If I were commish of.....

[The_Admiral]

Why would people in New York want to see the Spurs play the Celtics, anyway. They're Knicks fans.

This isn't the Super Bowl. It's not an international event and never will be. It's for the teams first.

And just imagine the glamour of a 7th game at MSG,or the Staples Center or wherever, for the NBA title, it would make for great TV ratings, great excitement around the game.

This wouldn't happen. If you don't like the NBA or the teams that play in the Finals, then the NBA Finals won't hold any more appeal being on the Knicks' floor instead of the better team's floor. I don't think you really get things.

[Saintsfan]

Why would people in New York want to see the Spurs play the Celtics, anyway. They're Knicks fans.

This isn't the Super Bowl. It's not an international event and never will be. It's for the teams first.

And just imagine the glamour of a 7th game at MSG,or the Staples Center or wherever, for the NBA title, it would make for great TV ratings, great excitement around the game.

This wouldn't happen. If you don't like the NBA or the teams that play in the Finals, then the NBA Finals won't hold any more appeal being on the Knicks' floor instead of the better team's floor. I don't think you really get things.

I think if you added something new and exciting to the series, in a very exceptional circumstance, then people would watch, and the NBA would be able to market it as something special, over a few days.

There is no reason why a 7th game of an NBA series shouldn't be an international event. Basketball is a far more international game than football. Perhaps making it a big deal, marketing it as such, giving yourself 4 or 5 days to market it and create a buzz will make it a big deal. A 7th game might be something that happens once in a decade. Sell it as something special and it will be. Part of the reason the Superbowl is special is because the NFL makes it special.

Admiral you seem to think that suggesting a new idea is something of a crime. I think thats a pity.

[rams80]

I think if you added something new and exciting to the series, in a very exceptional circumstance, then people would watch, and the NBA would be able to market it as something special, over a few days.

That's what All Star weekend is for. A neutered site Game 7 is a weak gimmick that would not be special at all. The NFL makes a neutral site Super Bowl work because the site is announced years in advance, the one-and-done nature of the NFL playoffs are conducive to a neutral site championship format, football has a much larger place in the American sporting consciousness, and the game can be guaranteed to happen. Civic fathers really, really like that last one.

There is no reason why a 7th game of an NBA series shouldn't be an international event. Basketball is a far more international game than football. Perhaps making it a big deal, marketing it as such, giving yourself 4 or 5 days to market it and create a buzz will make it a big deal.

No. The very last thing the NBA needs to do is to protract the playoffs further. The games need to be done and over with. At the same time, 4 or 5 days is not enough time to make the necessary logistical preparations for the game. Additionally, the location of the game is not going to generate enough "buzz" to make it worthwhile. If you aren't interested in the teams or the actual game already, the "allure" of watching it at a neutral site isn't going to change your mind.

A 7th game might be something that happens once in a decade. Sell it as something special and it will be. Part of the reason the Superbowl is special is because the NFL makes it special.

The NFL has spent the last 4 decades building itself and its sport into a sports media juggernaut. Annual Super Bowls were part of that building process, and the Super Bowl is the American cultural highlight it is now because of that cumulative building process. This is also something of a self-sustaining process now; because you know the game will be played, ad space can be sold at a premium to attract those viewers not interested in the game. The NBA cannot guarantee that with a Game 7.

Admiral you seem to think that suggesting a new idea is something of a crime. I think thats a pity.

No, he thinks suggesting new ideas that are predicated on a very limited knowledge of how professional sports function in this country are a crime. That is not a pity.

[Saintsfan]

No, he thinks suggesting new ideas that are predicated on a very limited knowledge of how professional sports function in this country are a crime. That is not a pity.

Honestly, given that this place is mostly very welcoming and friendly, I don't get why a few people get so worked up about the odd slightly off the wall idea.

[Hat Boy]

Honestly, given that this place is mostly very welcoming and friendly, I don't get why a few people get so worked up about the odd slightly off the wall idea.

Honestly, you are getting worked up over an idea that is not a good one.

All your hopes for this game (huge TV ratings and unparalleled excitement and anticipation) are not out there. A Spurs/Pistons finals gets you your Spurs fans, your Pistons fans and your NBA hardcore regualrs. No one is going to tune in just because the game is in NY. Millions of people the world over watch the the Super Bowl, because it is the Super Bowl, not because it is held in Miami.

[ESTONES6]

i have to say, having a 7th game someplace OTHER than the team with home field advantage... that's bad. teams (and cities) depend on those ticket sales. That's one of the reasons i hate how the NFL holds the Super Bowl at a city OTHER than one of the teams' home fields. I think it completely ruins the home field advantage, and it really penalizes cold weather teams, and teams who play on grass rather than turf.

I think having the 7th game some place OTHER than the team with home field/court advantage is awful. awful idea. sorry. =\

[BBTV]

NFL teams don't really depend on ticket sales. Especially the large market teams. In fact, I'd wager that a very small portion of their revenue is derived from tickets (with the possible exception being club suite rentals, which are more of a per-season thing vs. a per game thing.)

So much is shared in the NFL that making the SB into a major event probably benefits all of the teams, instead of simply the one hosting the game.

[rams80]

That's one of the reasons i hate how the NFL holds the Super Bowl at a city OTHER than one of the teams' home fields. I think it completely ruins the home field advantage, and it really penalizes cold weather teams, and teams who play on grass rather than turf.

A cold weather team is not disadvantaged by playing in a Sun Belt stadium with ideal weather conditions, and therefore is not penalized. Furthermore, teams that play on grass can play equally well on field turf, so there is no disadvantage there. Yes, they lose a possible advantage over a Sun Belt or indoor team, but that is not the same as penalizing them; they will be able to play at their best regardless of the conditions, and if victorious, can claim to have defeated an opponent at their best.

The NFL schedule is so unbalanced that the two Super Bowl teams will have at most 8 common games against opponents, and possibly as few as 2. When at least half of your schedule is different from your opponent, using record to determine the hosting site in a one-and-done playoff format is not appropriate.

Setting that aside, however, the NFL ultimately wants to have the game played in conditions that allow both teams to play to their full potential, and also played in conditions that appeal the most to the celebrities and functionaries who have shelled out thousands of dollars to attend the game in person.

That said, University of Phoenix Stadium, Raymond James Stadium, Dolphin Stadium, Qualcomm Stadium, Reliant Stadium, and Jacksonville Municipal Stadium, all of which have hosted Super Bowls in the last decade, have natural grass surfaces.

[infrared41]

No, he thinks suggesting new ideas that are predicated on a very limited knowledge of how professional sports function in this country are a crime. That is not a pity.

Honestly, given that this place is mostly very welcoming and friendly, I don't get why a few people get so worked up about the odd slightly off the wall idea.

They know the difference between odd "off the wall" and odd stupid. That's my guess anyway.

[infrared41]

That's one of the reasons i hate how the NFL holds the Super Bowl at a city OTHER than one of the teams' home fields. I think it completely ruins the home field advantage, and it really penalizes cold weather teams, and teams who play on grass rather than turf.

A cold weather team is not disadvantaged by playing in a Sun Belt stadium with ideal weather conditions, and therefore is not penalized. Furthermore, teams that play on grass can play equally well on field turf, so there is no disadvantage there. Yes, they lose a possible advantage over a Sun Belt or indoor team, but that is not the same as penalizing them; they will be able to play at their best regardless of the conditions, and if victorious, can claim to have defeated an opponent at their best.

The NFL schedule is so unbalanced that the two Super Bowl teams will have at most 8 common games against opponents, and possibly as few as 2. When at least half of your schedule is different from your opponent, using record to determine the hosting site in a one-and-done playoff format is not appropriate.

Setting that aside, however, the NFL ultimately wants to have the game played in conditions that allow both teams to play to their full potential, and also played in conditions that appeal the most to the celebrities and functionaries who have shelled out thousands of dollars to attend the game in person.

That said, University of Phoenix Stadium, Raymond James Stadium, Dolphin Stadium, Qualcomm Stadium, Reliant Stadium, and Jacksonville Municipal Stadium, all of which have hosted Super Bowls in the last decade, have natural grass surfaces.

There's all that and the fact that on the million to one shot it ever happens, I don't want to see The Browns play The Super Bowl in 5 degree weather with two feet of snow on the ground. Those conditions are an advantage to no one.

[ESTONES6]

whether you can admit or not, there is definitely an advantage to the team who is accustomed to playing on turf as opposed to a cold weather team who is not used to playing on it. It may not be as one sided as people make it out to be, but there is a tilt.

I guess it gets under my skin on how all these announcers, coaches, and teams talk about "oh this is football weather" when there is snow, or rain and the fields are muddy, but then they wouldn't even think of having bowl games or the SB in an outdoor stadium. I also understand the business aspect of it where they don't think as many people will show up if its outdoor in the snow - which may be right to an extent, i guess.

i dunno. just frustrating. I think it would be awesome to watch a bowl game up north with a few inches of snow. see the breath on the field. thats just me...

[BBTV]

I want to see the top athletes and the top teams in the world competing at the highest level and shocasing their skills and talents as much as possible. Snow and rain do nothing but hinder that, and create too many situations where the best team won't win (for reasons other than poor play or planning.) Sure it's fun to watch people slipping and sliding once in a while, but it's no way to decide a championship. It's not really practical to move the conference title games, and there needs to be some kind of incentive to win and get home field advantage, but the SB should never be played int the slop.

And cold weather teams practice indoors on turf, so I don't think for one second that they are at a disadvantage.

Also, most of these players bouce around from team to team, so it's not like they're stepping on turf and going "OMG! WTF is this? How can I run on this stuff?" They've all been there before. It's no big deal. On the other hand, there are plenty of players who have never played in sub 50 degree weather until they get to the NFL. I'd imagine it could be tough for them to get out there in the freezing cold.

[rams80]

i dunno. just frustrating. I think it would be awesome to watch a bowl game up north with a few inches of snow. see the breath on the field. thats just me...

There's the Humanitarian Bowl up in Boise.

[infrared41]

whether you can admit or not, there is definitely an advantage to the team who is accustomed to playing on turf as opposed to a cold weather team who is not used to playing on it. It may not be as one sided as people make it out to be, but there is a tilt.

I guess it gets under my skin on how all these announcers, coaches, and teams talk about "oh this is football weather" when there is snow, or rain and the fields are muddy, but then they wouldn't even think of having bowl games or the SB in an outdoor stadium. I also understand the business aspect of it where they don't think as many people will show up if its outdoor in the snow - which may be right to an extent, i guess.

i dunno. just frustrating. I think it would be awesome to watch a bowl game up north with a few inches of snow. see the breath on the field. thats just me...

I get what you're saying but hear me out.

It cracks me up when announcers or anyone for that matter make that statement. What's the most dominant conference in college football? The SEC. How often to SEC games get played in "football weather?" Where do the majority of the most prized recruits in come from? The southeast, Texas, and California. What was the biggest excuse used by Big Ten supporters for the conference's shortcomings? "We need more speed like the SEC and Pac-10 has." It would seem to me that, based on recent history, "football weather" is when it's 75 and sunny. "Football weather" is the weather they have in the southeast, Texas, and California.

What we call "football weather" in the midwest is called abject -ing misery by everyone else.

Just saying.

[It Needs A Bow]

I want to see the top athletes and the top teams in the world competing at the highest level and shocasing their skills and talents as much as possible. Snow and rain do nothing but hinder that, and create too many situations where the best team won't win (for reasons other than poor play or planning.) Sure it's fun to watch people slipping and sliding once in a while, but it's no way to decide a championship. It's not really practical to move the conference title games, and there needs to be some kind of incentive to win and get home field advantage, but the SB should never be played int the slop.

I think any fan can agree with that. I mean, obviously watching players muck around in certain conditions can be amusing, or even historical (snowplow game, anyone?), but it certainly isn't the way to decide a superbowl. The scores tend to remain low, and winning becomes more a game of luck than skill and planning. I'd rather see teams have a brutal fight-to-the-finish, based on their actual prowess.

Estones, seeing breath on the field and watching players root through the snow might be okay for an insignificant regular season game, but I would HATE seeing it in a clutch situation if it meant the better team might lose out.

[koizim]

These "suggestions" that Saintsfan has seem like the ideas of someone who has little to no understanding of how the NBA works. Contracting two teams? We'll see how the Players' Union and those two cities that lose teams react to that (hint: it's a breach of numerous contracts). Get owners to not fire coaches within the first twenty games? If a coach gets fired that early in the season, there's a reason (besides, do you really want 3-5 teams all firing their coaches on the same day?)

Or, the most ridiculous of them all, hold Game 7 of the NBA Finals in a neutral city. Are you serious? Not only does that destroy the idea of a home-court advantage, but what if it's determined before the season that the game will be held in New York and Boston makes the Finals? That wouldn't exactly be neutral, now would it? To combat this, would you decide when you find out who's playing in the Finals? Because, if so, that city wouldn't have any time to prepare for the media circus that would surround it. In fact, why would a city even lobby for a game that most likely wouldn't be played? I mean, what you've suggested here is simply stupid and illogical. These are ideas for how the NBA can get involved in massive lawsuits and become as gimmicky as the ABA (and not the 1970's version).

[Lee.]

i dunno. just frustrating. I think it would be awesome to watch a bowl game up north with a few inches of snow. see the breath on the field. thats just me...

It's called a Grey Cup, features American football players, and generally runs rings around the Super Bowl in sheer entertainment value.

CFL FTW.

[Saintsfan]

These "suggestions" that Saintsfan has seem like the ideas of someone who has little to no understanding of how the NBA works. Contracting two teams? We'll see how the Players' Union and those two cities that lose teams react to that (hint: it's a breach of numerous contracts). Get owners to not fire coaches within the first twenty games? If a coach gets fired that early in the season, there's a reason (besides, do you really want 3-5 teams all firing their coaches on the same day?)

Or, the most ridiculous of them all, hold Game 7 of the NBA Finals in a neutral city. Are you serious? Not only does that destroy the idea of a home-court advantage, but what if it's determined before the season that the game will be held in New York and Boston makes the Finals? That wouldn't exactly be neutral, now would it? To combat this, would you decide when you find out who's playing in the Finals? Because, if so, that city wouldn't have any time to prepare for the media circus that would surround it. In fact, why would a city even lobby for a game that most likely wouldn't be played? I mean, what you've suggested here is simply stupid and illogical. These are ideas for how the NBA can get involved in massive lawsuits and become as gimmicky as the ABA (and not the 1970's version).

I didn't actually say I would contract, I said I would consider it. That would obviuosly be a process, and might require renegotiation of contracts etc. I still feel the NBA is about 2 teams too heavy at the moment.

On the finals series, one it's going to be a rare occurence, game 7 of the NBA series is rare. You could say to say 4 venues keep this series of dates free, pay them enough to do so, and decide reasonably late in the season or even as the series has begun. As I said all along it would be controversial and in the end may not be workable, but it's just an idea!

[The_Admiral]

So now you're screwing three to four cities out of an event.