York.

 

Some will be tempted to argue that Brooklyn has an identity of its own, apart from being a borough of New York City.  This is true.  Nevertheless, the strategy of tying an NBA team to this entity rather than to New York City as a whole is highly questionable.  The team counted on the already-fading "hipster" appeal of the Brooklyn name, as well as that name's appeal to the Russian compatriots of the team's owner, not seeming to care that the name would create a barrier to connection with the majority of the City's fans. Converting existing Knick fans was always going to be all but impossible. But, the use of a hyper-local name insured that future generations of kids in most of New York City would continue to adopt the Knicks as they had always done, and would have zero inclination to consider the Nets as their home team.

 

The Nets could have hit their new home within the City with a marketing campaign emphasising the team's colourful history, which included two championships in the ABA and two trips to the NBA Finals.  They could have plastered their new arena with images not only of the iconic Dr. J, but also of Rick Barry, coaches Louie Carnesecca and Kevin Loughery, Albert King, Buck Williams, Micheal Ray Richardson, Darryl Dawkins, Drazen Petrovic, Mike Gminski, and others.  They could even have trolled the Knicks by including images of Jason Kidd and Kenyon Martin, who were playing for the Knicks in the Nets' first season in New York City.

 

Instead, marketing positioned the team as a new entity.  This created a good deal of buzz at first.  The team masqueraded as a power in the East after the re-signing of Deron Williams and the big trade that brought over several veterans from the Celtics.  But all of that proved illusory.  Even the return of Jason Kidd as coach quickly turned sour; and this strangely-named team that is unwilling to acknowledge its own history quickly faded into the background, where it seems to be destined to languish for eternity.

 

So we have a team which by virtue of its name pushes away people from Manhattan and the Bronx, which has blown up its meagre support from New Jersey, and which has no footprint whatsoever in the northern suburbs. This leaves Brooklyn itself, where the team's support is good (though still well below that of the Knicks), as well as Queens and Long Island, which the team is trying to shore up by virtue of its G-League squad the Long Island Nets, and by playing pre-season games at the Nassau Coliseum. Weak sauce, that.

 

The Nets' story is littered with bad luck, bad breaks, and bad decisions.  Maybe one day I will write an alternative history of the Nets, imagining a history in which the Knicks' dirty trick was not successful and the New York Nets kept Julius Erving and became a good team in the NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The Nets' story is littered with bad luck, bad breaks, and bad decisions.  Maybe one day I will write an alternative history of the Nets, imagining a history in which the Knicks' dirty trick was not successful and the New York Nets kept Julius Erving and became a good team in the NBA.

 

I like a good counter-factual history, provided that it’s done within the bounds of the real world and takes into account the different biases and personalities of the historical actors. Alternate history fiction goes into zany-land far too often.

 

The whole discussion of the “Brooklyn” label got me wondering about what would have happened if the Dodgers had not run into the Robert Moses problem when building a stadium on the future Barclays Center site (unlikely, given his power) and if Horace Stoneham had built on the west side of Manhattan (private-funded, of course) or left for Minnesota. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I like a good counter-factual history, provided that it’s done within the bounds of the real world and takes into account the different biases and personalities of the historical actors. Alternate history fiction goes into zany-land far too often.

 

Right.  The recent USFL alternate history took some rather dubious turns, such as assuming that the mere existence of the USFL would somehow lead to the non-existence of MLS.  The challenge is to keep such an account realistic, and not to present a description of one's own ideal fantasyland.  

 

 

27 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The whole discussion of the “Brooklyn” label got me wondering about what would have happened if the Dodgers had not run into the Robert Moses problem when building a stadium on the future Barclays Center site (unlikely, given his powe) and if Horace Stoneham had built on the west side of Manhattan (private-funded, of course) or left for Minnesota.

 

Excellent idea about an alternate history involving the Dodgers.  There's good reason to believe that they would have done very well in a modern stadium at Atlantic and Fourth Avenues.  The generation of Brooklynites who had moved to Long Island would have flocked to that stadium on the LIRR.  Imagine Koufax having his great years in that ballpark, and the draw from Long Island that that would have been.  This opens up some good storytelling possibilities, such as a knock-on effect of helping to arrest the decline in the quality of public transit in New York that continued into the 1970s.

However, I don't think I have ever heard of any attempt on the part of the Giants to build anywhere else in New York City.  Stoneham didn't think the problem was the ballpark; he was convinced that there was no more audience for his team in New York, and he wanted to get out.  If not for O'Malley's intervention that pursuaded him of the value of moving together to California, the Giants were off to Minneapolis for sure.

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