Anaheim Kings?

[CubsFanBudMan]

No surprise in this blog post from Spurs Nation: Warriors would benefit from Kings move

http://blog.mysanant...ramento-market/

Added bonus for this forum: The Warriors logo used on the post is the '80s one. Random. Don't you just hate it when blogs haven't updated their logo files in decades?

Sorry.

'bosrs1' posted that story here yesterday. Go back 24 hours before you give us news.

Well, don't click it then. And I've never claimed to be the paper boy and I didn't call that news. Just a relevant - albeit old - item of interest that had the added twist of a dated logo, a mistake newspapers and TV get called out for often here.

That said: My mistake. Found that story in an open window on my phone yesterday. Thought I got it from a Google search and never read it, but I probably got it from bosrs1's link the day before. Even worse. My apologies.

[McCall]

No I was NOT considering every team in the world. Besides, only in soccer are any of those teams more successful (meaning many multiple factors and just general common knowledge) than their American counterparts. By the way, I absolutely despise the Lakers and I still know they're probably one of the "biggest" teams in NORTH AMERICAN sports.

[Still MIGHTY]

I'm curious to see what bosrs1's Top 10 in North American sports is then. If you don't have the Lakers in at least the top 10, you're high.

[McCall]

Also by "biggest", I meant fanbase. As much as I hate em the Lakers do have one of the biggest and most loyal fanbases period.

[bosrs1]

Also by "biggest", I meant fanbase. As much as I hate em the Lakers do have one of the biggest and most loyal fanbases period.

Well loyalty is not something that is strictly measureable (nor is fanbase size). However Forbes did find a way to measure such a thing with more than just anecdotal evidence and they disagree with you as well. They measured the following, "measured their home and away game attendance, which indicates a team's drawing power in its home market and nationwide. Then we counted their merchandise sales. Finally, we ranked each team's in-market popularity, based on surveys. We ranked all of the teams, then took the top four from each of the four leagues." They didn't even have the Lakers fans in the top 10 of North American sports either.

16. Blackhawks

15. Phillies

14. Yankees

13. Cavs

12. Lakers

11. Canadiens

10. Cardinals

9. Cowboys

8. Spurs

7. Celtics

6. Penguins

5. Patriots

4. Colts

3. Red Wings

2. Steelers

1. Red Sox

As for my statements previously, they were based on pure franchise value. Again the Lakers aren't even in the top 20 of that according to the latest value estimates. They're less valued than all 32 NFL teams and the Yankees and Mets. Still impressive and they're by far the most valuable basketball team, but they're no where near the top of valued sports teams.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/02/best-fans-teams-lifestyle-sports-fandom_slide.html

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

[rams80]

Any analysis that is predicated on attendance (or even better yet...surveys) is flawed because of the apples and oranges comparisons involved.

EDIT For s sake, the Yankees are 14th! That should be your first clue that something is up.

2nd EDIT: upon further review Chicago only has one team in the list, and its the bleeping Blackhawks at 16. Now they haven't given us hard numbers to look at, but when the number 3 media market (which is populated heavily with die hard loyal fans) isn't landing teams in this study, the methodology is flat out wrong

[McCall]

Also by "biggest", I meant fanbase. As much as I hate em the Lakers do have one of the biggest and most loyal fanbases period.

Well loyalty is not something that is strictly measureable (nor is fanbase size). However Forbes did find a way to measure such a thing with more than just anecdotal evidence and they disagree with you as well. They measured the following, "measured their home and away game attendance, which indicates a team's drawing power in its home market and nationwide. Then we counted their merchandise sales. Finally, we ranked each team's in-market popularity, based on surveys. We ranked all of the teams, then took the top four from each of the four leagues." They didn't even have the Lakers fans in the top 10 of North American sports either.

16. Blackhawks

15. Phillies

14. Yankees

13. Cavs

12. Lakers

11. Canadiens

10. Cardinals

9. Cowboys

8. Spurs

7. Celtics

6. Penguins

5. Patriots

4. Colts

3. Red Wings

2. Steelers

1. Red Sox

As for my statements previously, they were based on pure franchise value. Again the Lakers aren't even in the top 20 of that according to the latest value estimates. They're less valued than all 32 NFL teams and the Yankees and Mets. Still impressive and they're by far the most valuable basketball team, but they're no where near the top of valued sports teams.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/02/best-fans-teams-lifestyle-sports-fandom_slide.html

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

Is that just recently or in history? That's what determines the biggest greatest franchises, not who sold the most shirts at the time of the study.

Besides, you go up to 100 people on the street and ask them the top teams in NBA history, Lakers will be one of the most common choices.

[bosrs1]

Also by "biggest", I meant fanbase. As much as I hate em the Lakers do have one of the biggest and most loyal fanbases period.

Well loyalty is not something that is strictly measureable (nor is fanbase size). However Forbes did find a way to measure such a thing with more than just anecdotal evidence and they disagree with you as well. They measured the following, "measured their home and away game attendance, which indicates a team's drawing power in its home market and nationwide. Then we counted their merchandise sales. Finally, we ranked each team's in-market popularity, based on surveys. We ranked all of the teams, then took the top four from each of the four leagues." They didn't even have the Lakers fans in the top 10 of North American sports either.

16. Blackhawks

15. Phillies

14. Yankees

13. Cavs

12. Lakers

11. Canadiens

10. Cardinals

9. Cowboys

8. Spurs

7. Celtics

6. Penguins

5. Patriots

4. Colts

3. Red Wings

2. Steelers

1. Red Sox

As for my statements previously, they were based on pure franchise value. Again the Lakers aren't even in the top 20 of that according to the latest value estimates. They're less valued than all 32 NFL teams and the Yankees and Mets. Still impressive and they're by far the most valuable basketball team, but they're no where near the top of valued sports teams.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/02/best-fans-teams-lifestyle-sports-fandom_slide.html

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

Is that just recently or in history? That's what determines the biggest greatest franchises, not who sold the most shirts at the time of the study.

Besides, you go up to 100 people on the street and ask them the top teams in NBA history, Lakers will be one of the most common choices.

See but now you're qualifying it by saying just in the NBA. The original assertion was that they were one of the biggest in all of sports. Then it became North America, now it's just the NBA. The original assertion should have been, correctly, that the Lakers are the biggest basketball team in the world. THAT would have been an almost unquestionably correct assertion that I doubt anyone would object to.

[bosrs1]

Any analysis that is predicated on attendance (or even better yet...surveys) is flawed because of the apples and oranges comparisons involved.

EDIT For s sake, the Yankees are 14th! That should be your first clue that something is up.

2nd EDIT: upon further review Chicago only has one team in the list, and its the bleeping Blackhawks at 16. Now they haven't given us hard numbers to look at, but when the number 3 media market (which is populated heavily with die hard loyal fans) isn't landing teams in this study, the methodology is flat out wrong

What proof do you have that it's wrong? They looked at the only quantitative data we have on the subject. Anything else is just anecdotal speculation. You can say the Yankees should be higher than 14, I can say I think that's exactly where they belong and that they're nowhere near as popular as some people think (hated maybe, but not popular). But there is ultimately no way to prove who is right or wrong.

[The Six]

Well if you accept that they're unquestionably the biggest basketball team in the world, then they're one of the biggest teams in sports. And at least one of the biggest in the country. Otherwise your point is that the NBA simply doesn't matter, which is kind of counter-intuitive given what this thread is about.

[bosrs1]

Well if you accept that they're unquestionably the biggest basketball team in the world, then they're one of the biggest teams in sports. And at least one of the biggest in the country. Otherwise your point is that the NBA simply doesn't matter, which is kind of counter-intuitive given what this thread is about.

Well counter intuitive or not it's kind of the truth. Compared to the NFL and MLB, the NBA IS a distant third when it comes to any measure of a league, be it revenues, attendance, "fanbase", etc... Not harping on the NBA, I think everyone knows they're the number 3 league, but there is no shame in that. They're not the NHL or MLS after all.

[The_Admiral]

This thread is taking a hard turn for the dumb.

[rams80]

Any analysis that is predicated on attendance (or even better yet...surveys) is flawed because of the apples and oranges comparisons involved.

EDIT For s sake, the Yankees are 14th! That should be your first clue that something is up.

2nd EDIT: upon further review Chicago only has one team in the list, and its the bleeping Blackhawks at 16. Now they haven't given us hard numbers to look at, but when the number 3 media market (which is populated heavily with die hard loyal fans) isn't landing teams in this study, the methodology is flat out wrong

What proof do you have that it's wrong? They looked at the only quantitative data we have on the subject. Anything else is just anecdotal speculation. You can say the Yankees should be higher than 14, I can say I think that's exactly where they belong and that they're nowhere near as popular as some people think (hated maybe, but not popular). But there is ultimately no way to prove who is right or wrong.

Please. I've had a course or two on surveys and statistics and know damn well that data can be skewed or erroneous based on the questioning criteria.

To begin with, even without access to hard numbers I can see three major flaws in the "study". The first is that attendance, as I said before, is a horrible criteria for evaluating a team's following. Attendance capacities and the number of games will comparatively skew total numbers in any evaluation, making it damn hard to get any real comparative analysis going.

Two: Where the are the TV numbers (or internet viewing numbers, such as they can be tracked.)? This is the Twenty-First Century. Fans follow their teams through television (both conventional and internet) far more than they attend games. Any "study" that doesn't take this into account is fatally flawed.

Three: The fan surveys in general are a complete and utter cluster To begin with, by confining the surveys to in market teams, they completely eliminate the in some cases sizable out of market fanbases. Yes the Yankees are indeed popular in New York, but you need to factor in how seemingly every sixth jackhole you run into outside of the city is a Yankees fan. Additionally, because you are ranking all the teams within a market, teams that either only share a market with one team or have it to themselves and going to do a lot better than teams in more crowded markets. (Really, Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York only have one team each in the rankings?! To repeat, that is wrong.) And of course there is the most fatal flaw of all surveys...namely...rates of response. I'm assuming just from looking at the poll Forbes did something incredibly stupid and ran their rankings based on total votes received or something. Bostonians evidently responded in large numbers, but I'm not sure anyone else did. Again, it would help if they actually published their data rather than some bleacher report-esque slide show.

[rams80]

Well if you accept that they're unquestionably the biggest basketball team in the world, then they're one of the biggest teams in sports. And at least one of the biggest in the country. Otherwise your point is that the NBA simply doesn't matter, which is kind of counter-intuitive given what this thread is about.

Well counter intuitive or not it's kind of the truth. Compared to the NFL and MLB, the NBA IS a distant third when it comes to any measure of a league, be it revenues, attendance, "fanbase", etc... Not harping on the NBA, I think everyone knows they're the number 3 league, but there is no shame in that. They're not the NHL or MLS after all.

Then where are the Packers in the surv-OH WAIT NOBODY LIVES IN MARKET FOR THEM. That is precisely the kind of thing that tells you the flaws in this "study". Speaking frankly as someone who has spent just about all of their life in the Midwest, while the Colts have indeed seen a great boost in popularity thanks to Manning, the Bears and Packers have better followings than the Colts.

[McCall]

Also by "biggest", I meant fanbase. As much as I hate em the Lakers do have one of the biggest and most loyal fanbases period.

Well loyalty is not something that is strictly measureable (nor is fanbase size). However Forbes did find a way to measure such a thing with more than just anecdotal evidence and they disagree with you as well. They measured the following, "measured their home and away game attendance, which indicates a team's drawing power in its home market and nationwide. Then we counted their merchandise sales. Finally, we ranked each team's in-market popularity, based on surveys. We ranked all of the teams, then took the top four from each of the four leagues." They didn't even have the Lakers fans in the top 10 of North American sports either.

16. Blackhawks

15. Phillies

14. Yankees

13. Cavs

12. Lakers

11. Canadiens

10. Cardinals

9. Cowboys

8. Spurs

7. Celtics

6. Penguins

5. Patriots

4. Colts

3. Red Wings

2. Steelers

1. Red Sox

As for my statements previously, they were based on pure franchise value. Again the Lakers aren't even in the top 20 of that according to the latest value estimates. They're less valued than all 32 NFL teams and the Yankees and Mets. Still impressive and they're by far the most valuable basketball team, but they're no where near the top of valued sports teams.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/02/best-fans-teams-lifestyle-sports-fandom_slide.html

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

Is that just recently or in history? That's what determines the biggest greatest franchises, not who sold the most shirts at the time of the study.

Besides, you go up to 100 people on the street and ask them the top teams in NBA history, Lakers will be one of the most common choices.

See but now you're qualifying it by saying just in the NBA. The original assertion was that they were one of the biggest in all of sports. Then it became North America, now it's just the NBA. The original assertion should have been, correctly, that the Lakers are the biggest basketball team in the world. THAT would have been an almost unquestionably correct assertion that I doubt anyone would object to.

I was on my phone at work. As I was typing NBA just went down. You can insert sports in it's place. My point was that survey is crap when discussing the subject at hand. You ask someone who the greatest sports franchise is and they're gonna say the Yankees (who I hate more than the Lakers). You ask them to list their top 10, the Lakers are gonna be in there, some may even put them in the top 5. Yes the NBA sucks now compared to the NFL and MLB, but historically it has quite a legacy and the Lakers are one of the teams that greatly contribute to that. Again the survey is a CURRENT one, not one that covers all-time which more appropriately covers the subject of how fans are going to put their team loyalties.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

This thread is taking a hard turn for the dumb.

Right? I think the argument is some guy says dumb things, and is sticking to it.

I liked it more when we were talking Gallagher (was that this thread?).

[bosrs1]

Also by "biggest", I meant fanbase. As much as I hate em the Lakers do have one of the biggest and most loyal fanbases period.

Well loyalty is not something that is strictly measureable (nor is fanbase size). However Forbes did find a way to measure such a thing with more than just anecdotal evidence and they disagree with you as well. They measured the following, "measured their home and away game attendance, which indicates a team's drawing power in its home market and nationwide. Then we counted their merchandise sales. Finally, we ranked each team's in-market popularity, based on surveys. We ranked all of the teams, then took the top four from each of the four leagues." They didn't even have the Lakers fans in the top 10 of North American sports either.

16. Blackhawks

15. Phillies

14. Yankees

13. Cavs

12. Lakers

11. Canadiens

10. Cardinals

9. Cowboys

8. Spurs

7. Celtics

6. Penguins

5. Patriots

4. Colts

3. Red Wings

2. Steelers

1. Red Sox

As for my statements previously, they were based on pure franchise value. Again the Lakers aren't even in the top 20 of that according to the latest value estimates. They're less valued than all 32 NFL teams and the Yankees and Mets. Still impressive and they're by far the most valuable basketball team, but they're no where near the top of valued sports teams.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/02/best-fans-teams-lifestyle-sports-fandom_slide.html

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

Is that just recently or in history? That's what determines the biggest greatest franchises, not who sold the most shirts at the time of the study.

Besides, you go up to 100 people on the street and ask them the top teams in NBA history, Lakers will be one of the most common choices.

See but now you're qualifying it by saying just in the NBA. The original assertion was that they were one of the biggest in all of sports. Then it became North America, now it's just the NBA. The original assertion should have been, correctly, that the Lakers are the biggest basketball team in the world. THAT would have been an almost unquestionably correct assertion that I doubt anyone would object to.

I was on my phone at work. As I was typing NBA just went down. You can insert sports in it's place. My point was that survey is crap when discussing the subject at hand. You ask someone who the greatest sports franchise is and they're gonna say the Yankees (who I hate more than the Lakers). You ask them to list their top 10, the Lakers are gonna be in there, some may even put them in the top 5. Yes the NBA sucks now compared to the NFL and MLB, but historically it has quite a legacy and the Lakers are one of the teams that greatly contribute to that. Again the survey is a CURRENT one, not one that covers all-time which more appropriately covers the subject of how fans are going to put their team loyalties.

Well I think ultimately given the varying ways we've all presented the arguments that in reality no one can really definitely prove that any particular team is "the biggest" or "one of the biggest". We're talking about subjective fandom that as was pointed out above can spread across varying cities, states and even countries and that takes MANY different forms. In other words, it's nigh impossible to gauge. So in the end we're back to the beginning where we can't prove one way or another definitely that any specific team is "the biggest" we can only express our opinions one way or the other.

I mean take the Kings moving to Anaheim as an example. I've read articles the last few days that say the Kings will get swallowed up in the abyss that is the OC due to the Lakers having a :censored:load of fans there. I've also read articles that say that's BS and that the OC being it's own separate entity that is always looking for a way to differentiate itself from "LA" will embrace a team that has Anaheim in it's name (as the Kings will be required to do per the city's contract with Honda Center). I'm sure reality is somewhere in the middle but we just don't know for sure and won't until they show up.

[CubsFanBudMan]

if they only took the top four of every sport, then ranked them, then that is flawed. Furthermore, just glancing at the rankings I'd bet teams with two teams in a league were somehow punished by their formula, based on the Yankees and Lakers locations.

Also, the Cubs do very well in the criteria used, although maybe not enough to be the 4 MLB teams listed there. And you could swap the Bulls for the Cavs now. (Or the Heat.) With all due respect to the Blackhawks, they are behind the Bears, Cubs, Sox and Bulls in Chicago, so seeing them as the only Chicago rep makes it seem like one of those "the last time a player had 8 points and 12 rebounds and 6 assists on an odd numbered day in March" stats.

But what does this have to do with Anaheim and the Kings anyway? Let me go find a link from a few pages back and repost it.

[tvko]

what's going on in this thr-

anaheim?

ANAHEIM?!

3 teams in L.A. would be an atrocity. I hate David Stern, but this must be beyond him. How could L.A. have 3 teams before Seattle gets 1?

Objectively it makes no sense for anyone but the little runt.

[Funky Bunky]

Also by "biggest", I meant fanbase. As much as I hate em the Lakers do have one of the biggest and most loyal fanbases period.

Well loyalty is not something that is strictly measureable (nor is fanbase size). However Forbes did find a way to measure such a thing with more than just anecdotal evidence and they disagree with you as well. They measured the following, "measured their home and away game attendance, which indicates a team's drawing power in its home market and nationwide. Then we counted their merchandise sales. Finally, we ranked each team's in-market popularity, based on surveys. We ranked all of the teams, then took the top four from each of the four leagues." They didn't even have the Lakers fans in the top 10 of North American sports either.

16. Blackhawks

15. Phillies

14. Yankees

13. Cavs

12. Lakers

11. Canadiens

10. Cardinals

9. Cowboys

8. Spurs

7. Celtics

6. Penguins

5. Patriots

4. Colts

3. Red Wings

2. Steelers

1. Red Sox

As for my statements previously, they were based on pure franchise value. Again the Lakers aren't even in the top 20 of that according to the latest value estimates. They're less valued than all 32 NFL teams and the Yankees and Mets. Still impressive and they're by far the most valuable basketball team, but they're no where near the top of valued sports teams.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/02/best-fans-teams-lifestyle-sports-fandom_slide.html

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

Dude, your retarded. How the are the :censored:ing Cavs (a teams that hasn't done , even with Lebron) ahead of the NEW YORK YANKEES??

10 Patriots

9 Cardinals

8 Red Wings

7 Celtics

6 Cowboys

5 Red Sox

4 Steelers

3 Canadiens

2 Lakers

1 Yankees