Large Market vs. Small Market

[Drewski]

Points of Discussion
- Revenue Sharing
- Parity
- Fan interest
- CBA

Is it really in the NBA's best "interest" having an NBA finals of the Milwaukee Bucks and Minnesota Timberwolves? With the lockout in full effect, the league's landscape could look drastically different once the smoke clears.
Many people believe "parity" should be a goal in the NBA, for financial reasons, and entertainment value.

With revenue sharing on the horizon, teams could financially be dependent on one another. With larger market teams losing their ability to "hoard" their money, and smaller market teams benefitting, the hope is to spread the condensed money from the "large" market teams (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, etc...) to the less fortunate, balancing out the "losses" those franchises are taking.

Having more money in the smaller markets, it gives them incentive to spend their earned money on player(s) who can, potentially, help their franchise get over the hump. Promoting parity in a league largely dominated by self-sufficient (generally) franchises.

The structure of the CBA could also be an integral piece in providing a more leveled structure in the league. If a hard cap were to be implemented, depending on what that number may be, teams that are well off and willing to dip into the luxury tax may look at having to condense their salary situations. Depending on what that CBA looks like, teams like the Lakers, and the Heat, could be facing a dramatic shift in pay roll and player availability. The consensus is that there will be outs for teams already over what may be the "hard cap" going forward, but eventually those contracts tick, and the playing field begins to spread thinner as the clumps of talent disperse.

Is it out of the question that it is actually in the leagues best interest, in every aspect, to have teams like the Los Angeles Lakers in the top tier of competition? Teams that generate the highest amount of revenue being ahead of the smaller teams. Keeping their fans ecstatic, and willing to give them their hard earned money from their 9-5 job? If, say, the Lakers and Toronto Raptors have the same record in the middle of their conferences, will the Lakers lost revenue be made up by the Raptors "gained" revenue that their smaller market is getting the chance to accrue in a league chasing parity?

Or will the parity of the league, every team fighting for a playoff seed from 1-8 and not just skidding in with an under .500 record, raise interest to a newer height. Where every game of that 82 game season matters, because the 8th seed could be the 1st seed in the East conference depending on the swing of 3-4 games (the West has been close to that model, it seems, for some time)? The Grizzlies captivated fans as an 8th seed looking to make a serious push through the playoffs, isn't that proof enough that every team should be as competitive as those "large" market teams?

[The15thunter]

parity does not work for the nba like it does football. the nba has to be a league of haves and have-nots.

[23]

The problem with that entire model is that those teams you mention have NEVER been marketed like they matter.

This is the NBA's biggest problem. They give you the perception and feeling that they dont matter, just some fodder until their top marketed teams get into the playoffs

David Stern is the only commish that came in and made you not really care about teams as much as you do individuals and kept it that way

Its too bad because there are a bunch of teams there that cannot be funny taken advantage of

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by The15thunter

parity does not work for the nba like it does football. the nba has to be a league of haves and have-nots.

How can you say this when it's never been done before?

[RedSceptile]

I'm probably gonna get flak for this but some small market teams are in places that don't have the economic power to keep them afloat or just have such bad management that they can't stay competitive (I'm looking at you David Kahn). Everyone acts like revenue sharing is some savior but think about this; the Minnesota Timberwolves offer Free Agent A 100 million/5 years, while at the same time the New York Knicks offer Free Agent A 100 million/5 years where doyou think he's gonna go? People forget it isn't just at money, players care about location. No offense to the small markets like Minnesota, Charlotte etc. but give a guy an opportunity to play in Philly or Chicago at the same time he's usually gonna take it even if he doesn't deserve the contract (Hi Elton Brand!)

I've personally thought too many expansion teams is diluting the league anyways, Stern has a belief that an NBA team should be in any moderate sized market yet we look at how they struggle to keep afloat.

[Drewski]

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSceptile

I'm probably gonna get flak for this but some small market teams are in places that don't have the economic power to keep them afloat or just have such bad management that they can't stay competitive (I'm looking at you David Kahn). Everyone acts like revenue sharing is some savior but think about this; the Minnesota Timberwolves offer Free Agent A 100 million/5 years, while at the same time the New York Knicks offer Free Agent A 100 million/5 years where doyou think he's gonna go? People forget it isn't just at money, players care about location. No offense to the small markets like Minnesota, Charlotte etc. but give a guy an opportunity to play in Philly or Chicago at the same time he's usually gonna take it even if he doesn't deserve the contract (Hi Elton Brand!) I've personally thought too many expansion teams is diluting the league anyways, Stern has a belief that an NBA team should be in any moderate sized market yet we look at how they struggle to keep afloat.

With all the commotion stirred from Sac-Town about losing their team, do you think the NBA would even consider contracting a team? I guess we'll find out as the situation in New Orleans trucks along.The jobs lost, money lost from prior investments, and punch to the gut of fans seems to be a pretty heavy blow for the league to want to be associated with. Even now, teams are quietly dismissing employees in the midst of the lockout, and my knee jerk reaction is that it's terrible that people who have nothing to do with the CBA are getting their livelihoods stripped away.

You're right, in general a guy is more likely to accept a contract from the NYK than MINN based on location (just hypothetically), but location isn't the only factor. Playing time, role, team's success, other players on the team... all also surely weigh heavily in the decision guys make in FA.

Contractions another good subject to throw into this discussion, good call.

[RedSceptile]

Let's be realistic the end all be all is money. Sure I want New Orleans and others to retain teams but as seen people only come out when they're threatened with losing their team yet you look at Golden State Warriors fans who have been to the playoffs twice in the past what 15 years and they regularly have sell out crows yet NOLA has been playoff contending for a decent amount of time and couldn't fill the arena until threatened. I think the problem lies in the area the team is. Not to say New Orleans is bad or anything but some cities just aren't basketball crazy (take for instance Miami that even with the Big Three had a decent amount of empty seats, Miami is a football city...). This isn't like the NFL the NBA isn't as popular where you can have a team seemingly anywhere and full a stadium (hell there's still talk of getting a Los Angeles team and a Canadian team to point to the popularity). The problem is the NBA is a superstar league. Everybody wants to play under the bright lights with sold out arenas, that's why so many small market teams don't tend to get huge free agent acquisition and whatever talent they develop more times than none bolts when the big cities throw money and fame at them.

[Dice]

I subscribe to the theory of the NBA showcasing it’s superstars to gain it’s popularity. With Magic and Bird in the 80’s and Jordan in the late 80’s and 90’s, the league rose back to prominence after a dreadful run in the late 70’s. Now whether it’s a method that works now is up for debate. BUT the factors that coincide with the league’s popularity and superstars is the superstars in the big markets. I’m not sure BUT one of the reasons why most people feel small market teams aren’t as popular as the big markets is because they don’t get the big name superstars. Which is totally untrue. The Cavs had LeBron James. The Spurs had Tim Duncan for his entire career. Kevin Garnet spent his prime years with the T-Wolves. And even today, we got Kevin Durant in Oklahoma city via Seattle. Which neither city is a big name market.

I used to think that the NBA’s popularity in a particular year is based on it’s superstars. Yes, nobody wants to see the Timberwolves play the Bucks in the NBA Finals(as Drewski pointed out in his first post). And that’s because neither team has a player that people will not pay to see play. No one outside of Minnesota and Milwaukee wants to see Kevin Love and Andrew Bogut go at it for 7-games. Although they are two outstanding players BUT it’s not exactly Magic vs Bird. Not even close. Trying to correlated this theory and looking at NBA Finals TV ratings, I started to put the pieces together and scratch my head. The lowest rated Finals according to the Nielsen ratings was the 2007 Finals. A team that featured two ‘small market’ teams in San Antonio and Cleveland. BUT they featured two of the leagues best players at the time in Tim Duncan and LeBron James. NOW in theory, since the Finals is featuring two of the leagues best players they’d have a successful Finals, right? Which is why I had to contemplate this again. So two small market teams playing in the Finals with two of the best players in the league and you still have low viewership?

Which brings me to my belief that small market teams just don’t cut it in the league. I’ve argued with many people who feel that parity is the best thing for the league. The problem is getting parity into the league period. Your not going to get parity with the 30 team setup they have right now. The NBA has too many teams that just don’t matter and will be non-factors no matter how you set up the system. If the league wants to get as close to parity as possible, your going to have to cut the league to about 25 teams.

Going back to the TV ratings, the Spurs have been in and won the NBA Finals four times. Do you know what their highest rated Finals that was watched? The 1999 Finals against the New York Knicks. You don’t think the New York market had anything to do with that? All the other San Antonio Finals we’re some of the lowest rated Finals ever.

San Antonio is the most successful small market team the NBA has seen. Outside of the Lakers, no other team has seen much success in the last 10 years than the Spurs. BUT yet, they’re a franchise that’s not in dire straights financially but just floating above water. And that’s even after 4 championships.