Do you agree with Barkley??

[westkoast]

How does 2% come out of those numbers?

LA has 4.94% of all American TV viewers and Chicago has 3.052%....so LA has about 2% more of the total....so the 2% relates to the total amount of viewers vs DaBods 50% more viewers deals with just the individual numbers for each market.  Both are technically correct.

Another way to look at it is that the LA/NY markets combined accounts for 10.5 percent of the total U.S. TV media market, using US TV household estimates as the measuring stick, but the media outlets in those areas convince advertisers the only relevant buyers of their products in the country live in those regions, though neither market ranks in the top five for the median household effective buying income (EBI) rankings for this year. The San Francisco Bay Area and the Washington D.C. area rank one and two on that list.

Soooooooo....LeBron is going to the Wizards?

Isnt that where all popular black figures in this country go now?

Only if some dumb white guy completely screws things up first......

Doug Collins?

[Derek Bodner]

How does 2% come out of those numbers?

2% of total US households

[Derek Bodner]

You could look at it that way but you can also look at it as LA has 2% more American TV viewers than Chicago.

2% of  150 million is significant IMO.  Just because it's a small number on a 1-100 scale doesn't mean it's a small number of viewers.

[WayOutWest]

You could look at it that way but you can also look at it as LA has 2% more American TV viewers than Chicago.

2% of  150 million is significant IMO.  Just because it's a small number on a 1-100 scale doesn't mean it's a small number of viewers.

Ok, but Chicago was not insignificant in regards to MJ and the 90's TV ratings.

[Lurker]

You could look at it that way but you can also look at it as LA has 2% more American TV viewers than Chicago.

2% of  150 million is significant IMO.  Just because it's a small number on a 1-100 scale doesn't mean it's a small number of viewers.

Ok, but Chicago was not insignificant in regards to MJ and the 90's TV ratings.

Check out who some of the teams the Bulls played in the playoffs.  The two years vs the Jazz were some of the lowest rated.  Some of the series with the Knicks were the highest.

Or in other words; it takes two to tango.

[jemagee]

My question is this:

Was Chicago a significant basketball city before Jordan? 

[WayOutWest]

Or in other words; it takes two to tango.

Exactly, but you need to tell that to wk.  IMO LeBron will get all the exposure he needs regardless of where he plays but the same level of benefit will not carry over to TV ratings unless he moves to a larger market.  The problem is that after the top 4 the rest are pretty close so he's got to end up in NY, LA, CHI or Philly to make a significant impact for the TV ratings or he has to play against those teams late in the playoffs.

[jemagee]

If it takes 'two to tango' then does it matter if Lebron is in New York if the dominant western conference team is a Utah or a San Antonio as opposed to a Los Angeles?

[WayOutWest]

If it takes 'two to tango' then does it matter if Lebron is in New York if the dominant western conference team is a Utah or a San Antonio as opposed to a Los Angeles?

Yes it does.  When the Cavs played the Spurs in the Finals it was the lowest rated Finals since the 70's.  Had LeBron brought the built in NY audience it would not have been that low.  Despite their horrid play, NY is still the biggest money making franchise in the NBA.

[jemagee]

NY is still the biggest money making franchise in the NBA.

In terms of gross revenue money - but the most profitable NBA franchise most years is that 'other' team in the Los Angeles

[westkoast]

Or in other words; it takes two to tango.

Exactly, but you need to tell that to wk.  IMO LeBron will get all the exposure he needs regardless of where he plays but the same level of benefit will not carry over to TV ratings unless he moves to a larger market.  

Or maybe New York could build a team worth watching on their own and it wouldn't matter?  I understand TV ratings would go up if Lebron was in New York.  I just don't think the NBA *NEEDS* it.  They are doing just fine.  People (New York Media) act like the league is in shambles and only King James can save it by going to New York

I wonder how much of the playoff ratings have to do with the advantage one team has over another.  For example, Spurs/Cavs in the finals.  Lebron is a big draw and SA is a small team so ratings were low.  I do wonder if that had a lot to do with the fact that everyone knew the Spurs were going to whoop on them.  I would assume the same goes for the Bulls/Sonics in the 96 Finals when the Bulls went 72-10.

[Lurker]

Or in other words; it takes two to tango.

Exactly, but you need to tell that to wk.  IMO LeBron will get all the exposure he needs regardless of where he plays but the same level of benefit will not carry over to TV ratings unless he moves to a larger market.  

Or maybe New York could build a team worth watching on their own and it wouldn't matter?  I understand TV ratings would go up if Lebron was in New York.  I just don't think the NBA *NEEDS* it.  They are doing just fine.  People (New York Media) act like the league is in shambles and only King James can save it by going to New York

I wonder how much of the playoff ratings have to do with the advantage one team has over another.  For example, Spurs/Cavs in the finals.  Lebron is a big draw and SA is a small team so ratings were low.  I do wonder if that had a lot to do with the fact that everyone knew the Spurs were going to whoop on them.  I would assume the same goes for the Bulls/Sonics in the 96 Finals when the Bulls went 72-10.

But Cavs/Spurs was lower than the 99 Knicks/Spurs finals.  No one (outside of NYC) expected the Knicks to have a chance.  They won one game, reffed by Knick Bavetta in MSG, that broke the Spurs 12 game playoff winning streak.

[WayOutWest]

Or maybe New York could build a team worth watching on their own and it wouldn't matter?

You mean by adding a player like...err...I dunno.....LEBRON JAMES? 

I understand TV ratings would go up if Lebron was in New York.  I just don't think the NBA *NEEDS* it.  They are doing just fine.  People (New York Media) act like the league is in shambles and only King James can save it by going to New York

No the NBA is NOT fine.  The ratings have been declining since MJ left the league, with Spurs/Cavs being the low point.  It wasn't until last year when Boston and LA met in the Finals that the ratings bumped UP.  The last bump was the Lakers/Kings in 02.

[westkoast]

Or maybe New York could build a team worth watching on their own and it wouldn't matter?

You mean by adding a player like...err...I dunno.....LEBRON JAMES? 

I understand TV ratings would go up if Lebron was in New York.  I just don't think the NBA *NEEDS* it.  They are doing just fine.  People (New York Media) act like the league is in shambles and only King James can save it by going to New York

No the NBA is NOT fine.  The ratings have been declining since MJ left the league, with Spurs/Cavs being the low point.  It wasn't until last year when Boston and LA met in the Finals that the ratings bumped UP.  The last bump was the Lakers/Kings in 02.

I said 'on their own' meaning with out Lebron James.  If they landed a Chris Bosh and some other supporting players they could be a better team.  Right now they are saddled with a bunch of players that don't work well together.  Thank god they finally fired the crappy coach and are pushing aside Marbury.

The NBA is fine.  The league is not going under.  Ratings for all sports not named football are down in this country.  Basketball is watched in other countries now.  Moreso then it was when Jordan was around.  Big games involving Yao Ming bring in a lot of viewers from China.  Ones that won't be counted in Nielsen ratings.

I think it was JoMal who mentioned it in here but it wouldn't matter if the NBA wasn't matching it's peak in the 90s if they were not over paying players so much all across the league. 

[WayOutWest]

I said 'on their own' meaning with out Lebron James.  If they landed a Chris Bosh and some other supporting players they could be a better team.  Right now they are saddled with a bunch of players that don't work well together.  Thank god they finally fired the crappy coach and are pushing aside Marbury.

On their "own" by getting Chris Bosh...  ...yea wk, compelling argument.  Way to make a point of making NY better by adding a free agent named Chris on their "own" vs adding a free agent named LeBron.

Ok, this has deteriorated to "dumb", I think this thread is done.