NBA returning to Seattle?

[Smelly McUgly]

You're splitting hairs, they also have the Packers.

C'mon, sugartits, keep up!

The Packers? A team two hours away from Milwaukee? This post of yours was somehow more terrible than the last.

Go home, you're drunk.

 

[Hawkfan77]

You're splitting hairs, they also have the Packers.

C'mon, sugartits, keep up!

The Packers? A team two hours away from Milwaukee? This post of yours was somehow more terrible than the last.

Go home, you're drunk.

Wow 2 hours?? No one would ever drive that far to see an NFL game... :sarcasm_off:

 

[Smelly McUgly]

You're splitting hairs, they also have the Packers.

C'mon, sugartits, keep up!

The Packers? A team two hours away from Milwaukee? This post of yours was somehow more terrible than the last.

Go home, you're drunk.

Wow 2 hours?? No one would ever drive that far to see an NFL game... :sarcasm_off:

In that case, let's just adopt the Blazers, a team only a bit farther away from Seattle, as our NBA team! Sarcasm also off and such.

 

[pehawk]

You're splitting hairs, they also have the Packers.

C'mon, sugartits, keep up!

The Packers? A team two hours away from Milwaukee? This post of yours was somehow more terrible than the last.

Go home, you're drunk.

Wow 2 hours?? No one would ever drive that far to see an NFL game... :sarcasm_off:

Hmm, I didn't know that. I'll let the rest of Wisconsin know they aren't Packers fans.

Should we tell Tacoma they're out of the Seahawks fan club?

And to pink, tomato..tomahto. They can leverage more because they're the only game in town. As I'm sure you can tell by my sunny disposition, I'm a glass half-full guy. I choose to believe the intent was genuine, to start.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Ah ah, the original point was that, like Sacramento, Milwaukee has a small number of teams. The NBA doesn't consider the 49ers direct competition when deciding to keep the Kings in Sacramento. Sacramento, to them, is a one-team town. Likewise, the NBA doesn't consider the Packers as direct competition when trying to hold Milwaukee up for an arena that it probably can't afford. The Brewers, on the other hand, sure, but baseball game attendance is down significantly across the board.

It's cute how you are trying to make sense, but try to stay on track, kiddo!

 

[pehawk]

Wow, did you REALLY just compare Wisonsin and California? Really?

Okay then...

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Wow, did you REALLY just compare Wisonsin and California? Really?

Okay then...

Nah, I compared Milwaukee to Sacramento.

It's past your bedtime, sweetheart. Go get some rest and see if you can come back and make a reasonable point tomorrow. I'll be rooting for you, little buddy!

 

[pinksheets]

There is a point being made. Sacramento sees more support for the 9ers, Raiders, and Giants than the Kings. It's not dissimilar.

 

[pehawk]

Cali being what, the 8th biggest economy in the world, makes it pretty much dissimilar.

 

[pinksheets]

Cali being what, the 8th biggest economy in the world, makes it pretty much dissimilar.

Your point was that the NBA likes small markets because they are one horse towns with no competition, the point being made is that there is competition, competition they're often losing to. I don't see how the overall California economy pertains to a discussion about specific markets. The benefit of "no competition" in the way you brought up isn't there in Sacramento, the Kings lose out to 3 other sports teams. It fits into what I was saying, in that the "one horse" pertains more heavily to the civic pride of that being "their" team with their city's name on it, which is used in leverage for buildings, not in an advantageous way to avoid competition with other leagues, because they don't avoid it at all.

 

[pehawk]

They do avoid that though. If they didn't each pro league wouldn't have, what, a minimum of 4 pro teams in the state. California's simply not a good "control" city to compare against, I guess. I do believe that the NBA views Sacramento as a one-horse town, period.

 

[pinksheets]

Well it can't be both a "one horse town" to suit your point and then be ignored when looking at nearby competition. If Sacramento is a one horse town when 3 nearby sports teams see larger support, the definition is being stretched to fit specific points, I think. They certainly can't be cited as an example for your point about "competition", then. At that point, being a one horse town would have nothing to do with competing leagues drawing money and interest in a city. Maybe one or two of the other towns are better examples for your point, I'm not as unfortunately aware of their makeup like I am the steaming pile of Sacramento.

 

[pehawk]

Well, yes, I'm sure in Sacrmento there is competition for pro sports dollars.

But, that competition is diluted enough by; number of teams (Raiders or 49ers) and whether they follow it at all. Or, to put it in simpler terms, there's far more DIE HARD Kings fans in Sacramento than there is die hard any other type of fans. Sure, there may be die hard Raiders fans, but not more than the cities ONLY pro sports team, the Kings. The Raiders, 49ers, whomever will never get the equal number of die hard fans.

I'm sure there's plenty of Seahawks fans in Portland. But, there's not more than diehard Blazer fans.

Not sure if that makes sense?

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

Nope

 

[pehawk]

Nope

Well, fair enough.

I still think the NBA will always prefer a market like Portland, OKC, San Antonio, etc. Pink and I disagree on the reasons why they do. Maybe Sacramento's a poor choice to illustrate that belief (even though I still believe its a one-horse market)?

 

[pinksheets]

No, it does make sense. I just think the whole aspect of "diehard fans" amounts to more civic and political pressure to get buildings, but that the other teams seeing more support might mean that more revenue from TV, merchandise, etc., is going to the other leagues from Sacramento rather than to the NBA, while subsidy for buildings and gate revenues might favor the smaller markets (right now I believe both football teams have more season ticket holders in Sac than the Kings do, but in general, I think gate revenues favor the hometown team). The thing is, gate revenues from the regular joes aren't a primary focus of any of the leagues (besides the NHL still), which is why I keep coming back to the public subsidies. I mean, think how much money is gifted from cities to a league's owners by putting $300m+ into a building that's going to increase revenue streams on-site far more than it's going to add to the local economy. If owners' only big expenditures are payroll and the initial lump sum of buying the team, and they basically get a free ride for buildings, life's a piece of cake.

 

[pehawk]

I do agree with you on Kohl, it'll take some serious events to get him to ruin the family's political future. And, that's what is on the line there. So, its very unlikely.

I have nothing to base this on, but I think expansion has already been promised and committed to.

Oh, and, while Sactown MAY HAVE been a bad example, I still think its bonkers to NOT align the Packers to Milwaukee. That’s just crazy-talk.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Wow 2 hours?? No one would ever drive that far to see an NFL game... :sarcasm_off:

In that case, let's just adopt the Blazers, a team only a bit farther away from Seattle, as our NBA team! Sarcasm also off and such.

Ok, let's adopt a team in a different state that was a rival when we we had the sonics. What a perfect example...oh wait no it wasn't even a good example.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Hmm, I didn't know that. I'll let the rest of Wisconsin know they aren't Packers fans.

Should we tell Tacoma they're out of the Seahawks fan club?

This is exactly my point.

Smelly is actually trying to say that fans of the brewers and bucks aren't fans of the packers because Green Bay and Milwaukee are 2 hours away from each other...laughable

 

[Lords of Scythia]

I don't quite agree with your take, pe. It's not that the NBA wants small markets because they are one horse towns. They want small markets that are one horse towns (because they're small markets) because those are the cities they can most hold hostage in exchange for huge public funds. You want to lose your only sports team? You want us to scar your civic pride a bit and head to a "real" city? Oh, we'll do it, bitches.

It's a horrible business model that I think is unsustainable. It's parasitic, which means moving from city to city, sucking up public money until they're sick of it, then moving onto the next. Eventually you'll run out of reasonable targets or they'll be enough cities say "hell no" that the NBA is going to lose a huge source of cash influx and foundation building (through gifting arenas). They'll have shaky reputations in big markets who make sense simply because of the money and audience in the market, and be stuck in the small towns that don't have the advertising revenues, the spending power, or local economics that can push money into their league through traditional, stable means.

That's the Stern model, it's not necessesarily the NBA model--thank GOD Stern is getting out.