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]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

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

[23]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

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]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

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]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

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]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

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]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

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]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

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.

[23]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

Problem with that Dice is that all the NBA does is shove certain players down your throat

Instead of having a vision for his entire league, David Stern went superstar mad after MJ left instead of using it as an opportunity to turn the game back into what it is supposed to be.... a game of teams

So they went on the next MJ hunt for years on end, then he said screw it and started jabbering about Euro players

Yes they needed a fix from the drug infected NBA of the 70's but when he got a taste of money its like he decided to stick with that

Remember our video games back in the day, Lakers vs Celtics, Bulls vs Blazers, etc..

What happened?

[Drewski]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

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.

Very good post, what an interesting thing to consider.

A superstar driven league should thrive in a finals featuring LBJ and Duncan (Ok, Duncan not so much. Yeah he's a superstar but he's also The Big Fundamental. Guy gets no love from casual viewers.).

Spurs are a interesting model to place into this theory because they really throw a wrench into the small market thought processes. Success? Check. Superstar? Check. But still, no real financial jump. I mean, I don't -know- what the Spurs financial situation is, but I'll take them just floating above the water line to be as accurate.

So while they may not be financially "successful" (though it looks like not being in the red can be considered success according to the owners), they still have been a winning, successful team. Is that enough to show that a small market team can pan out in the league?

Hard for me to say the Spurs prove that. It's next to impossible for me to imagine these small market franchises being ran as solid as San Antonio. We should expect the owners, gms, and everyone involved to do the right thing and make the right choices... but it's not always that easy or cut and dry. And considering the Spurs have won 4 Larry O' Briens and have been the 2nd most successful franchise in the last decade or so... yeah. You'd expect them to be doing better off financially. Imagine if they had a large market supporting them.

Contracting 5 teams would be interesting. If they did that, I'td almost force them to cut the playoffs down from 8 to 6 seeds unless they want WELL over half the league in the playoffs resulting in even more of a perceived "lackadaisacal" 82 game season (whole different issue). Hm.

[RedSceptile]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

First two teams I'd say to go are the Toronto Raptors and Minnesota Timberwolves those seem to be the two most obvious followed by the Charlotte Bobcats.

[SPTO]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

First two teams I'd say to go are the Toronto Raptors and Minnesota Timberwolves those seem to be the two most obvious followed by the Charlotte Bobcats.

OK,

I don't mean to pick on you but this is the sentiment I see from nearly everyone on the NBA board here and it bugs the hell out of me. Give me 3 good solid reasons why the Raptors should be contracted.

Everyone on here says the Raptors are such a poor team etc etc etc. Well EXCUSE ME! This team has been in the top half of attendance for most of its history, has one of the most stable ownership groups in the ENTIRE league and is a fairly good revenue generator. Now it's true that the Raptors brand is a bit of a redheaded stepchild to MLSE but when the Raptors have success on the court the money really starts to flow. There's a sizable and very vocal basketball fanbase in Toronto that's more dedicated and would blow away the fanbases of other struggling franchises that are ripe for contraction.

Now that's not to say there isn't some weakness to this franchise because there are at least a couple that jump to mind. Try as they might the Raptors as a TV entity has barely registered on Canadian national TV ratings. A lot of this probably has to do with the team record and the fact that basketball has never been that big of a sport in this country however the TV ratings in the GTA are pretty solid. The Raptors at the very least make up for it with strong attendance at the ACC.

The other problem is the perception that Toronto isn't a great place to play. I think a lot of that has more to do with the team's on court record than anything else. Toronto has been mentioned as the top 5 NBA cities by visiting players so it's not like Toronto is hicksville. Toronto has had some big name players in the past and i'm sure there'll be big name guys in the future it's just that there's an added burden of having to have great on court success because NBA players aren't exactly geniuses when it comes to realizing that Toronto isn't timbuktu. The whole "taxation/weather" problem isn't even that huge of a deal when NYC has worse taxes and just as bad or worse winters. The same can be said for a few teams in the east.

Right now I see the Raps as a middle of the road NBA franchise right now that can jump up in stature once the play on the court picks up again as it should. After all, everything is cyclical. It's not like the Raptors are run by cheapskates "cough" Clippers "cough".

I eagerly await to see 3 SOLID reasons why the Raptors should go.

[da ThRONe]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

Problem with that Dice is that all the NBA does is shove certain players down your throat

Instead of having a vision for his entire league, David Stern went superstar mad after MJ left instead of using it as an opportunity to turn the game back into what it is supposed to be.... a game of teams

So they went on the next MJ hunt for years on end, then he said screw it and started jabbering about Euro players

Yes they needed a fix from the drug infected NBA of the 70's but when he got a taste of money its like he decided to stick with that

Remember our video games back in the day, Lakers vs Celtics, Bulls vs Blazers, etc..

What happened?

Agreed Timmy is probably the best at his position, but his game isn't flashy so I don't remember the come out and see the SA
Spurs campaign like I did to come out and see Allen Iverson.

I think the NBA is doing a poor job of marketing to regions. The Hornets just signed a deal to televise the Hornets game North of the lake. The Saints are shown all through out LA and in many places in MS. The Saints are the gulfcoast team. The Hornets are New Orleans team.

[mvb34]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

First two teams I'd say to go are the Toronto Raptors and Minnesota Timberwolves those seem to be the two most obvious followed by the Charlotte Bobcats.

I disagree!!! no team should be contracted. We teams start to win then they will become popular..

[RedSceptile]

Re: Large Market vs. Small Market

The majority of revenue comes from T.V. deals in this day and age. I highly doubt the Raptors have huge TV Deals in the works so even if they can garner large arena pulls that doesn't necessarily equate to being a financially prosperous teams. The Raptors have a big enough market to compete with other sports and teams that have been well established. This isn't like the Celtics when even when they suffered through mediocricity they still had large television followings to compensate. The majority of revenue is generated through T.V. deals as I said in another topic, the league looks at that as the prime market. A regular everyday Joe is more inclined to sit in front of his flat screen watching the game than shelling out hundreds and dealing with all sorts of variable costs to going to the actual game.

If you can prove adversely that Toronto is a prime market then I'll retract my statement gladly.