Is the NBA on its way to a collapse?
Options
Comments
-
i see what he trying to say.. but they will always be superstars after Jordan retired u had kobe, shaq, Ai, Vince, Tmac then Lebron, Wade, Anthony etc etc.. Spurs were great teams but casual fans, hell even some true basketball fans find Spurs boring times.
What brings in the casuals is wanting to see great players and hope they win or lose..
^^ See Peezy? A different opinion, but the ability to understand. This is the level we're trying to get you to.
And there have been stars, but do they have the power to draw the masses like Kobe and Bron have been able to do? You make a really good point with the love/hate thing bringing people in. Superstars have lots of people interested in seeing them lose. Look at Bron, Kobe...hell Mayweather, Manning, and Brady. Melo gonna bring in an extra million+ people because they want him to lose? Chris Paul? James Harden? Dwight Howard?
I get what you're saying about the Spurs, but if true basketball fans have trouble wanting to watch greatness, and future HOF'ers...how much can we expect casual fans to feel a high interest in Derrick Rose or KD? Again, I'm not questioning talent necessarily. I'm questioning how the NBA will be without the presence of a true superstar (based on popularity). If Bron retired after this season do you think KD could fill the void he left? Household name, face of the NBA, millions tune in wanting him to lose, and millions more tune in to see him win, called the best athlete on the planet? I don't, but some may. -
dont ever fix ur fingers to type like im the dunce here again bro.
-
Peezy_Jenkins wrote: »dont ever fix ur fingers to type like im the dunce here again bro.
It's just your reading comprehension that I'm concerned about. -
bow to royalty wrote: »And for people that think it's more about talent than star power. Here are the least watched finals from 1981 - 2008. Notice anything extremely obvious? The Spurs, the second most talented and successful franchises of the past 15 years are in EVERY SINGLE GAME. But Lebron surrounded by scrubs, playing against younger less established (but talented) players are getting double the viewers.
If you disagree with me...cool, I understand. But if you think I'm just pulling this question out of my ass based on nothing, you're trippin.
5.2: New Jersey at San Antonio, 2003 Game 2
5.6: Cleveland at San Antonio, 2007 Game 2
6.2: San Antonio at New Jersey, 2003 Game 5
6.3: Cleveland at San Antonio, 2007 Game 1
6.4: New Jersey at San Antonio, 2003 Game 1
6.4: San Antonio at Cleveland, 2007 Game 3
6.5: San Antonio at Cleveland, 2007 Game 4
6.6: San Antonio at New Jersey, 2003 Game 4
6.9: Detroit at San Antonio, 2005 Game 2
7.0: San Antonio at New Jersey, 2003 Game 3
7.2: Three tied
Detroit at San Antonio, 2005 Game 1
San Antonio at Detroit, 2005 Game 3
San Antonio at Detroit, 2005 Game 4
7.5: New Jersey at San Antonio, 2003 Game 6
I see people acting like they didn't see this -
bow to royalty wrote: »This thread is a spinoff from the thread about NBA lacking superstars.
The NBA is doing really well now. The ratings for these finals are through the roof. The league is pulling in international players. The global market is growing. All's well...now the other side.
The NBA doesn't have much in the way of superstars (It has 2. Kobe Bryant...Lebron James). Say what you want about whoever else you want. Then go ask the middle aged ladies at work about Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Kevin Durant, etc. Your grandma recognizes the names Lebron and Kobe. The problem with this is the NBA is a league VERY dependent on superstars, Lebron is 30, and the next guy to reach his level of stardom hasn't emerged yet. So with the decline of Lebron, so goes the decline of the NBA. The impact? Look at what the NBA Finals ratings would have been like with the Hawks in instead of the Cavs.
Is the NBA's dependence on superstars about to come back and bite it in the ass?
Side note NFL>>>NBA
Ur logic is flawed in this sense.
If I ask a middle aged woman 45 who John Stockton was she wouldn't know.
If I asked my 80 year old grandmother who Pete Malkovich was she wouldn't know.
You ask me about most NFL superstars playing today, I don't know.
Now, go back to the world, which is bigger than America:
ask Japan, China, South America, Russia in the 80's who Isiah was, Dominique, Charles Barkley, Dr.J
you would get crickets.
Now in 2015 ask Japanese, Chinese, South Americans, or anybody around the world who watches the NBA (whereas in the 80's they couldn't watch the NBA) who: Stephen Curry is, Kevin Durant, Ginobili, Tony Parker is and you'll get a response.
Now go around the world and ask about NFL superstars from 2010-2015 and see what you hear compared to NBA.
Sidenote Globally NBA 1000x>>>>>>>>>NFL
Add up all the people that watched the superbowl for one day and compare that with the entire international viewership of the 6 games watching the NBA FINALS -
bow to royalty wrote: »This thread is a spinoff from the thread about NBA lacking superstars.
The NBA is doing really well now. The ratings for these finals are through the roof. The league is pulling in international players. The global market is growing. All's well...now the other side.
The NBA doesn't have much in the way of superstars (It has 2. Kobe Bryant...Lebron James). Say what you want about whoever else you want. Then go ask the middle aged ladies at work about Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Kevin Durant, etc. Your grandma recognizes the names Lebron and Kobe. The problem with this is the NBA is a league VERY dependent on superstars, Lebron is 30, and the next guy to reach his level of stardom hasn't emerged yet. So with the decline of Lebron, so goes the decline of the NBA. The impact? Look at what the NBA Finals ratings would have been like with the Hawks in instead of the Cavs.
Is the NBA's dependence on superstars about to come back and bite it in the ass?
Side note NFL>>>NBA
Ur logic is flawed in this sense.
If I ask a middle aged woman 45 who John Stockton was she wouldn't know.
If I asked my 80 year old grandmother who Pete Malkovich was she wouldn't know.
You ask me about most NFL superstars playing today, I don't know.
Now, go back to the world, which is bigger than America:
ask Japan, China, South America, Russia in the 80's who Isiah was, Dominique, Charles Barkley, Dr.J
you would get crickets.
Now in 2015 ask Japanese, Chinese, South Americans, or anybody around the world who watches the NBA (whereas in the 80's they couldn't watch the NBA) who: Stephen Curry is, Kevin Durant, Ginobili, Tony Parker is and you'll get a response.
Now go around the world and ask about NFL superstars from 2010-2015 and see what you hear compared to NBA.
Sidenote Globally NBA 1000x>>>>>>>>>NFL
Add up all the people that watched the superbowl for one day and compare that with the entire international viewership of the 6 games watching the NBA FINALS
You're missing my point. I didn't say the NBA is doing poorly right now. My question is basically how will the NBA handle being without a major superstar if someone can't step up and fill Lebron's shoes once he's declining/retired? The high ratings for this most recent finals makes my point...it doesn't dismiss it. I put up the numbers of recent finals ratings with the Spurs in them...the lowest in the past 30 years. And they're an accomplished, talented team. So without a Lebron to push the ratings (like he did this year), how will the NBA do? If my question is essentially how will the league do without Lebron, you can't say "They'll do great...look at how well they're doing WITH Lebron." For example, if I asked you a couple years ago how will the Heat do without Lebron, it would sound silly to answer that with "They're in the finals every year, and winning championships...they'll do great once he's gone" -
I see your the point your making on the major superstar, but to people who don't follow the sport it always looks that way. I'm no NFL fan, the only dude who was a major NFL star to me over the past 10 years was Tom Brady and he could walk in front of me now and I wouldn't recognize who the ? he was or care. I just know the name.
Besides that I know of other football players but I don't really know ? about them or care too.
I can name more NFL stars in the 80's (Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Refrigerator, Tecmo Superbowl, Walter Payton) than in the 90's or 2000's and I was like one-years old then.
In Hockey it was Wayne Gretzky.
Baseball is even harder to think on beyond A-Rod, and he ain't really on a Tiger Woods, MJ, Kobe, Lebron status in superstardom.
America has a "The ONE" complex where in sports and society there isn't room for truly promoting a TEAM (that would be communism according to stupid US marketers) to all the world so it's always One.
So basically, again, unless you're someone who somewhat consistently watches that NBA/NFL/NHL sport and will know the abundance of good players who will make the Hall of Fame in it then really there isn't more than one.
The 80's for the NBA were different because the ABA was finally ruled out and all the marketers focused in on one league and pushed and promoted, but don't get confused tying 90's superstars or 70's NBA superstars with the 80's superstars just because they were unknown rookies in the 80's or 70's superstars well out of their primes but hanging around.
In the 80's NBA you had 2 superstars for what YOUR definition of it is. Magic and Bird
Everybody else according to your definition was NOT a superstar.
I understand your definition, I just don't agree with having to state that just because one superstar is more popular than another and had a longer legacy makes the other lesser superstar not a superstar.
Prince will never be Michael Jackson, but he's pretty ? big.
Kevin Durant still can't just freelly walk into a McDonald's and nobody recognizes him.
He's known throughout all America.
-
I see your the point your making on the major superstar, but to people who don't follow the sport it always looks that way. I'm no NFL fan, the only dude who was a major NFL star to me over the past 10 years was Tom Brady and he could walk in front of me now and I wouldn't recognize who the ? he was or care. I just know the name.
Besides that I know of other football players but I don't really know ? about them or care too.
I can name more NFL stars in the 80's (Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Refrigerator, Tecmo Superbowl, Walter Payton) than in the 90's or 2000's and I was like one-years old then.
In Hockey it was Wayne Gretzky.
Baseball is even harder to think on beyond A-Rod, and he ain't really on a Tiger Woods, MJ, Kobe, Lebron status in superstardom.
America has a "The ONE" complex where in sports and society there isn't room for truly promoting a TEAM (that would be communism according to stupid US marketers) to all the world so it's always One.
So basically, again, unless you're someone who somewhat consistently watches that NBA/NFL/NHL sport and will know the abundance of good players who will make the Hall of Fame in it then really there isn't more than one.
The 80's for the NBA were different because the ABA was finally ruled out and all the marketers focused in on one league and pushed and promoted, but don't get confused tying 90's superstars or 70's NBA superstars with the 80's superstars just because they were unknown rookies in the 80's or 70's superstars well out of their primes but hanging around.
In the 80's NBA you had 2 superstars for what YOUR definition of it is. Magic and Bird
Everybody else according to your definition was NOT a superstar.
I understand your definition, I just don't agree with having to state that just because one superstar is more popular than another and had a longer legacy makes the other lesser superstar not a superstar.
Prince will never be Michael Jackson, but he's pretty ? big.
Kevin Durant still can't just freelly walk into a McDonald's and nobody recognizes him.
He's known throughout all America.
A lot of people won't recognize NFL players just by seeing them. But it's not an issue, because the NFL has team loyalty/interest that helps push the league. They're not NEARLY as superstar dependent as the NBA.
And there can be more than one superstar at a time. Kobe, Lebron, Shaq, Jordan have shared superstardom. But what I'm saying is these current NBA players are stars, but not superstars. Look at what Tiger Woods, the Williams Sisters, Usain Bolt, and Michael Phelps did for their sports. Me and most people don't give a ? about golf, women's tennis, track, or swimming. But the WORLD tunes in to watch these people even though they don't really care about the sport...superstars.
Kevin Durant's a star (and insanely tall), so ya he will definitely get recognized a lot. But being recognized in the streets, and being able to put a league on your back are 2 very different things. He's not successful enough to be a superstar yet. -
And I'm not hating on Durant or anything. He's really talented and deserves to be a star. But Phelps put swimming on his back, Bolt put track on his back, Tiger put golf on his back, the Williams Sisters put women's tennis on their back. Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, and Bron put basketball on their backs.
I'm just saying after looking at those athletes, and what they did, Durant is clearly not on that level right now, despite his ability to be recognized at Mcdonalds. -
The state of the NBA I was describing with this thread may be coming sooner than I expected. If Bron doesn't turn this series around, it's a bad look. He's going to lose some of his appeal if things stay this ugly.
The league won't crumble, but it'll take steps back
