O.C.D Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said: No. We used to hear that same crap about the NFL with the Cowboys, but in the past couple decades when the Cowboys can't even buy a playoff win the NFL's ratings have shot up. And I, and pretty much everyone I know, haven't missed them a bit. This is what they say about the Yankees, too. It's just being short sighted in living in your childhood. When a dynasty disappears a new one appears, and in 10 or 15 years no one will be able to picture what it'll be like without the new guys. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 15 hours ago, Ben in LA said: That last one is so wrong Larry as a Laker looks slightly less weird/wrong than Magic as a Celtic or Bull. The number font on that MJ pic is wrong but wouldn't mind seeing that on an actual jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill0813 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, sayahh said: Larry as a Laker looks slightly less weird/wrong than Magic as a Celtic or Bull. Larry wearing Kareem's Laker jersey still seems wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianLion Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 16 hours ago, O.C.D said: 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. uh you may want to look at the TV ratings from the last 3 seasons while the Lakers were swirling above the drain, and get back to me on this.... and then after that explain how the lull period in NBA ratings between Jordan's Bulls, and the LeBron championship runs of the last 7 years coincided with the most recent Laker championships (and to a lesser extent the Spurs) The Lakers are one of those teams people love to hate, sure. But they're a long way from being the "biggest brand in the NBA." The Celtics are probably closer to that title. Hell, I'd argue the Knicks, for as terrible as they've been for almost 20 years, make the NBA better when they're good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O.C.D Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 13 hours ago, BrianLion said: uh you may want to look at the TV ratings from the last 3 seasons while the Lakers were swirling above the drain, and get back to me on this.... and then after that explain how the lull period in NBA ratings between Jordan's Bulls, and the LeBron championship runs of the last 7 years coincided with the most recent Laker championships (and to a lesser extent the Spurs) The Lakers are one of those teams people love to hate, sure. But they're a long way from being the "biggest brand in the NBA." The Celtics are probably closer to that title. Hell, I'd argue the Knicks, for as terrible as they've been for almost 20 years, make the NBA better when they're good. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoknight Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 On 7/20/2017 at 1:30 PM, O.C.D said: 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. Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pippen would like to have a word with you. If you're talking about television ratings and sheer international celebrity factor, you'll be hard pressed to beat a couple of Three-Peats and Olympic medals. 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O.C.D Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 17 minutes ago, pianoknight said: Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pippen would like to have a word with you. If you're talking about television ratings and sheer international celebrity factor, you'll be hard pressed to beat a couple of Three-Peats and Olympic medals. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanshepherd Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 3 hours ago, O.C.D said: 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. The NBA Certianly likes it when the Lakers are good I bet, which is exactly the reason why the NBA is better for me when they suck. i have unquantifiable corpses on my conscience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 This thread has brought up a number of interesting points and counter points. Lots of well thought out posts. But nothing that's been said has made me change my mind about my initial statement. F the Lakers. http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ Sands Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-08-13/sports/9708140002_1_bulls-free-agents-allan-houston-scottie-pippen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoknight Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 14 hours ago, O.C.D said: 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. I don't disagree with your premise at all. In fact I've argued the exact same thing about NCAAF. When Wisconsin and Nebraska battle for the Big Ten West and Ohio State fights Michigan in the East, the vibe is that the conference is strong and doing well. When it comes down to Northwestern and Minnesota, or Rutgers and Indiana, everyone goes, "woah, the Big Ten sucks this year." 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O.C.D Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 6 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said: This thread has brought up a number of interesting points and counter points. Lots of well thought out posts. But nothing that's been said has made me change my mind about my initial statement. F the Lakers. Fair enough :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 On 7/21/2017 at 9:08 PM, O.C.D said: 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. The NBA has to compete with Netflix, HBO, Hulu and the internet in general nowadays so even if Jordan came back right now in the same shape as the top of his prime the ratings might not be the same. Same with the series finale of MASH: you just won't get those numbers again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.